Jurnal Asing 1

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective supply chain management

Stanley E. Fawcett, Gregory M. Magnan, Matthew W. McCarter,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Stanley E. Fawcett, Gregory M. Magnan, Matthew W. McCarter, (2008) "Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective
supply chain management", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Issue: 1, pp.35-48, https://
doi.org/10.1108/13598540810850300
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540810850300
Downloaded on: 29 May 2018, At: 00:16 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 113 other documents.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO LIBRARIES At 00:16 29 May 2018 (PT)
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 24704 times since 2008*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2001),"Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment", International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 21 Iss 1/2 pp. 71-87 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468">https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468</a>
(2008),"Global supply chain risk management strategies", International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 38 Iss 3 pp. 192-223 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09600030810866986">https://
doi.org/10.1108/09600030810866986</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:277069 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics
(COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Research paper
Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective

supply chain management
Stanley E. Fawcett
Marriott School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
Gregory M. Magnan
Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University, Seattle, Washington, USA, and
Matthew W. McCarter
College of Business, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to provide academics and practitioners a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the benefits, barriers, and
bridges to successful collaboration in strategic supply chains.
Design/methodology/approach – A triangulation method consisting of a literature review, a cross-functional mail survey, and 51 in-depth case
analyses was implemented. Senior managers from purchasing, manufacturing, and logistics were targeted in the mail survey. The break down by
channel category interviews is as follows: 14 retailers, 13 finished goods assemblers, 12 first-tier suppliers, three lower-tier suppliers, and nine service
providers.
Findings – Customer satisfaction and service is perceived as more enduring than cost savings. All managers recognize technology, information, and
measurement systems as major barriers to successful supply chain collaboration. However, the people issues – such as culture, trust, aversion to
change, and willingness to collaborate – are more intractable. People are the key bridge to successful collaborative innovation and should therefore not
be overlooked as companies invest in supply chain enablers such as technology, information, and measurement systems.
Research limitations/implications – The average mail-survey response rate was relatively low: 23.5 percent. The case study analyses were not
consistent in frequency across channel functions. Although the majority of companies interviewed and surveyed were international, all surveys and
interviews were managers based in the US.
Practical implications – This study provides new insight into understanding the success and hindering factors of supply chain management. The
extensive literature review, the cross-channel analysis, and case studies provide academics and managers a macro picture of the goals, challenges, and
strategies for implementing supply chain management.
Originality/value – This paper uses triangulation methodology for examining key issues of supply chain management at multiple levels within the
supply chain.
Keywords Supply chain management, Strategic management, Relationship marketing
Paper type Research paper
Introduction these enticing benefits, organizations who partner in strategic

supply chains continue to encounter barriers. These barriers
The strategic supply chain continues to be adopted by exist at multiple levels of organization: the organizational,
organizations as the medium for creating and sustaining a intra-organizational, inter-organizational levels. For example,
competitive advantage (Ireland and Webb, 2007). Such a strategic supply chains may encounter performance “glitches”
displacement is understandable considering the potential or the inability to meet customer demand (Hendricks and
benefits of successful supply chain management (SCM). Singhal, 2003) from such things as quality and production
These benefits include inventory reduction, improved delivery problems, employee apprehension to yield up control, and
service, and shorter product development cycles. Despite poor collaborative planning. These glitches can be quite costly
in terms of higher inventory and lower sales growth
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at (Hendricks and Singhal, 2005).
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm These potentially costly burdens from failure to meet
customer demand are a strong motivator for supply chain

13/1 (2008) 35– 48 The authors would like to thank CAPS Research for its generous funding
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] of the authors’ stream of research into achieving world-class supply chain
[DOI 10.1108/13598540810850300] performance.
35
Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective supply chain management Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Stanley E. Fawcett, Gregory M. Magnan and Matthew W. McCarter Volume 13 · Number 1 · 2008 · 35 –48
(SC) managers and management scholars to develop bridges theory. Force field theory implies that the driving forces
or solutions and strategies to either avoid or remedy the (external threats combined with internal benefits) must
barriers to strategic SC success. However, despite the growing exceed the resisting forces (e.g. culture, structure,
interest of SCM and the benefits, barriers, and bridges toward perceptions of how things should be done) so that any
its success, research that addresses all three issues from a organizational entity – in this case a company within a supply
multi-channel perspective is in need. Knowing and chain – can change and survive in changing environments.
understanding how, when, and why some supply chains The ability to scan the environment for the forces driving
succeed while others do not would not only be of interest to SCM, to identify the potential barriers (or resisting forces),
SC scholars, but to the managers that daily face the challenge and to implement bridges (so as to over come resistance)
to making strategic SCM a reality. enables members of a supply chain to maintain competitive
The purpose of this paper is to report and review the success in changing environments and markets and become a
potential benefits, barriers, and bridges of strategic SCM. We successful strategic supply chain.
argue that for strategic supply chains to be successful Typically, the contingency model is driven by dynamic
managers and scholars must not focus on one particular technological innovation, management skills across
inhibitor or facilitator, but rather consider the barriers and department and organizational functions, and integration
bridges in combination or holistically. Doing so not only vertically and horizontally across industry (Stonebraker and
allows us to separate the trees from the forest but further Afifi, 2004; Funk, 1995; Hammer and Champy, 1993;
allows firms to capitalize on the added benefits of SCM. Our Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). These drivers can be
arguments begin with a review of the salient theory and considered driving forces (Lewin, 1951). Although these
literature of SCM in terms of benefits, barriers, and bridges. drivers push for supply chain collaboration, barriers or
A two-part study composed of mail surveys and 51 in-depth resisting forces push back (Lewin, 1951). Such resisting
interviews is discussed and their findings shared. We discuss forces include lack of member support, inadequate
our findings and their implications, and conclude with some measurement and information systems, and organizational
suggestions for future research. culture. Nevertheless, organizations are not powerless in
terms of choices or their ability in attempting to overcome
these barriers. Strategic supply chain partners can create and
Background: benefits, barriers, and bridges
implement initiatives that bridge the gap between a supply
In this section, we review the literature of the benefits, chain and a strategic supply chain. Some of these bridges
barriers, and bridges to SCM. This literature review began include people empowerment, information integration, and
first with the authors going back 25 years in the salient SC alliance design. Thus, strategic supply chains can create value
journals and trade press. As the search continued, we contingent on their ability to overcome resisting forces
broadened our search to other journals and trade press that through a various mechanisms. Figure 1 shows a contingency
discussed benefits, barriers, and bridges in supply chains. The framework for understanding SCM implementation. The
articles were read and categorized by their primary topic(s) following subsections outline the main sections of the
concerning SCM. We frame our arguments within a framework.
contingency framework, where, for strategic supply chains
Driving forces of supply chain management
to succeed in creating value, their actions (as individual firms
The driving forces of SCM stem from two sources: external
and as a supply chain) must align with the external
pressures and potential benefits from strategic SC alignment.
environment.
External pressures include such forces as advances in
technology and increased customer demand across national
Contingencies and strategic supply chain management
borders (Mehta, 2004); maintaining lower costs while
Strategic supply chains are supply chains where the “members
meeting these diverse needs (Cook and Garver, 2002); and
are strategically, operationally, and technologically
intensified competition utilizing relationships among vertically
integrated” and are anticipated for long-term stable
aligned firms (Togar and Ramaswami, 2004). These pressures
relationships with the ability to change to the demands of
have begun shifting the focus of individual firms vying for
the environment (Hult et al., 2004, p. 241). In recent years,
market presence and power to supply chains competing
numerous theories and paradigms have been used by scholars
against supply chains (Bhattacharya et al., 1995).
to understand why some strategic supply chains succeed in
creating value while others do not. Although perspectives of Benefits of strategic supply chain management
and prescription to SCM vary, a common idea among The second main driving force entails the potential benefits
scholars is that competitive success for a strategic supply from successful SC collaboration (Balsmeier and Voisin,
chain is contingent on management’s ability to recognize 1996). Table I offers a sample of the SC benefits literature. Of
changes in the competitive environment and then direct and the discussed benefits, increased inventory turnover,
coordinate action within and across organizations to utilize increased revenue, and cost reduction across the chain are
resources effectively and meet the demands of the the most sought after (Daugherty et al., 2005; Attaran, 2004;
environment (Stonebraker and Afifi, 2004; Fawcett and Ferdows et al., 2004; Leonard and Cronan, 2002; Fine,
Magnan, 2001). In short, strategic supply chains as 2000). Collaboration not only enables partners to reduce one
organizational entities are more likely to succeed when they another’s costs but also allows inventory to cycle through to
are able to adapt and align with the demands of the external customers faster. The two-fold result is increased revenues
environment (Thompson, 1967). and decreased costs that can be shared across the chain.
A second theory that helps explain how strategic supply Two other core benefits include decreased order cycle times
chains can mobilize to create value and that goes hand in and greater product availability (Leonard and Cronan, 2002;
hand with contingency theory is Lewin’s (1951) force field Stank et al., 1999a; Sheridan, 1999; van der Vorst and
36
Figure 1 A contingency framework for understanding supply chain implementation

Beulens, 1999). To win customer allegiance, firms must have opportunities to share with one another concerns,
what customers want when and where they want it. Close weaknesses, and best practices.
relationships with suppliers leave room for special orders in Other barriers to SCM fall under managerial complexity or
unique times of high demand, helping satisfy the customer misalignments in allying firms’ processes, structures, and
expectations. Additional benefits are market responsiveness, culture (Park and Ungson, 2001). Under the umbrella of
added economic value, capital utilization, decreased product managerial complexity barriers include information system
time to market, and logistics cost reduction (Lee, 2004; and technological incompatibility, inadequate measurement
Mentzer et al., 2000; Tyndall, 2000; Christopher and Ryals, systems, and conflicting organizational structures and culture
1999). Revenue growth fueled by increased responsiveness (e.g. Sheridan, 1999; Tyndall et al., 1998; Quinn, 1997a).
occurring at lower costs using fewer assets translates into Because many firms are comfortable using their systems for
stellar performance. Overall, SCM potentially creates value only their own tasks, it is not surprising to see inconsistent
for all members in the chain. However, such benefits vary in information and technology systems as a barrier. People are
importance and degree among partnering chain members change averse and unwilling to share information for fear of
(Agrawal and Pak, 2001). This variance in importance is exposing their weakness and secrets to others. If SCM is to be
further complicated by the potential risks strategic supply implemented across company borders, a revamp in attitude
chains place upon aligned firms. In this following sub-section, and thinking is necessary. Cooper et al. commented:
we discuss these risks and other barriers in more detail. Successful supply chain management requires a change from managing both
individual functions to integrating activities into key supply chain processes
(Cooper et al., 1997, p. 5).
Barriers to effective supply chain management
From the literature in Table II, the potential barriers or
resisting forces are intimidating. The resisting forces to Bridges to effective supply chain management
strategic supply management come both from the nature of Once the barriers to successful SCM are identified, bridges
the organization itself and the people that compose the can be designed and implemented to attain desired benefits.
organization. These barriers can be classified under one of However, for such bridges to work, research suggests the need
two headings: “inter-firm rivalry” and “managerial for management to redesign its approach to problem
complexity” (Park and Ungson, 2001). Inter-firm rivalry is resolution – SC collaboration entails “significantly different
a misalignment of motives and behaviors among allying business models and thinking styles of management” (Moberg
partners within the strategic supply chain (Park and Ungson, et al., 2003, p. 37). Table III provides a sample of the salient
2001). Some barriers under this category include internal and bridges to SCM. The top three bridges found in the literature
external turf protection, poor collaboration among chain focus on collaboration among chain partners. These three
partners, and lack of partner trust. In short, interfirm rivalry bridges are transparent information systems, cross-functional
is the tendency for allying partners to compete rather than collaboration, and collaborative planning across the supply
willingly cooperating. Absent a willingness to cooperate, a chain (Kulp et al., 2004; Mentzer et al., 2000; Monczka et al.,
supply chain will not be able to attain lower costs and higher 1998). If SC managers are expected to make difficult
returns on investment. Further, irregular collaborative decisions in dynamic environments, valuable information
meetings among chain partners hinder managers’ must be available at the right place, at the right time, and in
37
Table I Literature review benefits to strategic supply chain management

Benefits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Total
Increased inventory turnover £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 18
Increased revenues £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 12
SCM cost reductions £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 11
Stanley E. Fawcett, Gregory M. Magnan and Matthew W. McCarter
Product availability £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 11
Decreased order cycle time £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 11

Responsiveness £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 7
38
Economic value added £ £ £ £ £ 5
Capital utilization £ £ £ £ 4
Decreased time to market £ £ £ £ 4
Reduced logistics costs £ £ 2
Sources: 1 – Agrawal and Pak (2001); 2 – Alber and Walker (1998); 3 – Allnoch (1997); 4 – Attaran (2004); 5 – Balsmeier and Voisin (1996); 6 – Callioni et al. (2005); 7 – Christopher and Ryals (1999); 8 –
Closs et al. (1998); 9 – Cooke (1997); 10 – Daugherty et al. (2005); 11 – Ferdows et al. (2004); 12 – Handfield and Pannesi (1995); 13 – Hult et al. (2004); 14 – Inger et al. (1995); 15 – Jayaram et al. (2004);
16 – Kaas and Ohl (2002); 17 – La Londe and Masters (1994); 18 – Lee (2004); 19 – Leonard and Cronan (2002); 20 – Mentzer et al. (2000); 21 – Metz (1998); 22 – Monczka (1996); 23 – Rajib et al.
(2002); 24 – Sabath and Frentzel (1997); 25 – Sheridan (1999); 26 – Silverstein (2002); 27 – Stank et al. (1999a); 28 – Tan et al. (1998); 29 – Timme and Williams-Timme (2000); 30 – Tyndall (2000); 31 –
van der Vorst and Beulens (1999); 32 – Vergin (1998); 33 – Vokurka (1998); 34 – Waller et al. (2000); 35 – Waller et al. (1999)
Volume 13 · Number 1 · 2008 · 35 –48
Table II Literature review barriers to strategic supply chain management

Benefits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Total
Interfirm rivalry
Internal and external turf wars £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 16
Poor SCM planning £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 10
Lack of vision of SCM £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 9
Lack of channel trust £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 8
Executive commitment £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 7
Poor SCM understanding £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 7
39
Managerial complexity
IS/IT deficiencies £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 10
Organizational structure/culture £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 9
Lack SC measurement £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 8
Lack alliance guidelines £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 7
Sources: 1 – Akkermans and van Doremalen (2004); 2 – Andraski (1998); 3 – Barratt (2004a); 4 – Barratt (2004b); 5 – Bender (2000); 6 – Cox (1999); 7 – Frohlich (2002); 8 – Inger et al. (1995); 9 –
Johnson et al. (2001); 10 – Kilpatrick and Factor (2000); 11 – La Londe (2003); 12 – La Londe and Masters (1994); 13 – Lee (2004); 14 – Lonsdale (1999); 15 – Lummus et al. (1998); 16 – Mentzer et al.
(2000); 17 – Milligan (1999); 18 – Moberg et al. (2003); 19 – Monczka and Morgan (1997); 20 – Monczka and Morgan (1998b); 21 – Monczka and Morgan (1998a); 22 – Morgan (1997); 23 – Neuman and
Samuels (1996); 24 – New (1997); 25 – Pitera (2000); 26 – Quinn (1997a); 27 – Quinn (1999); 28 – Roux et al. (1999); 29 – Sheridan (1999); 30 – Smagalla (2004); 31 – Timme and Williams-Timme (2000);
32 – Tyndall (2000); 33 – Tyndall et al. (1998); 34 – van Hoekm et al. (1998)
Volume 13 · Number 1 · 2008 · 35 –48
Table III Literature review bridges to strategic supply chain management

Bridges 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Total
Information transparency £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ ££ £ £ £ £ £ £ 16
CFT/CF collaboration £ £ £ £ £ £ £
£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 16
Collaborative planning £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 15
IT architecture/internet £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 11
Formal performance tracking £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 11

Adopt strategic SCM vision £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 11
40
Attention to human factors £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 11
Supplier certification/reduction £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 9
Target segmented customers £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 8
Shared investment/benefits £ £ £ £ 4
Sources: 1 – Akkermans and van Doremalen (2004); 2 – Akkermans et al. (1999); 3 – Andraski (1998); 4 – Attaran (2004); 5 – Ballou et al. (2000); 6 – Barratt (2004a); 7 – Barratt (2004b); 8 – Bender
(2000); 9 – Bowersox and Closs (1996); 10 – Burnell (1999); 11 – Choy and Lee (2003); 12 – Cooke (2000); 13 – Croom (2001); 14 – Daugherty et al. (2005); 15 – Dyer et al. (1998); 16 – Fawcett and
Magnan (2001); 17 – Frohlich (2002); 18 – Forker and Hershauer (2000); 19 – Handfield and Nichols (2004); 20 – Hult et al. (2004); 21 – Lummus et al. (1998); 22 – Mentzer et al. (2000); 23 – Metz (1998);
24 – Moberg et al. (2003); 25 – Monczka (1996); 26 – Monczka and Morgan (1997); 27 – Monczka et al. (1998); 28 – Pagh and Cooper (1998); 29 – Pitera (2000); 30 – Poirier (1999); 31 – Quinn (1997a);
32 – Quinn (1997b); 33 – Rajib et al. (2002); 34 – Shen et al. (2003); 35 – Sheridan (1999); 36 – Stank et al. (1999a); 37 – Stank et al. (1999b); 38 – Tan et al. (1998); 39 – Tyndall et al. (1998); 40 –
Vokurka (1998); 41 – Vokurka et al. (1998); 42 – Waller et al. (2000)
Volume 13 · Number 1 · 2008 · 35 –48
the right hands of people who approach the problem from Table IV Adjusted sample sizes, completed surveys, and response rates
different perspectives and with different styles.
The remaining bridges include adopting a strategic SC Adjusted Completed Response rate
vision, paying attention to human factors, and supply-base sample size surveys (percent)
reduction and certification (Barratt, 2004a; Metz, 1998; Tan Pre-test
et al., 1998). This spectrum of proposed solutions suggests a ISM 1,329 96 7.2
single remedy cannot solve SCM (Table III). Managers must CSCMP 1,369 129 9.4
be able to “think outside of the box” using different
APICS 1,351 109 8.1
combinations of approaches with different people to remedy
SC problems.
Pre-notification
To summarize, external forces drive organizations to align
ISM 370 84 22.7
and form strategic supply chains so as to align SC action with
external environmental demands. By aligning behaviors with CSCMP 398 76 19.1
the environment, numerous benefits motive firms to achieve APICS 328 94 28.7
SC collaboration. However, to attain these benefits, strategic
supply chains must navigate barriers to successful
collaboration using various approaches and strategies that which the list was adjusted for incorrect numbers and
act as bridges. employees no longer working at the organizations. The
number of managers contacted, the number of surveys

Methodology completed, and response rates are listed in Table IV.
SCM is a boundary-spanning activity (Bowersox et al., 1999). Case studies

Attaining information from different functional managers as To explore the “whys” behind our survey findings, a series of
well as channel positions helps paint a macro-picture of how in-depth case studies were conducted (Yin, 1981). Following
SCM may be effectively achieved. To develop this picture and suggestions from Eisenhardt (1989), five chain positions were
extract “a more robust and generalizable set of findings,” a pre-determined to allow cross-channel analysis. Such a case
triangulation approach was used (Scandura and Williams, variety “fosters the development of a more creative and
2000, p. 1250; Jick, 1979; Lewis, 1998). This method generalizable theory” (Lewis, 1998, p. 460). A total of
included an extensive literature review (Tables I to III), a 51 in-depth case studies were conducted. The break down by
cross-functional mail survey, and in-depth cases studies. channel category is as follows: 14 retailers, 13 finished goods
assemblers, 12 first-tier suppliers, three lower-tier suppliers,
Cross-functional mail survey and nine service providers.
The purpose of the mail surveys was to capture how Data collection for these case studies came from two
functional managers view the benefits, barriers, and bridges sources. The first source of data consisted of annual reports
to SCM. Three different groups of managers were identified: and other company documents pertinent to SC operations for
manufacturing, purchasers, and logistician managers. Based each firm. These data were our secondary source of
on literature as well as a series of pre-survey interviews, a information as some companies were public while others
four-page instrument was developed. The initial survey was were not and therefore were more open about sharing their
reviewed by several practitioners and academics that served as archived information with the researchers.
the study’s advisory board. Their feedback was used to modify The second and primary source of data source consisted of
the survey instrument. A large-scale pre-test was conducted. 51 interviews with SC managers at the companies. Case study
Three mailing lists of approximately 1,500 middle- and participants were senior-level managers initially identified
senior-level managers were complied from membership based on their participation at annual meetings of leading
rosters from the Institute of Supply Management (ISM), the professional associations where they were presenting cutting-
Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals edge findings in SCM. Such a non-randomized selection
(CSCMP), and APICS. method allows us to “transparently observe” extreme chain-
The survey process followed Dillman’s (1978) total design member practices and shed light as to why some firms
method, including three mailings of a cover letter, an succeed in supply management while others do not
instruction sheet, and the survey instrument. The adjusted (Pettigrew, 1990, p. 275). In most instances, the interview
sample size, number of respondents, and response rate are was conducted with multiple managers from the host
listed in Table IV. Approximately 100 non-respondents from organization (the number of company representatives ranged
each group were randomly selected, telephoned, and asked from one to eight). The average interview lasted over four
basic demographic data so that respondents and non- hours with the shortest interview lasting a little over an hour
respondent profiles could be compared. No differences and the longest taking over ten hours.
between the groups were found. From the 100 managers All interviews were conducted face-to-face and promised
who chose not to participate, the three most common answers confidentiality to facilitate candid responses. During each
were: the manager was to busy; the manager was inundated by interview, a semi-structured interview guide was used. The
surveys and no longer participated in survey studies; and the guide was divided into general questions, questions on
manager’s organization had yet to adopt a SC philosophy. collaboration among the interviewee’s company customers
The pre-test results were reviewed and the survey was and suppliers, and key practices with particular chain
modified accordingly. New mailing lists of 500 were complied members. The guide consisted of both open ended or rating
from the three professional associations. Each manager was scale questions, enabling a clearer perspective of each
then telephoned and asked to participate in the study, during interviewee’s responses (Spradley, 1979). To become
41
intimately familiar with each case, structured case study write- collaboration by the interviewed companies was cost
ups were created to allow further analysis. Such an approach reduction. All but one of the companies interviewed
is central to avoiding “data asphyxiation” where enormous emphasized cost savings as an expected and realized benefit
volumes of data overwhelm the analysis process (Pettigrew, of enhanced SC cooperation. It must be noted, however, that
1990). We also became familiar with each case as a “stand- customer satisfaction was the second most mentioned benefit
alone entity,” allowing for unique patterns from each case to resulting from SC collaboration. This mixed ranking brings
become visible and for, if possible, generalizable patterns from up the question of “where is the focus being aimed for the
cross-case comparisons to be derived (Eisenhardt, 1989). primary benefits of SCM?”
While some caveats are visible, the overall view is quite
Results and discussion attractive. Even so, managers should carefully analyze their
company’s specific position to verify that the benefits
Mean score for each mail survey question was compiled and discussed can be achieved. No single benefit was obtained
ranked from highest to lowest in importance regarding the by more than 62 percent of the respondent organizations,
benefits, barriers, and bridges of supply management. implying that many companies have yet to be able to devise
Rankings were then ordered by function within the chain. and implement a winning SC strategy.
Response rankings were then listed by the percent of
respondents that ranked survey items a five or above. The Barriers to effective supply chain management
mean scores, rankings, and percentages of scores five or Conceptually, strategic supply chains seem to succeed or fail
greater are listed in Table V. The data gathered from the on the degree of resource sharing among partners (e.g.
interviews allowed for us to understand in greater detail the information, knowledge, skills) and the partners’ ability to use
ranked items from the surveys. Table VI summaries the these resources effectively in changing environments. In this
benefits, barriers, and bridges synthesized from the mail section, we highlight some of the main causes for why SC
surveys and interviews in this study. partners are unable to successfully share resources and
effectively use those resources (even when they were shared).
Benefits of effective supply chain management The main causes for supply chains being unable to share
Before investing money, time, and other resources into resources and utilize those resources may be divided into two
difficult implementations, most managers want to know if the broad categories congruent with Park and Ungson’s (2001)
results are worth the effort. Identifying and quantifying the dichotomy that we discussed earlier: inter-firm rivalry and
expected benefits is a critical part of any cost/benefit analysis. managerial complexity. The three groups of functional
The functional ratings of SC benefits vary widely. Each managers were very consistent in their evaluations of the
functional area identified a different top-rated benefit (Table barriers to effective SCM. There were only two instances
V). Nearly 72 percent of purchasers scored “cost of purchased where the rankings varied by three places. Manufacturing
items” a five or higher (mean ¼ 4:98). Logisticians identified managers ranked “non-aligned performance measures” as the
“on-time delivery/due-data performance” as the greatest fifth most serious barrier to integration while both purchasers
benefit of SCM (67 percent, mean ¼ 4:83), and and logisticians ranked it lower at number eight.
manufacturing respondents scored “reduced order Manufacturing managers tend to be frustrated by conflicting
fulfillment lead times” as the most pervasive benefit (51 measures such as end-of-quarter sales goals that can create
percent, mean ¼ 4:69). Overall, the most prevalent benefits havoc on the production floor. Similarly, logisticians ranked
identified by one functional group were viewed by the other “a lack of willingness to share information” as the fifth most
functional areas as relatively less important. Thus, managers critical impediment compared to a ranking of eight for
valued the purposes of SCM differently contingent on their manufacturing managers. Given their boundary-spanning
position within the chain. This divergence in values suggests a position, logistics managers are sensitized to the need to share
two-edged sword facing SC managers. While moderate information. Missing or incorrect information often creates a
divergence of values can lead to superior group decisions demand for expensive expediting.
and outcomes (in this case SC team decisions and outcomes) The single greatest barrier from the mail surveys is
via positive conflict over the nature of the task (e.g. purpose of inadequate information systems. This barrier was the only
SCM), too much (or high) value divergence can be variable to receive an average score of five or greater. Since
detrimental to group decision making performance via collaboration is intrinsically information driven, inadequate or
negative conflict (Jehn et al., 1999). incompatible information systems are a critical barrier to
The interviews further offer the suggestion of quantifying collaboration. Inadequate or incompatible information
the benefits of strategic SCM. A common saying at one of the systems present a twofold dilemma. First, managing
interviewed company’s is “if you don’t have the numbers, it’s complicated SC networks requires collection and analysis of
just your opinion.” However, the interviewees also revealed a large amounts of data. Although, technology advances have
caveat that the ability to track and quantify benefits from SC yielded great use of data warehouses that collect and store
initiatives is extremely difficult. The interviews were replete information, analyzing the data correctly as to allow people to
with “soft” anecdotal evidence that SCM reduces costs and make decisions remains a difficult and complex task. Second,
better satisfies the end customer. In contrast the “hard” data only becomes valuable information when it is in the
numbers were rare. Many of the companies interviewed are hands of the right people at the right time. If all the
working diligently to develop better metrics to help them participants of a chain cannot access needed information,
evaluate and justify SC initiatives. opportunities for value savings cannot be evaluated and full
In looking back at survey rankings as a whole, it is benefits of integration will be difficult to attain. In short, these
noteworthy that “satisfying customer needs” is the primary types of barriers fall under the concept of managerial
benefit. Interestingly, the most cited benefit of SC complexity.
42
Table V Combined and channel rankings of benefits, barriers, and bridges

Combined Purchasing Logistics Manufacturing
Mean Rank % 5-7 Mean Rank % 5-7 Mean Rank % 5-7 Mean Rank % 5-7
Panel 1: Benefitsa
Respond to customer requests 4.69 1 62.0 4.75 3 62.7 4.65 3 62.9 4.67 2 62.9
On-time delivery 4.65 2 61.0 4.63 6 57.3 4.83 1 67.0 4.49 5 67.0
Customer satisfaction 4.62 3 59.4 4.67 5 59.9 4.72 2 64.7 4.49 4 64.7
Order fulfillment lead times 4.59 4 54.5 4.49 9 53.2 4.56 4 59.1 4.69 1 59.1
Cost of purchased items 4.58 5 59.7 4.98 1 71.7 4.49 6 59.0 4.34 8 59.0
Firm profitability 4.51 6 53.7 4.75 2 63.7 4.47 7 55.1 4.34 7 55.1
Handle unexpected challenges 4.49 7 59.2 4.52 8 61.8 4.43 8 59.6 4.53 3 59.6
Inventory costs 4.48 8 53.0 4.56 7 55.1 4.52 5 53.0 4.37 6 53.0
Overall product costs 4.38 9 51.0 4.71 4 61.3 4.37 10 50.8 4.11 10 50.8
Productivity 4.31 10 52.0 4.46 10 57.3 4.42 9 56.5 4.09 11 56.5
Overall product quality 4.16 11 44.3 4.43 11 54.1 3.97 13 38.7 4.11 9 38.7
Transportation costs 3.88 12 37.9 3.94 13 62.0 4.29 11 54.0 3.43 14 54.0
Market penetration 3.85 13 34.2 3.89 14 38.8 4.00 12 36.9 3.66 12 36.9
Product innovation lead times 3.75 14 31.3 3.98 12 35.2 3.75 14 31.2 3.56 13 31.2
Cost of new product development 3.43 15 24.2 3.70 15 30.3 3.37 15 21.8 3.26 15 21.8
Panel 2: Barriersb
Inadequate information systems 5.19 1 71.2 5.07 1 69.4 5.48 1 78.4 5.00 1 65.3
Lack clear alliance guidelines 4.87 2 62.4 4.74 3 59.3 4.97 2 68.5 4.87 2 63.6
Inconsistent operating goals 4.84 3 64.0 4.75 2 58.2 4.94 4 66.8 4.83 3 65.8
Lack shared risks and rewards 4.83 4 65.6 4.73 4 61.1 4.97 3 64.0 4.76 4 66.3
Processes poorly costed 4.61 5 56.4 4.63 5 58.4 4.71 6 61.5 4.49 6 49.2
Non-aligned measures 4.56 6 55.5 4.39 8 50.6 4.66 8 56.7 4.61 5 58.4
Lack willingness to share information 4.56 7 56.1 4.56 6 54.0 4.74 5 64.5 4.36 8 49.5
Organizational boundaries 4.49 8 52.4 4.42 7 52.4 4.67 7 56.1 4.37 7 48.3
Measuring SC contribution 4.32 9 49.2 4.31 9 50.3 4.44 9 50.8 4.21 10 47.0
Measuring customer demands 4.26 10 49.9 4.12 10 43.4 4.30 10 50.3 4.35 9 54.8
Lack employee empowerment 3.8 11 34.8 4.08 11 43.8 3.76 12 33.7 3.60 11 28.4
Lack resources for SCM 3.73 12 38.5 3.76 12 38.8 4.05 11 45.3 3.36 12 31.2
Panel 3: Bridges
Frequent communication 4.64 1 54.2 4.50 3 55.5 4.82 1 64.4 4.57 1 56.1
A willingness to share information 4.59 2 55.0 4.58 1 57.0 4.77 2 66.8 4.41 2 54.8
Use of cross-functional teams 4.37 3 47.2 4.34 6 48.4 4.64 3 60.6 4.12 5 45.0
Shared expertise w/suppliers 4.32 4 46.0 4.46 4 55.8 4.20 13 45.3 4.35 3 50.0
Common goals 4.31 5 45.7 4.42 5 53.2 4.35 9 51.9 4.17 4 44.5
Supply base reduction 4.21 6 42.8 4.50 2 58.4 4.25 11 47.3 3.93 11 37.7
Senior management interaction 4.21 7 46.0 4.10 10 49.3 4.57 5 61.5 3.94 10 38.9
Cross-functional processes 4.21 8 43.4 4.03 14 43.0 4.54 6 56.6 4.03 7 41.7
Shared expertise w/customers 4.14 9 41.6 4.14 7 44.6 4.16 15 49.5 4.12 6 41.7
Customer selectivity 4.11 10 43.5 3.89 17 38.6 4.39 7 55.0 4.01 9 47.1
Increase SC training 4.09 11 39.4 3.87 18 39.8 4.36 8 48.9 4.01 8 40.1
Use of SC measures 4.08 12 42.3 4.03 13 42.9 4.28 10 54.8 3.93 12 40.1
Use of consistent measures 4.05 13 39.8 4.06 11 43.5 4.21 12 50.1 3.87 13 37.1
EDI linkages 4.02 14 43.2 3.53 21 35.1 4.62 4 58.7 3.83 14 44.5
Clear selection guidelines 3.97 15 38.2 4.05 12 45.5 4.19 14 47.9 3.69 16 33.4
Vendor managed inventories 3.86 16 36.2 4.13 9 45.2 3.72 22 38.0 3.78 15 35.9
Use of total cost analysis 3.85 17 47.5 4.14 8 49.4 4.04 16 48.9 3.42 21 27.0
Sharing risks and rewards 3.83 18 35.6 3.99 15 44.0 3.90 20 43.7 3.63 17 29.6
Shared mission statement 3.80 19 36.3 3.99 16 45.4 3.97 18 43.1 3.47 19 31.0
Clear alliance management guidelines 3.76 20 32.0 3.81 19 35.9 4.03 17 45.5 3.43 20 23.6
Common operating procedures 3.74 21 27.5 3.70 20 28.8 3.94 19 38.1 3.56 18 23.1
Use ERP/SCM software 3.36 22 25.3 3.03 24 21.4 3.73 21 35.3 3.26 22 26.0
Use supply chain teams 3.31 23 224.8 3.31 22 27.0 3.59 23 34.1 3.03 23 20.6
Use of activity based costing 3.08 24 20.2 3.17 23 22.2 3.47 24 29.0 2.60 24 14.9
Notes: a To what extent has SC integration improved your firm’s performance? (1 ¼ not Improved, 7 ¼ greatly improved); b To what extent do the items act as
barriers to supply chain integration? (1 ¼ not a barrier, 7 ¼ serious barrier); To what extent have each of the items below facilitated increased inter-firm
coordination? (1 ¼ not a facilitator, 7 ¼ effective facilitator)
43
Table VI Top ten benefits, barriers, and bridges to strategic supply chain management
Benefits Barriers Bridges
Customer focus Interfirm rivalry Operations, process, and supply management
Increased customer responsiveness Inadequate information sharing Accurate comprehensive measures
More consistent on-time delivery Inconsistent operating goals Supplier alignment and rationization
Customer satisfaction Lack of willingness shared risks and rewards Effective use of pilot projects
Shorter order fulfillment lead times Lack of willingness to share information Process documentation and ownership
Company focus Managerial complexity People management

Reduced purchasing costs Lack of alliance guidelines Managerial and employee support
Better asset utilization Processes poorly appraised in terms of costs Open information sharing
Ability to handle unexpected events Non-aligned measures Trust-based alliances
Reduced inventory costs Organizational boundaries Cross-trained experienced managers
Firm productivity Measuring supply chain contribution Supply chain education and training
Reduced overall product cost Measuring customer demand Using chain advisory councils
The interviews fleshed out management concerns regarding themselves. However, the ability for firms to utilize shared
SCM such that the barriers appeared to be stemming from resources is a direct function of the amount and quality of
quite a different source. According to the interviewees, resource shared. For example, interorganizational information
human nature is the primary barrier to successful SC systems are only as profitable as a function of the quality and
collaboration. Most people are change averse and prefer to quantity of information they store and share – if not enough
stick to the status quo. Managers noted repeatedly that people information shared or the information that is shared is of little
throughout their organizations were suspicious of the types of value, strategic supply chains may fall short of creating value
change instigated by SCM and avoid such changes whenever (cf. Kumar and van Diesel, 1996). The surveys reveal that
possible. Management also noted that most individuals do not strategic supply chains suffer from inadequate information
have a clear perception of what SCM means in relation to sharing, and the interviews go deeper suggesting one of the
their tasks. Several managers stated that top management main reasons for inadequate information is not that
either lacks a clear vision of SC integration or fails to companies lack ability but lack desire and willingness. Inter-
articulate a vision that other employees can relate to. Indeed, firm rivalry creates vulnerability and impedes information
based on interviewee commentary, SCM vision remains fuzzy sharing.
at most organizations. This lack of vision can lead to poor
understanding of what SCM is in practice. The natural result Bridges to effective supply chain management
of unclear potential and uncertainty is resistance to change, The barriers to effective SC implementation are considerable.
and even efforts to forestall any meaningful adoption of SC Reviewing the SCM literature together with the
practices. implementation literature for other cross-functional and
Other substantive barriers to SCM were highlighted resource-intensive strategic initiatives, numerous tools or
throughout the interviews. Human behavior was found at “bridges” were identified regarding their impact on SCM
the root of nearly all of them (i.e. organizational culture and implementation (Table V). Note that none of the 25 practices
structure, functional conflicts, lack of managerial chosen in Table V appears to have a remarkably positive
commitment, conflicting and non-transparent processes, impact on SC collaboration (means range from 3.08 to 4.64).
policies, and procedures, performance measurement, Possible reasons for such low means could be none of the
information sharing, lack of trust, resource constraints, and practices are truly effective in bridging barriers to effective
complexity of SC networks). These interview findings are SCM or organizations are not sufficiently advanced in
rather revealing, since the survey data posited that adopting the practices to make SCM a reality. The
inconsistent information technology, alliance guidelines, and interviews suggest that the second explanation underlies the
operating goals were the prime barriers to SCM. The survey results. Moreover, interviewees noted that SC
interview data remind us that it is people that gather, process, collaboration is a complex undertaking. No single practice
share, and interpret the information, write and uphold the or group of practices can close the cultural, emotional,
alliance guidelines, and determine and adhere to the goals of physical, and strategic gaps preventing collaboration.
their operations. These findings reflect a recent comment From the survey data, logistics managers viewed 17 of the
made during a SCM forum: 24 practices as more effective bridges than the purchasing and
Despite years of process breakthroughs and elegant technological solutions, manufacturing managers (Table V). Likewise, purchasers
an agile, adaptive supply chain remains an elusive goal. Maybe it’s the people
who are getting in the way (Harvard Business Review, 2003, p. 64; italics
rated 17 of the 24 practices more highly than their
added)? counterparts. Manufacturing managers consistently
evaluated the various practices as less effective enablers than
As a form of strategic alliance (Monczka et al., 1998), the other two groups. The greatest agreement found is that
strategic supply chains succeed and fail by their ability to frequent and open communication is vital to effective SCM.
utilize their collective resources. After all, the purpose of any The three groups of managers also tended to agree in their
alliance (in this case a strategic supply chain) is to mobilize evaluations of the least effective enablers. A pattern emerges
resources to attain goals that no individual can attain where managers to rank practices that they deal with on a
44
frequent basis higher than their counterparts who only hear Conclusion and implications
about them from meetings, in-house newsletters, and “lunch-
The potential benefits for integrating supply chains are
room” conversations. The more experience a manager has
compelling. However, barriers to success can be daunting.
with a particular practice the more weight the manager places
Understanding these barriers can lead to designing bridges to
on that practice in terms of perceived importance. While this
allow companies obtain SC benefits (see Table VI for a review
is neither not surprising nor new, it does suggest that a degree of the benefits, barriers, and bridges). Managers must keep in
of fragmentation exists among the different functional mind the following three points regarding the benefits,
managers. The divergence in how to deal with these barriers, and bridges:
integration barriers suggests that this may be a barrier in 1 Although cost reduction is a prime motivator to strategic
and of itself to SCM. Such insight suggests a need for more SC collaboration, customer satisfaction and service is
effective training regarding the applicability and impact of perceived as more enduring by managers, and should
different facilitating practices, more extensive communication therefore be brought to the fore as the leading goal for SC
of program results, and more frequent use of cross-functional managers. Such a goal is difficult considering pressures
teams. from shareholders for individual firms to produce short-
The managers interviewed support this suggestion. Almost term gains that can lead to long-term losses in value from
half of the managers identified training as one of the strategic SCM.
requirements for successful long-term SC implementation. 2 All managers recognize technology, information, and
SC education generates organizational member buy-in for SC measurement systems as major barriers to successful SC
proposals and provides context from which senior collaboration. However, the people issues – such as
management establishes priorities and allocates resources. culture, trust, aversion to change, and willingness to
Managers who possess expertise in a chosen field while able to collaborate – are more intractable. One potential reason
communicate effectively with diverse functional colleagues are for this may be that misalignments in technology,
considered ideal managers. information systems, and measurement have
Several SC companies established SC steering committees demonstrably correct solutions;, e.g. either system A
composed of senior-level managers to increase cross- aligns with system B or it does not, and either all partners
functional interaction and establish buy-in from specific use the same metric or they do not and you solve either
initiatives within their own company. While specific roles and problem by using the same system or metric. However,
when dealing with human barriers – such as lack of trust,
responsibilities of steering committees can vary substantially,
unwillingness to relinquish control, and opportunism –
committee members typically meet to consider and evaluate
solutions become more of a judgment call rather than an
proposals. At these meetings, the benefits and burdens of SC
unsolved problem. Managers should not overlook this
initiatives discussed openly so that viable proposals can be
point when designing remedies to SC problems such as
more fully understood, refined, and subsequently promoted. organizational culture and structure, and management
Also, most managers interviewed were convinced that SC styles.
programs would not sell themselves without targeted pilot 3 People are the key to successful collaborative innovation.
programs that can be used to document the value of SCM. Companies continue to invest in technology, information,
These success stories are needed to generate momentum and and measurement systems. However, managers must not
to justify further investment in SC efforts. The combination overlook the training, educating, and bringing together of
of success stories and experience makes well-crafted pilot right people to use those systems and to interact with one
programs a vital bridge to SC accomplishment. another. Forming the right teams for the right tasks will
The use of advisory councils is not confined to in-house then result in well-defined pilot projects and success
use. Active SC companies institute supplier councils for stories that will help create buy-in from other
specific commodities or technologies and use them as organizations members and thus increase their
sounding boards for new ideas. Customer advisory boards commitment to SC collaboration.
are also utilized this way. Representatives from key customers
Regardless of function or channel position, managers believe
are invited to take part as active members of boards that meets that SCM can help their companies thrive in today’s intensely
together at least annually to provide feedback into how the competitive marketplace. However, running parallel to
company can better meet their needs as customers. None of optimism regarding SCM must be the realistic view of the
the companies interviewed have instituted advisory councils challenges found embedded in the very human and
from all three entities – the company, its suppliers, and its mechanical links of the supply chain. Only then can proper
customers. bridges be designed to leverage collaboration and attain
The main message communicated via both the survey and strategic SC success.
interview data is that people management through increased
communication, inter-team collaboration, and cooperation
will not only bridge the current gaps encountered in SCM but References
allow middle- and senior-managers to improve their current Agrawal, M.K. and Pak, M.H. (2001), “Getting smart about
success and reap greater rewards of SC collaboration. While supply chain management”, McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2,
SCM is enabled by modern information technology, SCM pp. 22-7.
success is founded on people. Indeed, our findings are Akkermans, H. and van Doremalen, J. (2004), “Travail,
summed best by one interviewed director of SCM, “People transparency, and trust: a case study of computer-
are the bridge or the barrier to SC collaboration.” supported collaborative supply chain planning in high-
45
tech electronics”, European Journal of Operational Research, Cooke, J.A. (1997), “In this issue”, Supply Chain Management
Vol. 153 No. 2, pp. 445-57. Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 3.
Akkermans, H., Bogerd, P. and Vos, B. (1999), “Virtuous and Cooke, J.A. (2000), “The dawn of supply chain
vicious cycles on the road towards international supply communities”, Logistics Management and Distribution
chain management”, International Journal of Operations & Report, Vol. 39, February, pp. 44-8.
Production Management, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6, pp. 565-81. Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997),
Alber, K.L. and Walker, T.W. (1998), “Supply chain “Supply chain management: more than a new name for
management: principles and techniques for the logistics”, International Journal of Logistics Management,
practitioner”, Research Paper Series, APICS Educational Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
and Research Foundation, Falls Church, VA. Corbett, C.J. and Blackburn, J.D. (1999), “Partnerships to
Allnoch, A. (1997), “Efficient supply chain practices mean improve supply chains”, MIT Sloan Management Review,
big savings to leading manufacturers”, IIE Solutions, Vol. 29 Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 71-83.
No. 7, pp. 8-9. Croom, S. (2001), “Restructuring supply chains through
Andraski, J.C. (1998), “Leadership and the realization of information channel innovation”, International Journal of
supply chain collaboration”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 4,
Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 9-11.
pp. 504-16.
Attaran, M. (2004), “Nurturing the supply chain”, Industrial
Daugherty, P.J., Richey, R.G., Genchev, S.E. and Chen, H.
Management, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 16-21.
Ballou, R.H., Gilbert, S.M. and Mukherjee, A. (2000), “New (2005), “Reverse logistics: superior performance through
managerial challenges from supply chain opportunities”, focused resource commitments to information technology”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-18. Transportation Research: Part E, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 77-93.
Balsmeier, P.W. and Voisin, W.J. (1996), “Supply chain Dillman, D.A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total
management: a time-based strategy”, Industrial Design Method, Wiley, New York, NY.
Management, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 24-8. Dyer, J.H., Cho, D.S. and Chu, W. (1998), “Strategic
Barratt, M. (2004a), “Understanding the meaning of supplier segmentation: the next ‘best practice’ in supply
collaboration in the supply chain”, Supply Chain chain management”, California Management Review, Vol. 40
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, No. 2, pp. 57-78.
pp. 30-43. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study
Barratt, M. (2004b), “Unveiling enablers and inhibitors of research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4,
collaborative planning”, International Journal of Logistics pp. 532-50.
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 73-91. Ellram, L.M. (1996), “The use of the case study method in
Bender, P.S. (2000), “Debunking five supply chain myths”, logistics research”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 17
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 52-8. No. 2, pp. 96-138.
Bhattacharya, A.K., Coleman, J.L. and Brace, G. (1995), Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2001), Achieving World-
“Re-positioning the supplier: an SME perspective”, Class Supply Chain Alignment: Benefits, Barriers, and Bridges,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 218-27. CAPS Research/Institute for Supply Management, Tempe,
Bowersox, D.J. and Closs, D.J. (1996), Logistical Management: AZ.
The Integrated Supply Chain Process, McGraw-Hill Ferdows, K., Lewis, M.A. and Machuca, J.A.D. (2004),
Companies, New York, NY. “Rapid-fire fulfillment”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Stank, T.P. (1999), 21st No. 11, pp. 104-10.
Century Logistics: Making Supply Chain Integration a Reality, Fine, C.H. (2000), “The clockspeed chronicles”, Supply
Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL. Chain Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 60-4.
Burnell, J. (1999), “Change management: the key to supply Forker, L.B. and Hershauer, J.C. (2000), “Some
chain success”, Automatic I.D. News, Vol. 15, pp. 40-1. determinants of satisfaction and quality performance in
Callioni, G., de Montgros, X., Slagmulder, R., van
the electronic components industry”, Production and
Wassenhove, L.N. and Wright, L. (2005), “Inventory-
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 14-21.
driven costs”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83 No. 3,
Frohlich, M.T. (2002), “E-integration in the supply chain:
pp. 135-42.
barriers and performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 33 No. 4,
Choy, K.L. and Lee, W.B. (2003), “A generic supplier
management tool for outsourcing manufacturing”, Supply pp. 537-57.
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, Funk, J.L. (1995), “Just-in-time manufacturing and logistical
pp. 140-55. complexity: a contingency model”, International Journal of
Christopher, M. and Ryals, L. (1999), “Supply chain Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 5,
strategy: its impact on shareholder value”, International pp. 60-71.
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-10. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Reengineering the
Closs, D.J., Roath, A.S., Goldsby, T.J., Eckert, J.A. and Corporation, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Swartz, S.M. (1998), “An empirical comparison of Handfield, R.B. and Nichols, E.L. Jr (2004), “Key issues in
anticipatory and response-base supply chain strategies”, global supply base management”, Industrial Marketing
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 29-36.
pp. 21-34. Handfield, R.B. and Pannesi, R.T. (1995), “Antecedents of
Cook, R.L. and Garver, M.S. (2002), “Subscription supply leadtime competitiveness in make-to-order manufacturing
chains: the ultimate collaborative paradigm”, Mid-American firms”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 33
Journal of Business, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 37-46. No. 2, pp. 511-38.
46
Harvard Business Review (2003), “Supply chain challenges: Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper Row,
building relationships”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 London.
No. 7, pp. 64-74. Lewis, M.W. (1998), “Iterative triangulation: a theory
Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2003), “The effect of development process using existing case studies”, Journal
supply chain glitches on shareholder wealth”, Journal of of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 455-69.
Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 501-22. Lonsdale, C. (1999), “Effectively managing vertical supply
Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2005), “Association relationships: a risk assessment model for outsourcing”,
between supply chain glitches and operating performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4
Management Science, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 695-711. No. 4, pp. 176-83.
Hult, G., Thomas, M., Ketchen, D.J. Jr and Slater, S.F. Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J. and Alber, K.L. (1998),
(2004), “Information processing, knowledge development, “Strategic supply chain planning”, Production and Inventory
and strategic supply chain performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 49-58.
Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 241-54. McCutcheon, D.M. and Meredith, J.R. (1993), “Conducting
Inger, R., Braithwaite, A. and Christopher, M. (1995), case study research in operations management”, Journal of
“Creating a manufacturing environment that is in harmony Operations Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 239-56.
with the market: the ‘how’ of supply chain management”, Mehta, J. (2004), “Supply chain management in a global
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 246-58. economy”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 15 Nos 5/6,
Ireland, R.D. and Webb, J.W. (2007), “A multi-theoretic pp. 841-8.

perspective on trust and power in strategic supply chains”, Mentzer, J.T., Foggin, J.H. and Golicic, S.L. (2000),
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, “Collaboration: the enablers, impediments, and benefits”,
pp. 482-97. Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 52-8.
Jayaram, J., Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2004), “Influence Meredith, A.R., Amoako-Gyampah, K. and Kaplan, B.
of initiators on supply chain value creation”, International (1989), “Alternative research paradigms in operations”,
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 42 No. 20, pp. 4377-400. Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 2,
Jehn, K.A., Northcraft, G.B. and Neale, M.A. (1999), “Why
pp. 297-326.
differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, Metz, P.J. (1998), “Demystifying supply chain management”,
conflict, and performance in workgroups”, Administrative
Supply Chain Management Review, Winter, pp. 46-55.
Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 741-63. Milligan, B. (1999), “Despite attempts to break them,
Jick, T.D. (1979), “Mixing qualitative and quantitative
functional silos live on”, Purchasing, Vol. 127 No. 7,
methods: triangulation in action”, Administrative Science
pp. 24-7.
Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 602-11.
Moberg, C.B., Speh, T.W. and Freese, T.L. (2003), “SCM:
Johnson, P., Fraser, L. and Michiel, R. (2001), “The supply
making the vision a reality”, Supply Chain Management
organizational structure dilemma”, Journal of Supply Chain
Review, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 34-40.
Management: A Global Review of Purchasing and Supply,
Monczka, R.M. (1996), “Supplier integration: a new level of
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 4-12.
supply chain management”, Purchasing, Vol. 120 No. 1,
Kaas, H.W. and Ohl, S. (2002), “The next word in cost
pp. 110-4.
reduction”, McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2, p. 16.
Monczka, R.M. and Morgan, J.P. (1997), “What’s wrong with
Kilpatrick, J. and Factor, R. (2000), “Logistics in Canada
survey: tracking year 2000 supply chain issues and trends”, supply chain management?”, Purchasing, Vol. 122 No. 1,
Materials Management and Distribution, Vol. 45, pp. 16-20. pp. 69-73.
Kulp, S.C., Lee, H.L. and Ofek, E. (2004), “Manufacturing Monczka, R.M. and Morgan, J.P. (1998a), “Questions you
benefits from information integration with retail need to ask about your supply chain”, Purchasing, Vol. 124
customers”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 431-44. No. 8, pp. 42-6.
Kumar, K. and van Diesel, H.G. (1996), “Sustainable Monczka, R.M. and Morgan, J.P. (1998b), “What will
collaboration: managing conflict and cooperation in happen and what you should know”, Purchasing, Vol. 124
interorganizational systems”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 78-83.
pp. 279-301. Monczka, R.M., Petersen, K.J., Handfield, R.B. and Ragatz,
La Londe, B.J. (2003), “Three problems that linger”, Supply G.L. (1998), “Success factors in strategic supplier alliances:
Chain Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 7-9. the buying company perspective”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29
La Londe, B.J. and Masters, J.M. (1994), “Emerging logistics No. 3, pp. 553-78.
strategies: blueprints for the next century”, International Morgan, J.P. (1997), “Integrated supply chains: how to make
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, them work!”, Purchasing, Vol. 122 No. 8, pp. 32-7.
Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 35-47. Neuman, J. and Samuels, C. (1996), “Supply chain
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), Organization and management: vision or reality?”, Supply Chain
Environment, Harvard Press, Boston, MA. Management: An International Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 7-10.
Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple-a supply chain”, Harvard New, S.J. (1997), “The scope of supply chain management
Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 102-13. research”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Leonard, L.N.K. and Cronan, T.P. (2002), “A study of the Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 15-22.
value and impact of electronic commerce: electronic versus Pagh, J. and Cooper, M.C. (1998), “Supply chain
traditional replenishment in supply chains”, Journal of postponement and speculation strategies: how to choose
Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 12 the right strategy”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 307-28. No. 2, pp. 13-33.
47
Park, S.H. and Ungson, G.R. (2001), “Inter-firm rivalry and Stonebraker, P.W. and Afifi, R. (2004), “Toward a
managerial complexity: a conceptual framework of alliance contingency theory of supply chains”, Management
failure”, Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 37-53. Decision, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 1131-44.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1990), “Longitudinal field research on Tan, K.C., Kannan, V. and Handfield, R.B. (1998), “Supply
change: theory and practice”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 chain management: supplier performance and firm
No. 3, pp. 267-92. performance”, International Journal of Purchasing and
Pitera, T. (2000), “Going through walls”, Inbound Logistics, Materials Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 2-9.
January, pp. 145-64. Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-
Poirier, C.C. (1999), Advanced Supply Chain Management: Hill, New York, NY.
How to Build a Sustained Competitive Advantage, Berrett- Timme, S.G. and Williams-Timme, C. (2000), “The
Koehler Publishing, Inc., San Francisco, CA. financial-SCM connection”, Supply Chain Management
Quinn, F.J. (1997a), “What’s the buzz?”, Logistics Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 32-40.
Management and Distribution Report, Vol. 96, February, Togar, M.S. and Ramaswami, S. (2004), “A benchmarking
pp. 43-6. scheme for supply chain collaboration”, Benchmarking: An
Quinn, F.J. (1997b), “Team up for supply chain success”, International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-31.
Logistics Management and Distribution Report, Vol. 36, Tyndall, G.R. (2000), “The global supply chain challenge”,
October, pp. 39-41. Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 13-15.
Tyndall, G.R., Gopal, C., Partsch, W. and Kamauff, J.
Quinn, F.J. (1999), “Cooperation and collaboration: the keys

to supply chain success”, Logistics Management and (1998), Supercharging Supply Chains, John Wiley & Sons,
Distribution Report, Vol. 38 No. 2, p. 35. Inc., New York, NY.
Rajib, P., Tiwari, D. and Srivastava, G. (2002), “Design and van Hoekm, R.I., Commandeur, H.L. and Vos, B. (1998),
development of an integrated supply chain management “Reconfiguring logistics systems through postponement
system in an internet environment”, Journal of Services strategies”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 1,
Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 75-94. pp. 33-57.
Roux, W., Dauzèrre-Pèrés, S. and Lasserre, J.B. (1999), van der Vorst, J.G.A. and Beulens, A.J.M. (1999), “A research
“Planning and scheduling in a multi-site environment”, model for the redesign of food supply chains”, International
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 19-28. Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 2 No. 2,
Sabath, R.E. and Frentzel, D.G. (1997), “Go for growth! pp. 161-80.
Venkatesh, R., Kohli, A.K. and Zaltman, G. (1995),
Supply chain management’s roles in growing revenues”,
“Influence strategies in buying centers”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 2, Summer,
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 71-82.
pp. 16-24.
Vergin, R.C. (1998), “An examination of inventory turnover
Scandura, T.A. and Williams, E.A. (2000), “Research
in the Fortune 500 industrial companies”, Production and
methodology in management: current practices, trends,
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 51-6.
and implication for future research”, Academy of
Vokurka, R.J. (1998), “Supplier partnerships: a case study”,
Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1248-64.
Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1,
Shen, W., Kremer, R., Ulieru, M. and Norrie, D. (2003), “A
pp. 30-6.
collaborative agent-based infrastructure for internet-
Vokurka, R.J., O’Leary-Kelly, S. and Flores, B. (1998),
enabled collaborative enterprises”, International Journal of “Approaches to manufacturing improvement: use and
Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 621-1639. performance implications”, Production and Inventory
Sheridan, J.H. (1999), “Managing the chain”, Industry Week, Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 42-9.
Vol. 248, September, pp. 50-66. Waller, M.A., Johnson, E.M. and Davis, T. (1999), “Vendor-
Silverstein, K. (2002), “Beyond corporate borders”, Treasury managed inventory in the retail supply chain”, Journal of
and Risk Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 15-16. Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 183-201.
Smagalla, D. (2004), “Supply-chain culture clash”, MIT Waller, M.A., Dabholkar, P.A. and Gentry, J.J. (2000),
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 1, p. 6. “Postponement, product customization, and market-
Spradley, J. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Holt, oriented supply chain management”, Journal of Business
Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY. Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 133-61.
Stank, T., Crum, M. and Arongo, M. (1999a), “Benefits of Yin, R.K. (1981), “The case study crisis”, Administrative
interfirm coordination in food industry supply chains”, Science Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 58-66.
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 21-41.
Stank, T., Daugherty, P. and Autry, C.W. (1999b),
“Collaborative planning: supporting automatic
Corresponding author
replenishment programs”, Supply Chain Management: An Matthew W. McCarter can be contacted at: mmccart6@
International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 75-85. uiuc.edu
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
48
This article has been cited by:
1. Wen Luo, Yangyan Shi, V. G. Venkatesh. 2018. Exploring the factors of achieving supply chain excellence: a New Zealand
perspective. Production Planning & Control 23, 1-13. [Crossref]
2. NabhaniFarhad, Farhad Nabhani, UhlChristian Josef, Christian Josef Uhl, KaufFlorian, Florian Kauf, ShokriAlireza, Alireza
Shokri. 2018. Purchasing manages and optimises existing product variance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
29:3, 430-448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. LuQing, Qing Lu, GohMark, Mark Goh, De SouzaRobert, Robert De Souza. 2018. An empirical investigation of swift trust
in humanitarian logistics operations. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management 8:1, 70-86. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
4. Kunal Ganguly, R. K. Padhy. 2018. Analyzing the Risks in Supply Chain Information System Implementations. Information
Resources Management Journal 31:2, 1-23. [Crossref]
5. SweeneyEdward, Edward Sweeney, GrantDavid B., David B. Grant, ManganD. John, D. John Mangan. 2018. Strategic adoption of
logistics and supply chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38:3, 852-873. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
6. Devrim Murat Yazan, Luca Fraccascia, Martijn Mes, Henk Zijm. 2018. Cooperation in manure-based biogas production networks:
An agent-based modeling approach. Applied Energy 212, 820-833. [Crossref]

7. Wojciech Czakon, Arkadiusz Kawa. 2018. Network myopia: An empirical study of network perception. Industrial Marketing
Management . [Crossref]
8. Lisa Melander. 2018. Customer and Supplier Collaboration in Green Product Innovation: External and Internal Capabilities.
Business Strategy and the Environment 18. . [Crossref]
9. Miroslava A. Rakovska, Stilyana V. Stratieva. 2018. A taxonomy of healthcare supply chain management practices. Supply Chain
Forum: An International Journal 19:1, 4-24. [Crossref]
10. Qing Lu, Mark Goh, Robert de Souza. An Empirical Investigation of Swift Trust in Humanitarian Logistics Operations 279-296.
[Crossref]
11. Stefan Märk, Mario Situm. Wenn der Lieferant zweimal klingelt – Die Zusammenarbeit mit Familienunternehmen 425-454.
[Crossref]
12. Olli-Pekka Hilmola. Early Era 1995–2008: Citations to Published Research Works and Their Authors 23-41. [Crossref]
13. Olli-Pekka Hilmola. Characteristics of Case Studies that Feature Multiple Cases 57-69. [Crossref]
14. Ricardo A. Zimmermann, Luís Miguel D. F. Ferreira, António Carrizo Moreira. The Intellectual Structure of the Relationship
Between Innovation and Supply Chain Management 3-29. [Crossref]
15. Imran Ali, Sev Nagalingam, Bruce Gurd. 2017. Building resilience in SMEs of perishable product supply chains: enablers, barriers
and risks. Production Planning & Control 28:15, 1236-1250. [Crossref]
16. Joakim Kembro, Dag Näslund, Jan Olhager. 2017. Information sharing across multiple supply chain tiers: A Delphi study on
antecedents. International Journal of Production Economics 193, 77-86. [Crossref]
17. Rameshwar Dubey, Nezih Altay, Constantin Blome. 2017. Swift trust and commitment: The missing links for humanitarian
supply chain coordination?. Annals of Operations Research 2. . [Crossref]
18. MandalSantanu, Santanu Mandal. 2017. The influence of organizational culture on healthcare supply chain resilience: moderating
role of technology orientation. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 32:8, 1021-1037. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
19. HuoBaofeng, Baofeng Huo, WangQianwen, Qianwen Wang, ZhaoXiande, Xiande Zhao, HuaZhongsheng, Zhongsheng Hua.
2017. Barriers to third-party logistics integration: empirical evidence from China. Industrial Management & Data Systems 117:8,
1738-1760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Kum Fai Yuen, Vinh Thai. 2017. Barriers to supply chain integration in the maritime logistics industry. Maritime Economics
& Logistics 19:3, 551-572. [Crossref]
21. Wynand Mostert, Wesley Niemann, Theuns Kotzé. 2017. Supply chain integration in the product return process: A study of
consumer electronics retailers. Acta Commercii 17:1. . [Crossref]
22. HaleemAbid, Abid Haleem, KhanMohd Imran, Mohd Imran Khan. 2017. Towards successful adoption of Halal logistics and its
implications for the stakeholders. British Food Journal 119:7, 1592-1605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Fernández-BarcalaMarta, Marta Fernández-Barcala, González-DíazManuel, Manuel González-Díaz, RaynaudEmmanuel,
Emmanuel Raynaud. 2017. Contrasting the governance of supply chains with and without geographical indications:
complementarity between levels. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 22:4, 305-320. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Andrea Zangiacomi, Rosanna Fornasiero, Valentina Franchini, Andrea Vinelli. 2017. Supply chain capabilities for customisation:
a case study. Production Planning & Control 28:6-8, 587-598. [Crossref]
25. Kannan Govindan, Sachin Kumar Mangla, Sunil Luthra. 2017. Prioritising indicators in improving supply chain performance
using fuzzy AHP: insights from the case example of four Indian manufacturing companies. Production Planning & Control
28:6-8, 552-573. [Crossref]
26. AC Thoo, Z Sulaiman, SL Choi, UHA Kohar. 2017. Understanding Supply Chain Management Practices for Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 215, 012014. [Crossref]
27. YuenKum Fai, Kum Fai Yuen, ThaiVinh Van, Vinh Van Thai. 2017. The influence of supply chain integration on operational
performance. The International Journal of Logistics Management 28:2, 444-463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Maico Roris Severino, Moacir Godinho Filho. 2017. POLCA system for supply chain management: simulation in the automotive
industry. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 87. . [Crossref]
29. SalamMohammad Asif, Mohammad Asif Salam. 2017. The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship
between technology, trust and operational performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal 24:2, 298-317. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
30. YangFan, Fan Yang, ZhangXiongfei, Xiongfei Zhang. 2017. The impact of sustainable supplier management practices on buyer-
supplier performance. Review of International Business and Strategy 27:1, 112-132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Maher A.N. Agi, Rohit Nishant. 2017. Understanding influential factors on implementing green supply chain management
practices: An interpretive structural modelling analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 188, 351-363. [Crossref]
32. Christoph Flöthmann, Kai Hoberg. 2017. Career Patterns of Supply Chain Executives: An Optimal Matching Analysis. Journal
of Business Logistics 38:1, 35-54. [Crossref]
33. Karita Luokkanen-Rabetino, Arto Rajala, Ilkka Sillanpää, Khuram Shahzad. Supply Chain Intelligence 193-223. [Crossref]
34. Zheng (John) Wang. Where the Rubber Meets the Road 161-169. [Crossref]
35. TrautrimsAlexander, Alexander Trautrims, DefeeCliff, Cliff Defee, FarrisTed, Ted Farris. 2016. Preparing business students for
workplace reality – using global virtual teams in logistics and SCM education. The International Journal of Logistics Management
36. Christos E. Chalyvidis, Jeffrey A. Ogden, Alan W. Johnson, John M. Colombi, Thomas C. Ford. 2016. A method for measuring
supply chain interoperability. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal 17:4, 246-258. [Crossref]
37. Kelvinne Mocke, Wesley Niemann, Theuns Kotzé. 2016. The role of personal relationships between buyers and suppliers of
third-party logistics services: A South African perspective. Acta Commercii 16:1. . [Crossref]
38. Alexander Hübner, Johannes Wollenburg, Andreas Holzapfel. 2016. Retail logistics in the transition from multi-channel to omni-
channel. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46:6/7, 562-583. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. SinghR.K., R.K. Singh, RastogiSanjay, Sanjay Rastogi, AggarwalMallika, Mallika Aggarwal. 2016. Analyzing the factors for
implementation of green supply chain management. Competitiveness Review 26:3, 246-264. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Alexander König, Stefan Spinler. 2016. The effect of logistics outsourcing on the supply chain vulnerability of shippers. The
International Journal of Logistics Management 27:1, 122-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
41. Ekrem Tatoglu, Erkan Bayraktar, Ismail Golgeci, S.C. Lenny Koh, Mehmet Demirbag, Selim Zaim. 2016. How do supply
chain management and information systems practices influence operational performance? Evidence from emerging country SMEs.
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 19:3, 181-199. [Crossref]
42. Glenn C Parry, Saara A. Brax, Roger S. Maull, Irene C. L. Ng. 2016. Operationalising IoT for reverse supply: the development
of use-visibility measures. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:2, 228-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Ricarda B. Bouncken, Boris D. Plüschke, Robin Pesch, Sascha Kraus. 2016. Entrepreneurial orientation in vertical alliances: joint
product innovation and learning from allies. Review of Managerial Science 10:2, 381-409. [Crossref]
44. P.R.C. Gopal, Jitesh Thakkar. 2016. Sustainable supply chain practices: an empirical investigation on Indian automobile industry.
Production Planning & Control 27:1, 49-64. [Crossref]
45. Stephan Printz, Johann Philipp von Cube, René Vossen, Robert Schmitt, Sabina Jeschke. Ein kybernetisches Modell
beschaffungsinduzierter Störgrößen 123-145. [Crossref]
46. Jason Monios. 2015. Identifying Governance Relationships Between Intermodal Terminals and Logistics Platforms. Transport
Reviews 35:6, 767-791. [Crossref]
47. Mohammad Shamsuddoha. Integrated Supply Chain Model for Sustainable Manufacturing: A System Dynamics Approach
155-399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
48. Sajad Fayezi, Maryam Zomorrodi. 2015. The role of relationship integration in supply chain agility and flexibility development.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 26:8, 1126-1157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Nikolaos Madenas, Ashutosh Tiwari, Christopher Turner, Sophie Peachey. 2015. An analysis of supply chain issues relating to
information flow during the automotive product development. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 26:8, 1158-1176.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. Salvatore Cannella, Roberto Dominguez, Jose M. Framinan, Manfredi Bruccoleri. Insights on Partial Information Sharing in
Supply Chain dynamics 344-350. [Crossref]
51. Stanley E. Fawcett, Matthew W. McCarter, Amydee M Fawcett, G Scott Webb, Gregory M Magnan. 2015. Why supply chain
collaboration fails: the socio-structural view of resistance to relational strategies. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal 20:6, 648-663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Claudine Antoinette Soosay, Paul Hyland. 2015. A decade of supply chain collaboration and directions for future research. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 20:6, 613-630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Robin von Haartman, Lars Bengtsson. 2015. The impact of global purchasing and supplier integration on product innovation.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:9, 1295-1311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Ademola Afolayan, Eoin Plant, Gareth R.T. White, Paul Jones, Paul Beynon-Davies. 2015. Information Technology Usage in
SMEs in a Developing Economy. Strategic Change 24:5, 483-498. [Crossref]
55. Anne Touboulic, Helen Walker. 2015. Love me, love me not: A nuanced view on collaboration in sustainable supply chains.
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 21:3, 178-191. [Crossref]
56. Orestes Peristeris, Peter J. Kilbourn, Jacobus Walters. 2015. Benchmarking supply chain management practices in a South African
confectionery manufacturing organisation. JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT and Supply Chain Management 9:1. . [Crossref]
57. Jason Monios, Rickard Bergqvist. 2015. Using a “virtual joint venture” to facilitate the adoption of intermodal transport. Supply
58. S. J. Gorane, Ravi Kant. 2015. Modelling the SCM implementation barriers. Journal of Modelling in Management 10:2, 158-178.
59. Mohamed Syazwan Ab Talib, Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid, Ai Chin Thoo. 2015. Critical success factors of supply chain management:
a literature survey and Pareto analysis. EuroMed Journal of Business 10:2, 234-263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Ruggero Golini, Matteo Kalchschmidt. 2015. Managing inventories in global sourcing contexts: A contingency perspective.
International Journal of Production Economics 165, 64-78. [Crossref]
61. Salvatore Cannella, Mónica López-Campos, Roberto Dominguez, Jalal Ashayeri, Pablo A. Miranda. 2015. A simulation model
of a coordinated decentralized supply chain. International Transactions in Operational Research 22:4, 735-756. [Crossref]
62. Bianka Kühne, Xavier Gellynck, R.D. Weaver. 2015. Enhancing Innovation Capacity Through Vertical, Horizontal, and Third-
Party Networks for Traditional Foods. Agribusiness 31:3, 294-313. [Crossref]
63. Annika Alftan, Riikka Kaipia, Lauri Loikkanen, Karen Spens. 2015. Centralised grocery supply chain planning: improved
exception management. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:3, 237-259. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
64. Janne M. Denolf, Jacques H. Trienekens, P.M. (Nel) Wognum, Jack G.A.J. van der Vorst, S.W.F. (Onno) Omta. 2015. Towards
a framework of critical success factors for implementing supply chain information systems. Computers in Industry 68, 16-26.
[Crossref]
65. Rafaela Alfalla-Luque, Juan A. Marin-Garcia, Carmen Medina-Lopez. 2015. An analysis of the direct and mediated effects of
employee commitment and supply chain integration on organisational performance. International Journal of Production Economics
162, 242-257. [Crossref]
66. Mohamed Syazwan Ab Talib, Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid, Mohd Hafiz Zulfakar. 2015. Halal supply chain critical success factors:
a literature review. Journal of Islamic Marketing 6:1, 44-71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Juan Carlos Pérez Mesa, Emilio Galdeano-Gómez. 2015. Collaborative firms managing perishable products in a complex supply
network: an empirical analysis of performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:2, 128-138. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
68. Marly Mizue Kaibara de Almeida, Fernando Augusto Silva Marins, Andréia Maria Pedro Salgado, Fernando César Almada Santos,
Sérgio Luis da Silva. 2015. Mitigation of the bullwhip effect considering trust and collaboration in supply chain management: a
literature review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 77:1-4, 495-513. [Crossref]
69. Milena Gómez-Cedeño, José María Castán-Farrero, Laura Guitart-Tarrés, Jorge Matute-Vallejo. 2015. Impact of human
resources on supply chain management and performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems 115:1, 129-157. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
70. Alexandre Tadeu Simon, Luiz Carlos Di Serio, Silvio Roberto Ignacio Pires, Guilherme Silveira Martins. 2015. Evaluating Supply
Chain Management: A Methodology Based on a Theoretical Model. Revista de Administração Contemporânea 19:1, 26-44.
[Crossref]
71. Francesco Pomponi, Luciano Fratocchi, Silvia Rossi Tafuri. 2015. Trust development and horizontal collaboration in logistics: a
theory based evolutionary framework. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:1, 83-97. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
72. Zhi Cao, Baofeng Huo, Yuan Li, Xiande Zhao. 2015. The impact of organizational culture on supply chain integration: a
contingency and configuration approach. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:1, 24-41. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
73. Martin Tanco, Daniel Jurburg, Matias Escuder. 2015. Main difficulties hindering supply chain performance: an exploratory
analysis at Uruguayan SMEs. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20:1, 11-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Trevor Cadden, Donna Marshall, Paul Humphreys, Ying Yang. 2015. Old habits die hard: exploring the effect of supply chain
dependency and culture on performance outcomes and relationship satisfaction. Production Planning & Control 26:1, 53-77.
[Crossref]
75. Akshay A. Pujara, Ravi Kant. 2015. Supply Chain Information Sharing. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply
Chain Management 8:1, 22-38. [Crossref]
76. Arshad Alam, Prabir K. Bagchi, Bumsoo Kim, Subrata Mitra, Fernando Seabra. 2014. The mediating effect of logistics integration
on supply chain performance. The International Journal of Logistics Management 25:3, 553-580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
77. Sebastian Theißen, Stefan Spinler, Arnd Huchzermeier. 2014. Reducing the Carbon Footprint within Fast-Moving Consumer
Goods Supply Chains through Collaboration: The Manufacturers' Perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management 50:4, 44-61.
[Crossref]
78. Miguel González-Loureiro, Marina Dabic, Francisco Puig. 2014. Global organizations and supply chain. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 44:8/9, 689-712. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Stephan M. Wagner, René Kemmerling. 2014. Supply chain management executives in corporate upper echelons. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management 20:3, 156-166. [Crossref]
80. B. Adenso-Díaz, S. Lozano, P. Moreno. 2014. Analysis of the synergies of merging multi-company transportation needs.
Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 10:6, 533-547. [Crossref]
81. Chialin Chen, Jun Zhang, Teresa Delaurentis. 2014. Quality control in food supply chain management: An analytical model and
case study of the adulterated milk incident in China. International Journal of Production Economics 152, 188-199. [Crossref]
82. Eduardo Ortas, José M. Moneva, Igor Álvarez. 2014. Sustainable supply chain and company performance. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 19:3, 332-350. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Thoo Ai Chin, Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid, Amran Rasli, Huam Hon Tat. 2014. A Literature Analysis on the Relationship between
External Integration, Environmental Uncertainty and Firm Performance in Malaysian SMEs. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 130, 75-84. [Crossref]
84. Abdussamet Polater, Cetin Bektas, Serkan Demirdogen. An investigation of government and private hospitals' supply chain
management 115-119. [Crossref]
85. Alexandre Tadeu Simon, Eduardo Guilherme Satolo, Herbert Abude Scheidl, Luiz Carlos Di Sério. 2014. Business process in
supply chain integration in sugar and ethanol industry. Business Process Management Journal 20:2, 272-289. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
86. 2014. Antecedents and Consequences of Integrating Logistics Capabilities across the Supply Chain. Transportation Journal 53:2,
211-234. [Crossref]
87. Sergio Palomero, Ricardo Chalmeta. 2014. A guide for supply chain integration in SMEs. Production Planning & Control 25:5,
372-400. [Crossref]
88. Richard E. Plank, Robert Hooker. 2014. Sales and operations planning. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing 8:1, 18-36.
89. Joshua M. Davis, Carlo Mora-Monge, Gioconda Quesada, Marvin Gonzalez. 2014. Cross-cultural influences on e-value creation
in supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:2, 187-199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
90. Sebastian Theißen, Stefan Spinler. 2014. Strategic analysis of manufacturer-supplier partnerships: An ANP model for
collaborative CO2 reduction management. European Journal of Operational Research 233:2, 383-397. [Crossref]
91. Lisa M. Ellram, Martha C. Cooper. 2014. Supply Chain Management: It's All About the Journey, Not the Destination. Journal
of Supply Chain Management 50:1, 8-20. [Crossref]
92. Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, Aidas Vasilis Vasiliauskas, Virgilija Zinkevičiūtė. 2014. Securing Enterprises Competitive Advantage
through the Management of Components of Distribution System. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 110, 353-360.
[Crossref]
93. Radoslav Škapa. 2014. Reverse logistics in the Czech Republic: Barriers to development. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et
Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis 59:4, 363-370. [Crossref]
94. Anne-Maarit Majanoja, Michael C. Loney, Björn Wörlund, Linnéa Linko, Ville Leppänen. 2014. A Globally Integrated Supply
Chain Delivery Quality Strategy: Transformation Insights at the Nokia Devices Unit. American Journal of Industrial and Business
Management 04:08, 413-431. [Crossref]
95. Rajwinder Singh, H. S. Sandhu, B. A. Metri, R. S. Ghera. 2014. Understanding Organized Retail Supply Chain Environment.
International Journal of Operations Research and Information Systems 5:1, 58-75. [Crossref]
96. Patrik Spalt, Anja-Tatjana Braun, Oliver Schöllhammer. 2013. Globales Wertstrommanagement. ZWF Zeitschrift für
wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb 108:12, 926-930. [Crossref]
97. Susan Standing, Craig Standing, Peter Love, Denise Gengatharen. 2013. How organizing visions influence the adoption and use
of reverse auctions. Electronic Commerce Research 13:4, 493-511. [Crossref]
98. Nicholas Blessing Mavengere. 2013. The Role of Information Systems in Promoting Strategic Agility in Supply Chains. Journal
of Information Technology Case and Application Research 15:4, 13-33. [Crossref]
99. Bang‐Ning Hwang, Ta‐ping Lu. 2013. Key success factor analysis for e‐SCM project implementation and a case study in
semiconductor manufacturers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:8, 657-683. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
100. Amydee M. Fawcett, Stanley E. Fawcett. 2013. Benchmarking the state of humanitarian aid and disaster relief. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 20:5, 661-692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Richard L. Gruner, Damien Power, Paul K. Bergey. Leveraging Social Media Technology for Business Transformation: The
Case of Corporate Social Communities 27-42. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
102. Michael Bernon, John Upperton, Marko Bastl, John Cullen. 2013. An exploration of supply chain integration in the retail product
returns process. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:7, 586-608. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
103. Dileep More, Preetam Basu. 2013. Challenges of supply chain finance. Business Process Management Journal 19:4, 624-647.
104. Na Fu, Patrick C. Flood, Janine Bosak, Tim Morris, Philip O'Regan. 2013. Exploring the performance effect of HPWS on
professional service supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:3, 292-307. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
105. S.J. Gorane, Ravi Kant. 2013. Modelling the SCM enablers: an integrated ISM‐fuzzy MICMAC approach. Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics 25:2, 263-286. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
106. Peter Tatham. 2013. An exploration of trust and shared values in UK defence supply networks. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 43:2, 148-166. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
107. Trevor Cadden, Donna Marshall, Guangming Cao. 2013. Opposites attract: organisational culture and supply chain performance.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:1, 86-103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
108. Bianka Kühne, Xavier Gellynck, Robert D. Weaver. 2013. The influence of relationship quality on the innovation capacity in
traditional food chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:1, 52-65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. Andrea Lago da Silva, Guilherme Hernandes Vasconcellos Lombardi, Márcio Lopes Pimenta. 2013. Alinhamento interfuncional:
um estudo exploratório sobre os pontos de contato entre marketing, logística e produção. Gestão & Produção 20:4, 863-881.
[Crossref]
110. Atefeh Khosravi, Nasser Modiri. 2013. Service Oriented Architecture Essentiality as a Best-Practice for the Development of Large
Software Projects. Journal of Automation and Control Engineering 1:2, 170-172. [Crossref]
111. Federica Cucchiella, Idiano D’Adamo, Massimo Gastaldi, S.C. Lenny Koh. 2012. Renewable energy options for buildings:
Performance evaluations of integrated photovoltaic systems. Energy and Buildings 55, 208-217. [Crossref]
112. David M. Gligor, Mary C. Holcomb. 2012. Antecedents and Consequences of Supply Chain Agility: Establishing the Link to
Firm Performance. Journal of Business Logistics 33:4, 295-308. [Crossref]
113. Thoo Ai Chin, Abu Bakar Abdul Hamid, Amran Rasli, Rohaizat Baharun. 2012. Adoption of Supply Chain Management in
SMEs. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 65, 614-619. [Crossref]
114. Shuyu Lin, Niall Piercy. 2012. New Product Development Competencies and Capabilities: The Case of the Fashion SME. Journal
of General Management 38:2, 61-77. [Crossref]
115. Rafael Henrique Palma Lima, Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti. 2012. Analysis of the interplay between knowledge and performance
management in industrial clusters. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 10:4, 368-379. [Crossref]
116. Alison Ashby, Mike Leat, Melanie Hudson‐Smith. 2012. Making connections: a review of supply chain management and
sustainability literature. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:5, 497-516. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
117. Elena Ciancimino, Salvatore Cannella, Manfredi Bruccoleri, Jose M. Framinan. 2012. On the Bullwhip Avoidance Phase: The
Synchronised Supply Chain. European Journal of Operational Research 221:1, 49-63. [Crossref]
118. Radoslav Škapa, Alena Klapalová. 2012. Reverse logistics in Czech companies: increasing interest in performance measurement.
Management Research Review 35:8, 676-692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

119. Jin Su, Vidyaranya B. Gargeya. 2012. Strategic sourcing, sourcing capability and firm performance in the US textile and apparel
industry. Strategic Outsourcing: An International Journal 5:2, 145-165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
120. Carel Nicolaas Bezuidenhout, Shamim Bodhanya, Linda Brenchley. 2012. An analysis of collaboration in a sugarcane production
and processing supply chain. British Food Journal 114:6, 880-895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
121. María-José Verdecho, Juan-Jose Alfaro-Saiz, Raul Rodriguez-Rodriguez, Angel Ortiz-Bas. 2012. A multi-criteria approach for
managing inter-enterprise collaborative relationships. Omega 40:3, 249-263. [Crossref]
122. Alexander Ellinger, Hyunju Shin, William Magnus Northington, Frank G. Adams, Debra Hofman, Kevin O'Marah. 2012. The
influence of supply chain management competency on customer satisfaction and shareholder value. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal 17:3, 249-262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
123. Marko Kohtamäki, Michael Bourlakis. 2012. Antecedents of relationship learning in supplier partnerships from the perspective
of an industrial customer: the direct effects model. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 27:4, 299-310. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
124. Wei Guan, Jakob Rehme. 2012. Vertical integration in supply chains: driving forces and consequences for a manufacturer's
downstream integration. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:2, 187-201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
125. María-José Verdecho. 2012. RETRACTED: The analytic network process for managing inter-enterprise collaboration: A case
study in a collaborative enterprise network. Expert Systems with Applications 39:1, 626-637. [Crossref]
126. Scott J. Grawe, Patricia J. Daugherty, James C. McElroy. 2012. External organizational commitment among organizational
implants: The case of logistics service providers. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 48:1,
165-177. [Crossref]
127. STANLEY E. FAWCETT, AMYDEE M. FAWCETT, BRADLEE J. WATSON, GREGORY M. MAGNAN. 2012. PEEKING
INSIDE THE BLACK BOX: TOWARD AN UNDERSTANDING OF SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION DYNAMICS.
Journal of Supply Chain Management 48:1, 44-72. [Crossref]
128. A. A. Pujara, R. Kant, M. D. Singh. Information sharing in supply chain: Modeling the barriers 918-922. [Crossref]
129. Kyung Kyu Kim, Sung Yul Ryoo, Myung Dug Jung. 2011. Inter-organizational information systems visibility in buyer–supplier
relationships: The case of telecommunication equipment component manufacturing industry. Omega 39:6, 667-676. [Crossref]
130. Shams Rahman, Yen‐Chun Jim Wu. 2011. Logistics outsourcing in China: the manufacturer‐cum‐supplier perspective. Supply
131. Ta-Ping Lu, Bang-Ning Hwang, Yu-Da Chang. A Study of Key Success Factors for Supply Chain Management System in
Semiconductor Industry 87-92. [Crossref]
132. Alain Y.L. Chong, Felix T.S. Chan, K.B. Ooi, J.J. Sim. 2011. Can Malaysian firms improve organizational/innovation performance
via SCM?. Industrial Management & Data Systems 111:3, 410-431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
133. Erik Hofmann. 2011. Natural hedging as a risk prophylaxis and supplier financing instrument in automotive supply chains. Supply
134. Helena Forslund. 2011. The size of a logistics performance measurement system. Facilities 29:3/4, 133-148. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
135. Peter Tatham, Karen Spens. 2011. Towards a humanitarian logistics knowledge management system. Disaster Prevention and
136. STANLEY E. FAWCETT, CYNTHIA WALLIN, CHAD ALLRED, AMYDEE M. FAWCETT, GREGORY M. MAGNAN.
2011. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AS AN ENABLER OF SUPPLY CHAIN COLLABORATION: A DYNAMIC-
CAPABILITIES PERSPECTIVE. Journal of Supply Chain Management 47:1, 38-59. [Crossref]
137. Li Zhang, Song Wang, Fachao Li, Hong Wang, Li Wang, Wenan Tan. 2011. A few measures for ensuring supply chain quality.
International Journal of Production Research 49:1, 87-97. [Crossref]
138. Trevor Cadden, Paul Humphreys, Marie Mchugh. 2010. The Influence of Organisational Culture on Strategic Supply Chain
Relationship Success. Journal of General Management 36:2, 37-64. [Crossref]
139. Jouni Kauremaa, Juha-Miikka Nurmilaakso, Kari Tanskanen. 2010. E-business enabled operational linkages: The role of
RosettaNet in integrating the telecommunications supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics 127:2, 343-357.
[Crossref]
140. Festus O. Olorunniwo, Xiaoming Li. 2010. Information sharing and collaboration practices in reverse logistics. Supply Chain
141. Dimitris Papakiriakopoulos, Katerina Pramatari. 2010. Collaborative performance measurement in supply chain. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 110:9, 1297-1318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
142. Cherian Samuel, Kasiviswanadh Gonapa, P.K. Chaudhary, Ananya Mishra. 2010. Supply chain dynamics in healthcare services.
International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 23:7, 631-642. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
143. Michael J. Braunscheidel, Nallan C. Suresh, Alicia D. Boisnier. 2010. Investigating the impact of organizational culture on supply
chain integration. Human Resource Management 49:5, 883-911. [Crossref]
144. Lynette J. Ryals, Andrew S. Humphries. 2010. Efficiency versus value maximisation in co‐manufacturing relationships. The
International Journal of Logistics Management 21:2, 309-330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
145. Paul Hong, Oahn Tran, Kihyun Park. 2010. Electronic commerce applications for supply chain integration and competitive
capabilities. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:4, 539-560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
146. Peter Tatham, Gyöngyi Kovács. 2010. The application of “swift trust” to humanitarian logistics. International Journal of Production
Economics 126:1, 35-45. [Crossref]
147. Boudewijn A. Driedonks, Josette M.P. Gevers, Arjan J. van Weele. 2010. Managing sourcing team effectiveness: The need for a
team perspective in purchasing organizations. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 16:2, 109-117. [Crossref]
148. Damien Power, Victoria Hanna, Prakash J. Singh, Danny Samson. 2010. Electronic markets, data access and collaboration:
relative value to performance in firm operations. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 15:3, 238-251. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
149. Helena Forslund. 2010. ERP systems' capabilities for supply chain performance management. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 110:3, 351-367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
150. Gülgün Kayakutlu, Gülçin Büyüközkan. 2010. Effective supply value chain based on competence success. Supply Chain
151. Esa Hämäläinen, Ulla Tapaninen. 2010. Economics of a Nordic paper mill: case study. Industrial Management & Data Systems
152. İsmail Erol, Meltem Nurtaniş Velioğlu, Funda Sivrikaya Şerifoğlu, Gülçin Büyüközkan, Necati Aras, Nigar Demircan Çakar,
Aybek Korugan. 2010. Exploring reverse supply chain management practices in Turkey. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 15:1, 43-54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
153. Josep Monguet, Marco Ferruzca, Alfredo Gutiérrez, Yadira Alatriste, Claudia Martínez, Carlos Cordoba, Joaquín Fernández,
Teresa Sanguino, Josep Aguilà. Vector Consensus: Decision Making for Collaborative Innovation Communities 218-227.
[Crossref]
154. Paula M.G. van Veen‐Dirks, Peter J.A. Verdaasdonk. 2009. The dynamic relation between management control and governance
structure in a supply chain context. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 14:6, 466-478. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
155. Maria Jose Verdecho, Juan Jose Alfaro, Raul Rodriguez-Rodriguez. 2009. Foundations for collaborative performance
measurement. Production Planning & Control 20:3, 193-205. [Crossref]
156. J.-C. Hennet. 2009. A globally optimal local inventory control policy for multistage supply chains. International Journal of
Production Research 47:2, 435-453. [Crossref]
157. Kim Bryceson, Geoff Slaughter. Integrated Autonomy A Modeling-Based Investigation of Agrifood Supply Chain Performance
334-339. [Crossref]
158. E. Hofmann, A. Locker. 2009. Value-based performance measurement in supply chains: a case study from the packaging industry.
Production Planning & Control 20:1, 68-81. [Crossref]
159. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Role of Sustainable Performance Measurement System in Global Supply Chain 658-676. [Crossref]
160. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Role of Sustainable Performance Measurement System in Global Supply Chain 331-348. [Crossref]
161. Wesley S. Boyce. Supply Chain Relationships 227-239. [Crossref]
162. Sajad Fayezi, Maryam Zomorrodi. Supply Chain Management 313-340. [Crossref]
163. Olayinka David-West. Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and the Supply Chain 495-515. [Crossref]
164. . Introduction 1-16. [Crossref]
165. . The Recognization of Collaboration 43-75. [Crossref]
166. . Literature Review 76-139. [Crossref]
167. . Pilot Study Findings 182-195. [Crossref]

168. . Discussion and Research Innovation and Management Enlightenment 240-260. [Crossref]
169. Peter Tatham, Gyöngyi Kovács. Developing and Maintaining Trust in Hastily Formed Relief Networks 1302-1324. [Crossref]
170. Joseph Sarkis, Karen M. Spens, Gyöngyi Kovács. A Study of Barriers to Greening the Relief Supply Chain 1407-1417. [Crossref]
171. Lincoln C. Wood. Coopetition in Supply Chains 76-93. [Crossref]
172. Peter Tatham, Gyöngyi Kovács. Developing and Maintaining Trust in Hastily Formed Relief Networks 173-195. [Crossref]
173. Joseph Sarkis, Karen M. Spens, Gyöngyi Kovács. A Study of Barriers to Greening the Relief Supply Chain 196-207. [Crossref]

Jurnal Asing 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal Asing 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective supply chain management

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective

Keywords Supply chain management, Strategic management, Relationship marketing

Paper type Research paper

Introduction these enticing benefits, organizations who partner in strategic

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Figure 1 A contingency framework for understanding supply chain implementation

Table I Literature review benefits to strategic supply chain management

Decreased order cycle time £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 11

Table II Literature review barriers to strategic supply chain management

Poor SCM understanding £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 7

Table III Literature review bridges to strategic supply chain management

Formal performance tracking £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 11

number of managers contacted, the number of surveys

SCM is a boundary-spanning activity (Bowersox et al., 1999). Case studies

Table V Combined and channel rankings of benefits, barriers, and bridges

Company focus Managerial complexity People management

Ireland, R.D. and Webb, J.W. (2007), “A multi-theoretic pp. 841-8.

Quinn, F.J. (1999), “Cooperation and collaboration: the keys

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

An agent-based modeling approach. Applied Energy 212, 820-833. [Crossref]

Management Research Review 35:8, 676-692. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

167. . Pilot Study Findings 182-195. [Crossref]

You might also like