Tan 1999

International Journal of Operations & Production Management
Supply chain management: an empirical study of its impact on performance

Keah‐Choon Tan, Vijay R. Kannan, Robert B. Handfield, Soumen Ghosh,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Keah‐Choon Tan, Vijay R. Kannan, Robert B. Handfield, Soumen Ghosh, (1999) "Supply chain management:
an empirical study of its impact on performance", International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 19 Issue: 10, pp.1034-1052, https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910287064
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910287064
Downloaded on: 21 July 2018, At: 06:55 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 42 other documents.
Downloaded by INSEAD At 06:55 21 July 2018 (PT)
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 10250 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2005),"Performance measurement for green supply chain management", Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 12 Iss 4 pp. 330-353 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770510609015">https://
doi.org/10.1108/14635770510609015</a>
(2002),"Supply chain management: a strategic perspective", International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 22 Iss 6 pp. 614-631 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443570210427659">https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210427659</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:178665 []
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.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com
IJOPM
19,10 Supply chain management: an
empirical study of its impact
on performance
1034 Keah-Choon Tan
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
Vijay R. Kannan
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, USA
Robert B. Handfield
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA, and
Soumen Ghosh
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Keywords Supply-chain management, TQM, Customer service

Abstract Total quality management, supply base management, customer driven corporate
policy, and other elements of supply chain management are frequently cited as strategic options to
achieve competitive success in the 1990s. However, attempts by companies to implement these
options have not been universally successful and have in many cases failed to yield the desired
results. This study presents details of a survey carried out to determine whether particular quality
management, supply base management, and customer relations practices can impact corporate
performance. In addition it examines the impact analyzing the competitive environment has on
performance. Regression models identify several factors that directly and positively impact
corporate performance. These include the extent to which companies analyze the strategies of
competitors and determine future customer requirements, and the commitment they have to
evaluating performance throughout the supply chain.
Introduction
In the 1980s, intense global competition forced business organizations to offer
high quality products at low cost while simultaneously increasing design
flexibility. Producers embraced the principles of just-in-time and total quality
management (TQM) as they sought to enhance competitiveness. Companies
implemented practices including benchmarking, process control techniques, and
training and involvement programs as they recognized the importance of
building quality into products (Ebrahimpour, 1985; Modarress and Ansari; 1989;
Schroeder et al., 1992). Senior management leadership on quality related matters,
strategic quality planning, and evaluation of information on quality also became
part of the management agenda (Benson et al., 1991; Saraph et al., 1989).
As competition in the 1990s intensified further, so did the challenges
associated with getting a product or service to the right place at the right time
at the lowest delivered total cost. Manufacturing organizations began to realize
International Journal of Operations &
Production Management,
Vol. 19 No. 10, 1999, pp. 1034-1052.
This research was supported by a grant from the Center for International Business Education
# MCB University Press, 0144-3577 and Research (CIBER) at Michigan State University.
the potential benefits and importance of strategic and cooperative buyer- Supply chain
supplier relationships. Organizations began to involve strategic suppliers in management
resource management decisions (Morgan and Monczka, 1996). Instead of
relying on tools such as acceptance sampling to establish the quality of
incoming materials and component parts, manufacturers purchased from a
more limited number of qualified or certified suppliers (Inman and Hubler,
1992). Many producers embraced the concept of supply base management, 1035
hoping to reduce costs by cutting inventory and improving efficiency
throughout the supply chain (Watts and Hahn, 1993, Krause, 1997). In addition,
organizations placed more emphasis on customer driven corporate policies that
sought to simultaneously pursue objectives of customer satisfaction, quality
and productivity improvement, and cost reduction.
The simultaneous integration of customer requirements, internal processes,
and upstream supplier performance is commonly referred to as supply chain
management (SCM). While SCM has become popular, there are in practice few
examples of truly integrated supply chains (Handfield and Nichols, 1998).

Although the popular press is replete with reports of firms that developed
strategic supplier-buyer partnerships, outsourced non-core competencies, and
adopted strategic customer relations practices, few companies have succeeded
simultaneously on all these fronts. Similarly, many TQM initiatives have failed
to achieve their desired results despite tremendous resources having been
expended on them (Hiam, 1993).
Given the failure of so many TQM and SCM efforts to yield the desired
improvements in performance, the question remains whether specific TQM and
SCM practices can positively impact corporate performance. It is also unclear
how competition and management's response to it impacts performance. This
study describes a research effort that addresses these questions. The study has
four underlying objectives. The first is to identify how specifically a firm's
competitive environment and management's response to it affects performance.
The three remaining objectives relate to the question of whether specific TQM
and SCM practices affect performance. Specifically, the study seeks to identify
how a firm's TQM, supply base management, and customer relations practices
affect performance.
Research constructs
Competitive environment
In the 1950s and 1960s, the primary operations strategy of most manufacturers
was one of unit cost reduction. This was accomplished using mass production
methods, with little attention being paid to product or process flexibility. New
product development was slow and relied exclusively on in-house technology
and capacity. Increasing competition brought with it the advent of modern
management philosophies such as TQM, supply base management and
customer driven corporate strategy. These philosophies have brought about a
shift in supplier-buyer relationships. Relationships that were once adversarial
are now being developed as strategic alliances (Monczka et al., 1998).
IJOPM Manufacturers are increasingly tapping into suppliers' technologies and
19,10 expertise in product design and development, a concept commonly known as
early supplier involvement (Ragatz et al., 1997). Increasing numbers of
companies also are adopting TQM programs (Hiam, 1993) or developing a more
customer oriented focus to improve their competitive position.
While it can be expected that the overall level of competition in a firm's
1036 primary industry, will, by providing the impetus for a critical evaluation of
business practices, affect its performance, there is little empirical research
linking the competitive environment to a firm's performance. For the purposes
of this research, the competitiveness of the environment is therefore
operationalized in terms of the intensity of competition. Six indicators of
competitive intensity were developed (Appendix, part I). These include
management's perceptions of the aggressiveness of competitors, the time and
effort taken by management to analyze and respond to the strategies and
actions of competitors, and management's perceptions of overall industry
competitiveness.
Total quality management practices

Over the past ten years, TQM has become a pervasive element of business
strategy, and is considered by business executives to be one of their main
strategic issues (Malhotra et al., 1994). In the last decade alone, between 75 and
80 percent of large companies have adopted TQM programs (Hiam, 1993).
However, while TQM efforts at companies such as Harley-Davidson and Xerox
have resulted in improved competitiveness, similar results in other
organizations have remained elusive (Grant et al., 1994). Although the literature
on quality management is replete with approaches to managing quality, it
contains little evidence of well defined linkages between practice and outcome.
The result has been that companies have implemented quality initiatives in a
piecemeal manner or without understanding their impact (Schaffer and
Thomson, 1992; Cole, 1993). Only recently have efforts been made to develop a
theory of quality management or to empirically identify relationships between
quality practice and organizational performance (Anderson et al., 1994; 1995;
Flynn et al., 1995; Ahire et al., 1996).
Recent evidence indicates that leading edge companies are shifting their
quality emphasis from inspection to designing quality into products,
accompanying this with process control and process improvement efforts
(Greene, 1993). These initiatives, particularly when implemented concurrently
with managing the supply base, were cited as strategic practices to achieve
competitive advantage. Other practices associated with quality improvement
mirror those embodied in the evaluation criteria for awards such as the
Baldrige and Deming awards (Anderson et al., 1994; 1995; Black and Porter,
1996). These include strategic quality planning and senior management
leadership. However, despite the shift toward designing quality into products,
some quality professionals and academicians argue that there is still a need for
inspection (Sower et al., 1993).
To operationalize TQM practice, 38 practices were identified ranging from Supply chain
the strategic management of quality to the use of specific tools and practices of management
quality management (Appendix, part II). These include the commitment of top
management to quality improvement, the training of senior managers,
supervisors and hourly employees in quality methods, the use of
benchmarking, and an emphasis on quality in dealing with customers and
suppliers. 1037
Supply base management practices
In the face of a competitive global market, organizations have downsized,
focused on core competencies, and attempted to achieve competitive advantage
by more effectively managing purchasing activities and relationships with
suppliers. Supply base management refers to how firms utilize their suppliers'
processes, technologies, and capabilities to enhance competitive advantage
(Farley, 1997), and how the manufacturing, logistics, materials, distribution
and transportation functions are coordinated within organizations (Lee and

Billington, 1992). Many firms have reduced their supply base so they can more
effectively manage relationships with strategic suppliers (Tully, 1995). Buying
firms are developing cooperative, mutually beneficial relationships with
suppliers and viewing suppliers as virtual extensions of their firm (Mason,
1996; Copacino, 1996). In doing so, they have significantly increased their
reliance on suppliers.
A result of increasing reliance on suppliers has been that shortcomings in
supplier performance and/or competency may present buying firms with
problems such as missed shipping dates and inferior quality levels. For other
companies however, superior supplier performance or capability may lead to
superior quality and/or rapid integration of the latest technological
breakthroughs into the buying firm's own products through early supplier
involvement (Ragatz et al., 1997). Suppliers may also participate earlier in the
product design process to render more cost-effective design choices, develop
alternative conceptual solutions, select the best components and technologies,
and help in design assessment (Monczka et al., 1994; Burt and Soukup, 1985).
Emphasizing internal competencies requires greater reliance on external
suppliers to support non-core requirements, particularly in design and
engineering support (Prahalad and Hamel, 1990). Firms may thus find that they
have replaced the need for one set of competencies with another, that of
effectively managing relationships with suppliers.
Companies encountering problems due to increased reliance on suppliers use
a variety of approaches to address the problems. They may reverse their
downsizing emphasis and bring outsourced products and services back in-
house, secure alternative sources of supply, or work with existing suppliers to
increase their performance and capabilities (Watts and Hahn, 1993). Supplier
development efforts vary in terms of the effort expended by the buying firm
and in the variety of tools used. However, a recent study found that firms often
use supplier evaluation or performance measurement to identify specific
IJOPM supplier deficiencies and to develop plans to address them (Krause, 1997). Such
19,10 efforts may involve the measurement of suppliers' delivery, quality, and cost
performance, site visits, certification of suppliers' products and processes, and
the setting of performance goals.
For the purpose of this study, ten practices used to effectively manage the
supply base and increase supplier performance were identified (Appendix, part
1038 III). These include the use of quality assurance programs for monitoring
supplier's processes and products, the use of site visits, and the sharing of
information with suppliers.
Customer relations practices

A company's customer relations practices can affect its success in managing
the supply base as well as its performance (Scott and Westbrook, 1991; Ellram,
1991; Turner, 1993). A key element of successful supply base management
involves downstream integration of customers as well as the management of
upstream suppliers. Each entity in the supply chain is a supplier as well as a

customer. When a customer driven corporate vision is implemented
simultaneously with effective TQM and supply base management practices, it
can produce a competitive edge in a number of different ways. These include
increases in productivity, reductions in inventory and cycle time, increased
customer satisfaction, market share and profits. However, there is little
empirical evidence in the literature linking customer relations practices and
performance to support the conceptual foundation of customer driven corporate
policy.
To operationalize customer relation practices, seven elements of customer
service were identified (Appendix, part IV). These include the evaluation of
customer complaints and the measurement of customer satisfaction. A
company's performance on these dimensions is an indicator of whether it is
aware of the importance of customer satisfaction and of the company's dual
roles as buyer and supplier in the value chain.
Performance measures
Economists disagree about the use of accounting data to measure firm
performance because it ignores opportunity costs and the time value of money
(Chen and Lee, 1995). Business performance, the argument goes, should be
measured by financial data, such as the internal rate of return (IRR). Financial
data provides a measurement of a firm's performance via the market's
valuation of the firm's securities. However, since future cash flows of the
business entity cannot be observed, measures of business performance are
typically based on accounting data such as return on investment (ROI) or
return on assets (ROA).
Jahera and Lloyd (1992) observed that ROI was a valid performance measure
for midsize firms. However, the validity of ROI as a performance measure has
been challenged (Tobin and Brainard, 1968). A firm's financial leverage can
affect its ROI to such a degree that it renders comparisons between firms
meaningless. ROI also ignores opportunity costs and the time value of Supply chain
investments. An alternate measure of performance, Tobin's q ratio, evaluates management
the ratio of the market value of a firm to the replacement cost of its assets
(Tobin, 1969). However, the prospect of obtaining accurate measures of each
firm's market value and the replacement cost of its assets to calculate Tobin's q
was deemed impractical for this research.
Given the lack of consensus regarding a valid cross-industry measure of 1039
corporate performance, performance in this study was operationalized by
senior management's perceptions of a firm's performance in comparison to that
of major competitors (Tan et al., 1998). Nine dimensions of performance were
considered including market share, return on assets (ROA), and overall
competitive position (Appendix, part V). (Performance measures were
validated by comparing performance for a subset of firms to actual financial
performance obtained from the Dun and Bradstreet database. Correlations were
all statistically significant, providing support for the use of managers'
perceptual measures as a proxy for actual performance.)
Research hypotheses and survey methodology

The objective of this research is to examine the linkages between a firm's
competitive environment, TQM, supply base management, and customer
relation practices, and firm performance. This objective is driven by the notion
that although firms have reengineered their internal operations to achieve
higher quality levels, they have also become more dependent on their suppliers.
As noted earlier, firms that have out-sourced non-core activities have realized
they must now effectively manage the performance and capabilities of their
suppliers of outsourced products and services. It can therefore be surmised that
firms reporting the highest levels of financial and operational performance will
be emphasizing not only internal quality initiatives, but also initiatives relating
to the management of all elements of their supply chain including customers
and suppliers, and the quality of delivered products. To test this proposition,
the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: A firm's competitive environment and management's responsiveness to
it affects its performance.
H2: The use of TQM tools and practices positively affects performance.
H3: Effective management of the supply base positively affects
performance
H4: A customer relations focus is positively related to high levels of
performance.
To obtain data to test the hypotheses, a survey instrument was designed based
on the constructs described earlier. Respondents were asked to indicate the
performance of their firm compared to that of major industry competitors, the
level of competition in their firm's primary industry, the extent to which they
used the quality and supply base management practices of interest, and their
IJOPM ability to monitor customer relationships (Appendix). Questions were designed
19,10 using a seven point Likert scale. In addition, several questions that sought
general classification and demographic information on the company were
posed. The survey instrument was pre-tested at meetings with quality
managers/directors at ten firms in the USA and Europe. As a result of these
interviews, the questionnaire was revised to improve clarity and content
1040 validity.
The survey was sent to 1,469 individuals identified from an American
Society of Quality Control list of 3,000 quality directors and vice-presidents.
The firms represented by these individuals operated in a broad range of
industries including the automotive, chemical, computer, construction,
consumer products, defense, electronics, industrial products, medical device,
packaging, pharmaceutical, paperboard, semiconductor, and telecommuni-
cations industries. Two mailings and one follow-up reminder resulted in a
response rate of 21.3 per cent (313 surveys returned).
Preliminary results
Sample demographics
Companies responding to the survey employed between 12 and 256,000 people
with a mean of 5,228. Of the companies, 22 per centhad fewer than 100
employees while another 15 per cent employed between 101 and 200 employees.
Approximately 9 per cent of the companies employed more than 8,000
employees. Annual sales of the companies (1993) ranged from $1 million to $65
billion with a mean of approximately $900 million. Sales in the USA and
Canada accounted for 82 per cent of the total, the remainder distributed
throughout Western Europe (7 per cent), Japan and the Pacific Basin (4 per
cent), Mexico and Latin America (3 per cent), and 2 per cent each in Southeast
Asia and Central and Eastern Europe. When asked to indicate the level of
competition they faced from competitors globally, respondents indicated that
their firms faced the greatest competition in the USA and Canada followed by
Western Europe and Japan and the Pacific Basin.
Competitive environment, supply chain management practices, and

performance
Prior to analyzing responses to the five item scales of primary importance to
the study (competitive environment, total quality management practices,
supply base management practices, customer relations practices, and
performance measures), Cronbach's (Cronbach, 1951) was used to assess the
reliability of each scale. Values of in excess of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1988) indicate
that all five scales can be considered to be reliable (Table I).
Bonferroni multiple comparisons ( = 0.05) showed that respondents
considered the number of competencies required to survive ( = 5.89) to be the
strongest indicator of industry competitiveness followed by the overall
competitiveness of the industry ( = 5.84). The amount of time spent analyzing
major competitors' strategies and actions ( = 4.30) was considered to be the
Scale Notes Supply chain
management
Competitive environment 0.803
Total quality management 0.956 Item 35 correlated negatively with other items in
practices the scale. When it was omitted, a value of =
0.961 was obtained. Item 35 was omitted from
subsequent analysis 1041
Supply base management 0.736 Only 5.1 per cent of variation can be explained by
practices item 8. When it was omitted, a value of = 0.763
was obtained. Item 8 was omitted from subsequent
analysis
Customer relations practices 0.880
Performance measures 0.809 Item 6 correlated weakly with other items in the
scale. When it was omitted, a value of = 0.833
was obtained. Item 6 was omitted from subsequent Table I.
analysis Reliability analysis
weakest indicator of competitiveness. The most commonly used TQM practices

are the development of procedures for monitoring key indicators of plant
performance ( = 5.09) and top management emphasizing health and safety in
quality policy ( = 5.05). These are followed by coordinating quality and other
departments ( = 5.03). The least commonly used TQM practice is the use of
training in advanced statistical techniques ( = 2.84).
A variety of supply base management practices are used by the firms which
responded to the survey. These firms actively take advantage of their suppliers
technical support and test capabilities ( = 4.93). This finding supports the
notion that manufacturers are integrating their suppliers' knowledge and
capability into new product and process design. Decentralized purchasing of
materials ( = 4.66) and allowing individual plants to source low volume, low
cost materials ( = 4.66) are also widely practiced. The least commonly used
practice is the use of commodity management teams to set supplier performance
goals ( = 3.21). With regard to customer relations, firms rate themselves most
highly on their ability to evaluate formal and informal complaints ( = 5.37).
This is followed as a group by their ability to follow-up with customers for
quality/service feedback ( = 5.10), their enhancement of customers' ability to
seek assistance ( = 5.06), and their determination of key factors for building
and maintaining customer relationships ( = 5.02). Respondents were least
confident of their abilities in the areas of interaction with customers to set
reliability, responsiveness and other standards ( = 4.68) and in the
measurement and evaluation of customer satisfaction factors ( = 4.45).
Respondents evaluated their firms most highly on overall product quality
( = 5.59), followed by customer service level ( = 5.36) and overall competitive
position ( = 5.27). Relative areas of concern were average annual sales growth
( = 4.94), average annual market share growth ( = 4.86), return on assets
(> = 4.81), and average annual growth in return on assets ( = 4.68).
IJOPM Statistical analysis
19,10 Factor analysis
For each of the item scales, factor analysis was used to reduce the total number
of items to a smaller number of underlying factors. Principal components
analysis was used to extract factors (eigen values > 1). Varimax rotation was
used to facilitate interpretation of the factor matrix. The Bartlett Test of
1042 Sphericity and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy were
used to validate the use of factor analysis. Factor analyses of the competitive
environment and customer relations practices scales indicated the existence of
six and seven factors respectively. This suggests that the two scales should not
be reduced by factor analysis. The six competitive environment items and
seven customer relations practices were therefore treated as independent
factors, to be referred to as CE1-CE6 and CR1-CR7 respectively.
The 37 TQM practices were reduced to seven underlying factors referred to
as TQM1-TQM7 (Table II). These factors reflect top management involvement
and commitment to quality programs, and both strategic and operational

practices that reflect an orientation towards quality. The nine supply base
management practices were reduced to three underlying factors referred to as
SBM1-SBM3 (Table III) addressing the evaluation and involvement of suppliers
and the decentralization of purchasing. The eight measures of performance
were reduced to two factors referred to as PM1 and PM2 (Table IV). These
include a measure of growth and return on assets, and a measure overall
performance and market share .
Regression analysis
Stepwise multiple linear regression was used to develop models relating the
two measures of performance to the 23 independent variables (Tables V and
VI). Significance levels of / = 0.05 and 0.10 were used for entering and exiting
variables respectively. The Durbin-Watson was used to verify that residuals
were independent and normal probability plots were used to verify that
residuals were normally distributed.
Discussion
One competitive environment variable, CE4, was significant in both regression
models. This provides evidence to support the assertion that competitiveness
can be compromised if management fails to adequately analyze the competitive
environment. The variable's negative correlation with growth and ROA does
however suggest that devoting resources to analysis of competitors' strategies
and actions can compromise growth and returns on asset. Such an outcome
could occur if the analysis causes an organization to act in a reactive manner in
response to a competitor's strategy, and diverge from an otherwise preferred
strategy. The models also suggest that it is the strategies of competitors that
impact competitiveness rather than specific actions they might carry out or
their positioning in terms of aggressiveness or number of competitive
strengths. Not surprisingly, overall industry competitiveness correlates
TQM1 TQM2 TQM3 TQM4 TQM5 TQM6 TQM7 TQM practices
0.6931 0.1718 0.1662 0.2660 0.1916 0.1922 0.1363 31 Top management provides resources to carry out quality
improvement
0.6871 0.2575 0.2622 0.1774 0.0560 0.2751 0.0233 29 Top management emphasizes quality through well-
defined quality policy
0.6848 0.3034 0.2014 0.1609 0.1130 0.3359 0.1010 28 Top management clearly communicates quality goals
0.6832 0.3213 0.0318 0.2233 0.1397 0.2295 0.0520 30 Top management focuses on customer quality needs in
setting strategy
0.6480 0.2460 0.2149 0.0598 0.2612 0.2103 0.1196 33 Management's efforts to reward quality improvements
0.6138 0.0112 0.0799 0.0472 0.3758 0.1233 0.1833 36 Responsiveness of employees in making suggestions for
quality improvement
0.6075 0.2143 0.1288 0.1732 0.1388 0.0987 0.3048 10 Company environment is conducive to employee well-
being and growth
0.5987 0.4357 0.1712 0.1649 0.2010 0.0627 0.1192 12 Employees throughout organization are evaluated on
quality results
0.5736 0.4433 0.1011 0.2213 0.1198 0.1274 0.0670 11 Divisional top managers are evaluated based on quality
performance
0.5302 0.1293 0.1649 0.1700 0.2390 0.1404 0.3632 18 Emphasis on quality instead of price in supplier selection
0.4394 0.3622 0.0016 0.2317 0.3120 ±0.0567 0.3172 13 Emphasis on quality in design process vis-aÁ-vis cost,
schedules
0.2112 0.7398 0.1544 ±0.0206 0.1402 0.0503 0.1290 14 Procedures for monitoring key indicators of competitor
performance
0.3682 0.6572 0.1096 0.1756 0.0595 0.1910 0.1069 15 Procedures for monitoring key indicators of customer
satisfaction
0.1378 0.5874 0.2468 0.1865 0.0986 0.1569 ±0.1055 8 Collection of after sales quality data
0.2021 0.5318 0.3703 ±0.0034 0.1152 0.1112 0.0582 1 Use of benchmark data to improve quality practices
0.2331 0.5110 0.1157 0.2775 0.2268 0.1265 0.1512 16 Procedures for monitoring key indicators of plant/
company performance
0.2304 0.4903 0.0548 0.3186 0.2032 0.0918 0.3314 9 Coordination among appropriate departments in product/
service development
(continued)
TQM practices
Table II.
Rotated factor matrix ±
management
1043
Supply chain
19,10
1044
IJOPM
Table II.
TQM1 TQM2 TQM3 TQM4 TQM5 TQM6 TQM7 TQM practices
0.1646 0.3569 0.1726 0.2119 0.2986 0.3380 0.3532 23 Formalization of interfaces among different functional
departments
0.0667 0.2263 0.7601 0.1347 0.2541 0.1021 0.1847 5 Training in basic statistical techniques
0.4668 0.1310 0.6804 0.1926 0.0840 0.0420 0.0484 3 Training in quality awareness for hourly employees
±0.0419 0.2662 0.6529 0.0983 0.1980 0.1564 0.3149 6 Training in advanced statistical techniques
0.4831 0.1818 0.6397 0.1497 0.0135 0.0971 0.0495 4 Training in quality awareness for managers/supervisors
0.2131 0.0852 0.5313 0.4898 0.0827 0.0940 0.1128 34 Quality department active in providing specific training
0.1003 ±0.0010 0.0737 0.8198 0.1137 0.1304 0.0197 38 Visibility of the quality department
0.2761 0.2577 0.1686 0.6540 0.0407 0.0896 0.2222 17 Effectiveness of quality department in improving quality
0.2847 0.2932 0.2812 0.6093 0.0662 0.1486 0.1824 2 Coordination between quality and other departments
0.1871 0.2371 0.3489 0.4810 0.3806 0.1138 ±0.2589 7 Availability of quality data internal to organization
0.2461 0.1610 0.0963 0.0151 0.6486 0.0468 0.3692 24 Emphasis on manufacturability in product design
0.1540 0.1527 0.2140 0.1965 0.6323 0.2278 0.1785 25 Manufacturing facility used as a showroom for quality
practices
0.3036 0.1805 0.1059 0.4623 0.5758 0.0538 ±0.0744 37 Timeliness of quality data internal to organization
0.3217 0.2292 0.4406 0.1981 0.5241 0.1391 ±0.1052 26 Quality data is displayed at work stations
0.3955 0.3524 0.1906 ±0.1281 0.4652 0.1799 0.0723 32 Inclusion of customer attributes in product design using
QFD
0.2286 0.1256 0.0358 0.1401 0.1458 0.7984 0.1830 21 Top management's emphasis on health and safety in
quality policy
0.3442 0.1513 0.2154 0.1199 0.1184 0.7522 0.0511 27 Top management's emphasis on environmental protection
in quality policy
0.3553 0.3218 0.1528 0.1729 0.1060 0.5085 0.1680 22 Human resources management affected by quality plans
0.2812 0.1300 0.2485 0.0280 0.1262 0.2143 0.6496 19 Utilization of cross functional teams
0.4257 0.0771 0.1994 0.1818 0.1055 0.1877 0.5105 20 Empowerment of employees on quality issues
15.6635 1.8925 1.5008 1.3404 1.2572 1.1636 1.0338 Eigen value
42.3 5.1 4.1 3.6 3.4 3.1 2.8 Percent of variation explained
Notes: Factor TQM1: management commitment to quality; Factor TQM2: use of performance data in quality management; Factor TQM3: use of
quality related training; Factor TQM4: involvement of quality department; Factor TQM5: use of operational quality practices; Factor TQM6:
social responsibility of management; Factor TQM7: delegation of responsibility
SBM1 SBM2 SBM3 SBM practices Supply chain
management
0.8980 0.0139 0.0156 5 Quality assurance program for supplier's processes
0.7818 0.0652 0.0992 4 Quality assurance program for supplier's products
0.6386 0.4245 0.0989 7 Manufacturing personnel visit supplier's facility regularly
0.5755 0.2930 0.0938 1 Commodity management teams set supplier performance
targets
±0.0739 0.8241 0.0912 10 Annual price negotiations for key input items
1045
0.3331 0.6035 0.0828 6 Use suppliers' technical support and test capabilities
0.4433 0.5927 ±0.0245 9 Share confidential information with suppliers
0.1072 0.0589 0.8869 2 Decentralized purchase orders and daily supply flows
0.0578 0.0796 0.8843 3 Decentralized purchasing of low volume, low cost items
3.2219 1.4811 1.0690 Eigen value Table III.
35.8 16.5 11.9 Percent of variation explained Rotated factor matrix ±
supply base
Notes: Factor SBM1: supplier evaluation; Factor SBM2: supplier involvement; Factor SBM3: management (SBM)
decentralization of purchasing practices
PM1 PM2 Performance measures
0.8650 0.1124 4 Growth ± sales

0.8643 0.1378 5 Growth ± ROA
0.8554 0.1396 3 Growth ± market share
0.6735 0.3607 2 ROA
0.0009 0.8251 8 Overall product quality
0.1022 0.7461 7 Overall customer service
0.4719 0.6777 9 Overall competitive position
0.2978 0.4939 1 Market share
3.7679 1.3564 Eigen value

47.1 17.0 Percent of variation explained Table IV.
Rotated factor matrix ±
Notes: Factor PM1: growth and ROA; Factor PM2: overall performance performance measures
Analysis of variance DF SS MS F p
Regression 5 49.6432 9.9286 12.3792 0.0000

Residual 257 206.1252 0.8020
R2 = 0.4406
Independent variables Coeff. Std error Beta p
CE4 (time spent analyzing
competitors' strategies and actions) ±0.1368 0.0426 ±0.1890 0.0015
CR1 (determine future customer
expectations) 0.1881 0.0454 0.2465 0.0000
SBM1 (supplier evaluation) 0.1272 0.0593 0.1254 0.0330 Table V.
SBM2 (supplier involvement) 0.2104 0.0572 0.2151 0.0003 Stepwise multiple
TQM2 (use of performance data in regression model for
quality management) 0.1250 0.0604 0.1276 0.0395 performance measure
Constant ±0.3078 0.2834 PM1
IJOPM Analysis of variance DF SS MS F p
19,10
Regression 6 63.7048 10.6175 14.8815 0.0000
Residual 256 182.6483 0.7135
R2 = 0.5085
1046 Independent variables Coeff. Std error Beta p

CE4 (time spent analyzing competitors'
strategies and actions) 0.1249 0.0412 0.1758 0.0027
CE6 (overall competitiveness of industry) 0.1622 0.0556 0.1707 0.0038
CR3 (enhancement of customers' ability to
Table VI. seek assistance) 0.2017 0.0494 0.2446 0.0001
Stepwise multiple TQM1 (management commitment to quality) 0.1324 0.0550 0.1370 0.0167
regression model for TQM4 (involvement of quality department) 0.1234 0.0555 0.1256 0.0271
perfomance measure TQM6 (social responsibility of management) 0.1260 0.0544 0.1265 0.0213
PM2 Constant ±2.4808 0.3786
positively with overall performance, further supporting acceptance of

hypothesis H1.
The impact of quality on performance has been extensively discussed in the
literature. The current analysis however shows that the impact quality has on
performance depends on the dimension of performance being measured. Only
one TQM factor, TQM2, has a positive impact on growth and ROA. This
reflects the fact that in a competitive environment, growth in sales, market
share, or return an assets requires an organization to benchmark performance
and implement mechanisms that allow it to respond to competitive pressures.
However, when one examines overall performance, three factors, TQM1, TQM4,
and TQM6 are significant, providing further support for hypothesis H2. The
significance of these three factors illustrates the importance of having a
strategic orientation towards quality rather than using piecemeal attempts to
achieve quality. It also suggests the merits of a quality strategy that does not
place undue attention on short-term performance.
The positive correlation between factor CR1 and the growth and ROA
measure of performance is significant for two reasons. First, it highlights the
need to work with customers and identify their needs and expectations. Second,
combined with the significance of using performance data in quality
management, it demonstrates the importance of managing performance
aggressively. In an intensely competitive environment, maintaining and
improving one's competitive position requires efforts to better anticipate
market needs and to identify and eliminate potential weaknesses in
performance. The importance of a customer-oriented strategy is further
illustrated by the fact that enhancing customers' ability to seek assistance has
the greatest impact on overall performance. This analysis provides support for
hypothesis H3.
Managing the supply base has a significant impact on growth but not on
overall performance. Evaluating suppliers and involving them in the decision
making process are both positively related to growth and ROA. Supplier Supply chain
involvement has the greatest impact on growth and ROA of any of the six management
factors included in the regression model. The significance of managing the
supply base is consistent with recent evidence that suggests that managing the
supply chain is crucial to enhancing performance. As organizations downsize
and outsource key inputs, maintaining control over the quality of inputs, lead
times, and delivery reliability requires closer coordination with and 1047
involvement of suppliers throughout the production process. It also increases
the need for organizations to ensure the quality of their suppliers. This research
indicates that effective management of certain aspects of supply base activities
contributes to higher level of performance, providing support for hypothesis
H4.
Conclusion
Improving product and process quality have been well established as ways by
which organizations can respond to increased global competition. Now
however, the challenges facing organizations go beyond improving quality.
Organizations are increasingly faced with the reality that they cannot exist in
isolation but are one piece of a complex chain of business activity. The results
of this study support this notion and confirm that all three major components
of a supply chain, suppliers, manufacturers, and customers, must be effectively
integrated in order to achieve financial and growth objectives. Moreover, the
results indicate well defined linkages between specific practices and
performance. Successful management of the supply chain is the key to the long-
term success of an organization. This cannot occur however if organizations
implement business practices in an arbitrary, uncoordinated manner, or if they
direct scarce financial resources to initiatives that are unlikely to yield positive
outcomes.
The results also highlight the fact that supply chain management initiatives
alone cannot improve profitability and market share. With product life cycles
shrinking, firms must unceasingly pursue new markets, new technologies, and
improve cost and delivery performance. Supply chain management provides a
framework within which to implement a well conceived market strategy, but it
cannot undo the effects of a poorly conceived one. It is therefore imperative for
managers to ensure their quality and procurement implementation strategies,
tactics, and measurements are correctly aligned with strategies in the areas of
finance, operations, marketing, new product development, and sales.
Future research is needed to extend the findings of this study. The study has
addressed the practices of organizations only one tier upstream and
downstream. In the future, truly integrated supply chains may consist of
multiple organizations in a chain working together to bring the latest
technological innovations and products to customers at the lowest cost in the
shortest time. There is a need to understand how future strategies will unfold
IJOPM and how organizational strategies will merge given different competitive
19,10 objectives. An additional question is how will companies share financial
rewards.
References
Ahire, S.L., Golhar, D.Y. and Waller, M.A. (1996), ``Development and validation of TQM
1048 implementation constructs'', Decision Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-56.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M. and Schroeder, R.G. (1994), `À theory of quality
management underlying the Deming method'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 472-509.
Anderson, J.C., Rungtusanatham, M., Schroeder, R.G. and Devaraj, S. (1995), `À path analytic
model of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method:
preliminary empirical findings'', Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 637-58.
Benson, P.G., Saraph, J.V. and Schroeder, R.G. (1991), ``The effects of organizational context on
quality: an empirical investigation'', Management Science, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 1107-24.
Black, S.A. and Porter, L.J. (1996), `Ìdentification of the critical factors of TQM'', Decision
Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Burt, D.N. and Soukup, W.R. (1985), ``Purchasing's role in new product development'', Harvard
Business Review, September-October, pp. 90-7.
Chen, K.C.W. and Lee, C.W.J. (1995), `Àccounting measures of business performance and Tobin's
q theory'', Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 587-609.
Cole, R.E. (1993), `Ìntroduction to the special issue on total quality management'', California
Management Review, Vol. 35, pp. 7-11.
Copacino, W.C. (1996), ``Seven supply-chain principles'', Traffic Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, p. 60.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), ``Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests'', Psychometrika,
Vol. 16, pp. 297-334.
Ebrahimpour, M. (1985), `Àn examination of quality management in Japan: implications for
management in the United States'', Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 519-431.
Ellram, L.M. (1991), ``Supply chain management: the industrial organization perspective'',
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 13-22.
Farley, G.A. (1997), ``Discovering supply chain management: a roundtable discussion'', APICS ±
The Performance Advantage, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 38-9.
Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G. and Sakakibara, S. (1995), ``The impact of quality management
practices on performance and competitive advantage'', Decision Sciences, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 659-92.
Grant, R.M., Shani, R. and Krishnan, R. (1994), ``TQM's challenge to management theory and
practice'', Sloan Management Review, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 25-35.
Greene, R. (1993), Global Quality: A Synthesis of the World's Best Management Models, ASQC
Press, Milwaukee, WI.
Handfield, R.B. and Nichols, E.L. Jr (1998), An Introduction to Supply Chain Management,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hiam, A. (1993), Does Quality Work? A Review of Relevant Studies, The Conference Board, New
York, NY.
Inman, R.A. and Hubler, J.H. (1992), ``Certify the process, not just the product'', Production and
Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 11-14.
Jahera, J.S. and Lloyd, W.P. (1992), `Àdditional evidence on the validity of ROI as a measure of Supply chain
business performance'', The Mid-Atlantic Journal of Business, pp. 105-12.
management
Krause, D.R. (1997), ``Supplier development: current practices and outcomes'', International
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 12-19.
Lee, H.L. and Billington, C. (1992), ``Managing supply chain inventory: pitfalls and opportunities'',
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 65-73.
Malhotra, M.D., Steele, D.C. and Grover, V. (1994), `Ìmportant strategic and tactical 1049
manufacturing issues in the 1990s'', Decision Sciences, Vol. 25, pp. 189-214.
Mason, T. (1996), ``Getting your suppliers on the team'', Logistics Focus, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 10-12.
Modarress, B. and Ansari, A. (1989), ``Quality control techniques in US firms: a survey'',
Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 58-62.
Monczka, R., Peterson, K., Handfield, R. and Ragatz, G. (1998), ``Determinants of successful vs
non-successful strategic supplier alliances'', Decision Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 553-77.
Monczka, R.M., Trent, R.J. and Callahan, T.J. (1994), ``Supply base strategies to maximize supplier
performance'', International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 42-54.
Morgan, J. and Monczka, R.M. (1996), ``Supplier integration: a new level of supply chain
management'', Purchasing, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 110-13.
Nunnally, J.C. (1988), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), ``The core competence of the corporation'', Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-91.
Ragatz, G., Handfield, R. and Scannell, T. (1997), ``Success factors for integrating suppliers into
new product development'', Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 14,
pp. 190-202.
Saraph, J.V., Benson, P.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (1989), `Àn instrument for measuring the critical
factors of quality management'', Decision Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 810-29.
Schaffer, R. and Thomson, H. (1992), ``Successful change programs begin with results'', Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 70, pp. 80-9.
Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S., Flynn, E.J. and Flynn, B.B. (1992), ``Japanese plants in US: How
good are they?'', Business Horizons, Vol. 335 No. 4, pp. 66-72.
Scott, C. and Westbrook, R. (1991), ``New strategic tools for supply chain management'',
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Sower, V., Motwani, J. and Savoie, M. (1993), `Àre acceptance sampling and SPC complementary
or incompatible?'', Quality Progress, September, pp. 85-90.
Tan, K.C., Handfield, R.B. and Krause, D.R. (1998), `Ènhancing firm's performance through
quality and supply base management: an empirical study'', International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 2813-37.
Tobin, J. (1969), `À general equilibrium approach to monetary theory'', Journal of Money, Credit
and Banking, Vol. 1, pp. 15-29.
Tobin, J. and Brainard, W. (1968), ``Pitfalls in financial model building'', American Economic
Review, Vol. 58, pp. 99-122.
Tully, S. (1995), ``Purchasing's new muscle'', Fortune, Vol. 20, p. 76.
Turner, J.R. (1993), `Ìntegrated supply chain management: what's wrong with this picture?'',
Industrial Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 52-5.
Watts, C.A. and Hahn, C.K. (1993), ``Supplier development programs: an empirical analysis'',
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 11-17.
IJOPM Appendix
I. Competitive environment
19,10 On a scale of 1 = low to 7 = high, indicate the overall level of competition in your firm's primary
industry for each of the dimensions below:
(1) The time, effort, resources and managerial attention required to keep up with
competitors.
(2) Importance of potential competitor reaction or retaliation to decisions made in our firm.
1050
(3) Number of competencies (i.e. things a firm must do well) required to survive in this
industry.
(4) Amount of time spent analyzing major competitors' strategies and actions.
(5) Aggressiveness of our major competitors.
(6) Overall competitiveness of our industry.
II. Total quality management practices

On a scale of 1 = very low to 7 = very high, indicate the most appropriate response regarding
your firm's practice of the following:

(1) Use of benchmark data to improve quality practices.
(2) Amount of coordination between quality department and other departments.
(3) Amount of training in quality awareness provided to hourly employees.
(4) Amount of training in quality awareness provided to managers and supervisors.
(5) Amount of training in basic statistical techniques such as histograms and control charts.
(6) Amount of training in advanced statistical techniques (design of experiments and
regression).
(7) Availability of quality data (internal to the organization).
(8) Collection of after sales quality data.
(9) Coordination among appropriate departments in the product/service development
process.
(10) Degree to which company environment is conducive to employee well-being and growth.
(11) Degree to which divisional top management is evaluated based on quality performance.
(12) Degree to which employees throughout organization are evaluated on quality results.
(13) Degree to which quality is emphasized in design process vis-a-vis cost or schedule
objectives.
(14) Development of procedures for monitoring key indicators of competitor performance.
(15) Development of procedures for monitoring key indicators of customer satisfaction.
(16) Development of procedures for monitoring key indicators of plant/company
performance.
(17) Effectiveness of the quality department in improving quality.
(18) Emphasis on quality instead of price in the supplier selection process.
(19) Extent to which cross-functional teams are utilized.
(20) Extent to which employees can act on quality issues without approval from supervisors.
(21) Extent to which health and safety are emphasized by top management in our quality
policy.
(22) Extent to which human resources management is affected by quality plans.
(23) Extent to which interfaces among different functional departments are formalized. Supply chain
(24) Extent to which manufacturability is considered in the product design process. management
(25) Extent to which manufacturing facility is used as showroom to demonstrate quality
practices.
(26) Extent to which quality data is made visible (displayed at work-stations).
(27) Extent to which top management emphasizes environmental protection in our quality
policy. 1051
(28) Extent to which top management clearly communicates quality goals.
(29) Extent to which top management emphasizes quality through a well-defined quality
policy.
(30) Extent to which top management focuses on customer quality requirements to establish
strategy.
(31) Extent to which top management provides resources to carry out quality improvement.
(32) Inclusion of customer attributes in product design through quality function deployment
(QFD).
(33) Management's efforts to recognize and reward quality improvements.
(34) Quality department plays an active role in providing specific training such as SPC.
(35) Quality department's emphasis on inspection as the primary means of achieving high
quality.
(36) Responsiveness of employees in making suggestions regarding quality improvement.
(37) Timeliness of quality data (internal to the organization).
(38) Visibility of the quality department.
III. Supply base management practices

On a scale of 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, indicate the most appropriate response
regarding your firm's practice of the following areas of supply base management:
(1) Commodity management teams set the levels of cost, quality and lead time for supplier
performance.
(2) Local plant managers are given authority to execute purchase orders and daily supply
flows.
(3) Low volume, low cost materials are handled by individual plant staff based on local
needs.
(4) Our company has a quality-assurance (certified) program for our supplier's specific
product.
(5) Our company has a quality-assurance program for our supplier's manufacturing
process.
(6) Our company takes advantage of supplier-provided technical support and test
capabilities.
(7) Our manufacturing personnel regularly visit our supplier's facility.
(8) Suppliers receive changes to our specifications after we develop a new product design.
(9) We share a great deal of sensitive information with our suppliers.
(10) We undertake annual negotiations to establish the price for key-input items from our
suppliers.
IJOPM IV. Customer relations practices
On a scale of 1 = poor to 7 = excellent, rate your firm's ability to monitor and manage customer
19,10 relationships in the following areas:
(1) Determination of future customer expectations.
(2) Determination of key factors for building and maintaining customer relationships.
(3) Enhancement of customers' ability to seek assistance.
1052 (4) Evaluation of formal and informal complaints.
(5) Follow-up with customers for quality/service feedback.
(6) Interaction with customers to set reliability, responsiveness, and other standards.
(7) Measurement and evaluation of customer satisfaction factors.
V. Performance
On a scale of 1 = below average to 7 = above average, indicate the level of your firm's
performance on each of the following dimensions compared to that of major industry
competitors:
(1) Market share.

(2) Return on total assets.
(3) Average annual market share growth (over the past three years).
(4) Average annual sales growth (over the past three years).
(5) Average annual growth in return on total assets (over the past three years).
(6) Average production cost.
(7) Overall customer service levels.
(8) Overall product quality.
(9) Overall competitive position.
This article has been cited by:
1. V. Mani, Catarina Delgado. Review of Literature 11-80. [Crossref]

2. V. Mani, Catarina Delgado. Research Design 81-104. [Crossref]
3. V. Mani, Catarina Delgado. Discussion 143-152. [Crossref]
4. MathurBhavana, Bhavana Mathur, GuptaSumit, Sumit Gupta, MeenaMakhan Lal, Makhan Lal Meena,
DangayachG.S., G.S. Dangayach. Healthcare supply chain management: literature review and some issues.
Journal of Advances in Management Research, ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Pezhman Hatamifar, Alireza Darban Astane, Mohammad Reza Rezvani. 2018. Analyzing Quality of Supply
Chain Management in Hotels of Isfahan Using the Partial Least Squares (PLS). Journal of Quality Assurance
in Hospitality & Tourism 19:2, 172-191. [Crossref]
6. DeshpandeAnant, Anant Deshpande. 2018. Relationships between advanced manufacturing technologies,
absorptive capacity, mass customization, time to market and financial and market performance. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Business Administration 10:1, 2-20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Ariela Caglio. 2018. To Disclose or Not to Disclose? An Investigation of the Antecedents and Effects of
Open Book Accounting. European Accounting Review 27:2, 263-287. [Crossref]

8. Alireza Faraz, Nada Sanders, Zach Zacharia, Markus Gerschberger. 2018. Monitoring type B buyer–
supplier relationships. International Journal of Production Research 30, 1-15. [Crossref]
9. Shanshan Wang, Kun Chen, Zhiyong Liu, Ren-Yong Guo, Si Chen. 2018. An ontology-based approach
for supply-chain quality control: From a principal–agent perspective. Journal of Information Science
016555151878769. [Crossref]
10. SinghRajesh Kr., Rajesh Kr. Singh, KoulSaroj, Saroj Koul, KumarPravin, Pravin Kumar. 2017. Analyzing
the interaction of factors for flexibility in supply chains. Journal of Modelling in Management 12:4, 671-689.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Debadyuti Das. 2017. Development and validation of a scale for measuring Sustainable Supply Chain
Management practices and performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 164, 1344-1362. [Crossref]
12. Caixia Chen, Patsy Perry, Yixiong Yang, Cheng Yang. 2017. Decent Work in the Chinese Apparel
Industry: Comparative Analysis of Blue-Collar and White-Collar Garment Workers. Sustainability 9:8,
1344. [Crossref]
13. UmJuneho, Juneho Um. 2017. Improving supply chain flexibility and agility through variety management.
The International Journal of Logistics Management 28:2, 464-487. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Richard Addo-Tenkorang, Petri T. Helo, Jussi Kantola. 2017. Concurrent enterprise: a conceptual
framework for enterprise supply-chain network activities. Enterprise Information Systems 11:4, 474-511.
[Crossref]
15. GandhiAradhana Vikas, Aradhana Vikas Gandhi, ShaikhAteeque, Ateeque Shaikh, SheoreyPratima Amol,
Pratima Amol Sheorey. 2017. Impact of supply chain management practices on firm performance.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 45:4, 366-384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. SoaresAnabela, Anabela Soares, SoltaniEbrahim, Ebrahim Soltani, LiaoYing-Ying, Ying-Ying Liao.
2017. The influence of supply chain quality management practices on quality performance: an empirical
investigation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 22:2, 122-144. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
17. GawankarShradha Ashok, Shradha Ashok Gawankar, KambleSachin, Sachin Kamble, RautRakesh, Rakesh
Raut. 2017. An investigation of the relationship between supply chain management practices (SCMP)
on supply chain performance measurement (SCPM) of Indian retail chain using SEM. Benchmarking: An
International Journal 24:1, 257-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Seyhan Teoman, Füsun Ulengin. 2017. The impact of management leadership on quality performance
throughout a supply chain: an empirical study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 1-25.
[Crossref]
19. Safaa Sindi, Michael Roe. The Application of Fuzzy Delphi to Strategic Supply Chain Modelling 131-178.
[Crossref]
20. Ping Gu, Ruyi Song, Xuyun Chen. 2017. Management Practice of Supply Chain Quality Management in
Service-oriented Manufacturing Industry. MATEC Web of Conferences 100, 05035. [Crossref]
21. Ilan Bijaoui. Models of SMEs Globalisation 61-104. [Crossref]
22. Gi Hong Jun, Chang Kun Chung. 2016. A Study on the Effect of Supply Chain Quality Management and
Traceability System on Firm Performance. The e-Business Studies 17:6, 71. [Crossref]
23. A. Faraz, Z. Zacharia, M. Gerschberger. Make sure you understood your strategic partner in your buyer-
supplier relationship 827-830. [Crossref]
24. Ching-Chiao Yang. 2016. Leveraging logistics learning capability to enable logistics service capabilities and
performance for international distribution center operators in Taiwan. The International Journal of Logistics
Management 27:2, 284-308. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram, VGR Chandran, Muhammad Awais Bhatti. 2016. Supply chain practices
and performance: the indirect effects of supply chain integration. Benchmarking: An International Journal
23:6, 1445-1471. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
26. Amit Arora, Anshu Saxena Arora, K. Sivakumar. 2016. Relationships among supply chain strategies,
organizational performance, and technological and market turbulences. The International Journal of
Logistics Management 27:1, 206-232. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Panayiotis C. Andreou, Christodoulos Louca, Photis M. Panayides. 2016. The impact of vertical integration
on inventory turnover and operating performance. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications
19:3, 218-238. [Crossref]
28. Mohamed El Mokadem. 2016. ISO 9000 moderation role over supply chain alignment in manufacturing
context. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 27:3, 338-363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Javier González-Benito, Gustavo Lannelongue, Luis Miguel Ferreira, Carmen Gonzalez-Zapatero. 2016.
The effect of green purchasing on purchasing performance: the moderating role played by long-term
relationships and strategic integration. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 31:2, 312-324. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
30. Ashley Essex, Nachiappan Subramanian, Angappa Gunasekaran. 2016. The relationship between supply
chain manager capabilities and performance: empirical evidence. Production Planning & Control 27:3,
198-211. [Crossref]
31. Shradha Gawankar, Sachin Kamble, Rakesh Raut. 2016. Development, measurement and validation
of supply chain performance measurement (SCPM) scale in Indian retail sector. Benchmarking: An
32. Dirk Pieter van Donk, Taco van der Vaart. A Critical Review of Surveys in Supply Chain Integration
Research 38-51. [Crossref]
33. Byung-Gak Son, ManMohan Sodhi, Canan Kocabasoglu-Hillmer, Tae-Hee Lee. 2016. Supply chain
information in analyst reports on publicly traded companies. International Journal of Production Economics
171, 350-360. [Crossref]
34. Vikram Sharma, Amit Rai Dixit, Mohammad Asim Qadri. 2015. Impact of lean practices on performance
measures in context to Indian machine tool industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
35. Hannah de Oliveira Santos, Javier Gonzalez Benito, Gustavo Lannelongue. Supply Chain Management and
performance: A bibliometric analysis 813-822. [Crossref]
36. S. M. Lo. 2015. Impact of greening attitude and buyer power on supplier environmental management
strategy. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 12:10, 3145-3160. [Crossref]
37. Liang Chen, Scott Ellis, Clyde Holsapple. 2015. Supplier Development: A Knowledge Management
Perspective. Knowledge and Process Management 22:4, 250-269. [Crossref]
38. Sylvain Charlebois, Amy Creedy, Mike von Massow. 2015. “Back of house” – focused study on food waste
in fine dining: the case of Delish restaurants. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality
Research 9:3, 278-291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Jie Yang, Kee Hung Lai, Jifu Wang, Rupak Rauniar, Hongming Xie. 2015. Strategic alliance formation and
the effects on the performance of manufacturing enterprises from supply chain perspective. International
Journal of Production Research 53:13, 3856-3870. [Crossref]
40. Ruggero Golini, Matteo Kalchschmidt. 2015. Designing an expert system to support competitiveness
through global sourcing. International Journal of Production Research 53:13, 3836-3855. [Crossref]
41. Jonathan Gosling, Mohamed Naim, Denis Towill, Wessam Abouarghoub, Brian Moone. 2015. Supplier
development initiatives and their impact on the consistency of project performance. Construction
Management and Economics 33:5-6, 390-403. [Crossref]
42. Jafar Rezaei, Roland Ortt, Paul Trott. 2015. How SMEs can benefit from supply chain partnerships.
International Journal of Production Research 53:5, 1527-1543. [Crossref]
43. Ekrem Tatoglu, Erkan Bayraktar, Ozlem Ayaz Arda. 2015. Adoption of corporate environmental policies
in Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production 91, 313-326. [Crossref]
44. Minkyun Kim, Nallan C Suresh, Canan Kocabasoglu-Hillmer. 2015. A contextual analysis of the impact
of strategic sourcing and E-procurement on performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 30:1,
1-16. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Baofeng Huo, Xiande Zhao, Fujun Lai. Relationship between Supply Chain Quality Integration and
Performance 305-334. [Crossref]
46. Ekrem Tatoglu, Erkan Bayraktar, Sunil Sahadev, Mehmet Demirbag, Keith W. Glaister. 2014.
Determinants of voluntary environmental management practices by MNE subsidiaries. Journal of World
Business 49:4, 536-548. [Crossref]
47. Marc-Arthur Diaye, Nathalie Greenan, Sanja Pekovic. 2014. Sharing the ‘fame’ of ISO standard adoption:
quality supply chain effects evidence. International Journal of Production Research 52:18, 5396-5414.
[Crossref]
48. 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]
49. Magdalini A. Kalaitzidou, Pantelis Longinidis, Panagiotis Tsiakis, Michael C. Georgiadis. 2014. Optimal
Design of Multiechelon Supply Chain Networks with Generalized Production and Warehousing Nodes.
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 53:33, 13125-13138. [Crossref]
50. Sergio Palomero, Ricardo Chalmeta. 2014. A guide for supply chain integration in SMEs. Production
Planning & Control 25:5, 372-400. [Crossref]
51. Sang-Gyun Na, Gyu-Yeon Cho. 2014. A Study on the Factors Affecting Product Innovation of
Manufacturing Companies: With a Focus on the Relationship between Participation of Suppliers,
Customer and Business Performance. Journal of the Korea Safety Management and Science 16:1, 177-189.
[Crossref]
52. You-Kyung Lee. 2014. Logistics Capabilities of Korean Manufacturing Companies and Its Operational
Performance -Focused on Moderating Effects of Outsourcing Strategy-. Korean Journal of Logistics 22:1,
1-16. [Crossref]
53. Min Shi, Wei Yu. 2013. Supply chain management and financial performance: literature review and future
directions. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 33:10, 1283-1317. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
54. Tsu-Te (Andrew) Huang, Le Chen, Rodney A. Stewart, Kriengsak Panuwatwanich. 2013. Leveraging
power of learning capability upon manufacturing operations. International Journal of Production Economics
145:1, 233-252. [Crossref]
55. Katri Karjalainen, Claire Moxham. 2013. Focus on Fairtrade: Propositions for Integrating Fairtrade and
Supply Chain Management Research. Journal of Business Ethics 116:2, 267-282. [Crossref]
56. Jing Zeng, Chi Anh Phan, Yoshiki Matsui. 2013. Supply chain quality management practices and
performance: An empirical study. Operations Management Research 6:1-2, 19-31. [Crossref]

57. Mahour Mellat‐Parast. 2013. Supply chain quality management. International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 30:5, 511-529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
58. Elí Samuel González‐Trejo, Norma Myriam González‐Salazar, Gloria Pedroza‐Cantu, Sergio Gerardo
Elizondo‐Arroyave. 2013. Corporate supply chain responsibility (CSCR). Journal of Management
Development 32:4, 363-375. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
59. Rajesh K. Singh. 2013. Analyzing the Factors for VMI Implementation: A Framework. Global Business
Review 14:1, 169-186. [Crossref]
60. Yahia Zare Mehrjerdi. 2013. A framework for Six‐Sigma driven RFID‐enabled supply chain systems.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 30:2, 142-160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. Pantelis Longinidis, Michael C. Georgiadis. 2013. Managing the trade-offs between financial performance
and credit solvency in the optimal design of supply chain networks under economic uncertainty. Computers
& Chemical Engineering 48, 264-279. [Crossref]
62. Mohd. Nishat Faisal. 2013. Managing Risk in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Supply Chains’
Using Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Approach. International Journal of Operations Research and
Information Systems 4:1, 64-83. [Crossref]
63. Jafar Rezaei, Roland Ortt. 2012. A multi-variable approach to supplier segmentation. International Journal
of Production Research 50:16, 4593-4611. [Crossref]
64. Massimo Biotto, Alberto F. De Toni, Fabio Nonino. 2012. Knowledge and cultural diffusion along the
supply chain as drivers of product quality improvement. The International Journal of Logistics Management
65. Kevin Burgess, Prakash J. Singh. 2012. Using the social system of a supply chain to improve a focal
organization’s operating performance. Operations Management Research 5:1-2, 57-68. [Crossref]
66. Ayman Omar, Beth Davis-Sramek, Matthew B. Myers, John T. Mentzer. 2012. A Global Analysis of
Orientation, Coordination, and Flexibility in Supply Chains. Journal of Business Logistics 33:2, 128-144.
[Crossref]
67. Sameer Prasad, Jasmine Tata, Xuguang Guo. 2012. Sustaining small businesses in the United States in
times of recession. Journal of Advances in Management Research 9:1, 8-28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Hannu Saarijärvi, Hannu Kuusela, Mark T. Spence. 2012. Using the pairwise comparison method to assess
competitive priorities within a supply chain. Industrial Marketing Management 41:4, 631-638. [Crossref]
69. Chul-Soon Park. 2012. The Impact of Supplier Involvement, Customer Involvement, and Employee
Learning/Training on Product Quality and Organizational Performance. Journal of the Korean society for
quality management 40:1, 1-14. [Crossref]
70. Veera Pandiyan Kaliani Sundram, Abdul Razak Ibrahim, V.G.R. Chandran Govindaraju. 2011. Supply chain
management practices in the electronics industry in Malaysia. Benchmarking: An International Journal 18:6,
71. Xuan Zhang, Dirk Pieter van Donk, Taco van der Vaart. 2011. Does ICT influence supply chain
management and performance?. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 31:11,
72. B. S. Sahay, Vikram Sharma, G. D. Sardana. 2011. Supply Chain Management Practices of Indian
Automobile Industry. International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 4:3,
60-78. [Crossref]
73. Damien Power, Tobias Schoenherr, Danny Samson. 2011. Assessing the Effectiveness of Quality
Management in a Global Context. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58:2, 307-322.
[Crossref]
74. Louise Bildsten, Anders Björnfot, Erik Sandberg. 2011. Value‐driven purchasing of kitchen cabinets
in industrialised housing. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction 16:1, 73-83.
75. Holger Schiele, Philipp Horn, Bart Vos. 2011. Estimating cost‐saving potential from international sourcing
and other sourcing levers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 41:3,
76. 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]
77. Lori S. Cook, Daniel R. Heiser, Kaushik Sengupta. 2011. The moderating effect of supply chain role on the
relationship between supply chain practices and performance. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 41:2, 104-134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Ana Gueimonde‐Canto, Javier González‐Benito, José Manuel García‐Vázquez. 2011. Competitive effects of
co‐operation with suppliers and buyers in the sawmill industry. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
79. Sweety Law, Jacques Verville, Nazim Taskin. 2011. Relational Attributes in Supply Chain Relationships.
International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 4:1, 1-23. [Crossref]
80. Tsu-Te (Andrew) Huang, Le Chen, Rodney A Stewart. 2010. The moderating effect of knowledge sharing
on the relationship between manufacturing activities and business performance. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice 8:4, 285-306. [Crossref]
81. Eamonn Ambrose, Donna Marshall, Daniel Lynch. 2010. Buyer supplier perspectives on supply chain
relationships. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 30:12, 1269-1290. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
82. 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]
83. Javier González‐Benito. 2010. Supply strategy and business performance. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 30:8, 774-797. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
84. Chinho Lin, Chu-hua Kuei, Christian N. Madu, Janice Winch. 2010. Identifying Critical Success Factors
for Supply Chain Excellence. International Journal of Strategic Decision Sciences 1:3, 49-70. [Crossref]
85. 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
86. Gary Graham, Alison Smart. 2010. The regional‐newspaper industry supply chain and the internet. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 15:3, 196-206. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Kim P. Bryceson, Geoff Slaughter. 2010. Alignment of performance metrics in a multi‐enterprise
agribusiness. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 59:4, 325-350. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
88. Axel K-D. Schulz, Anne Wu, Chee W. Chow. 2010. Environmental Uncertainty, Comprehensive
Performance Measurement Systems, Performance-Based Compensation, and Organizational Performance.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics 17:1, 17-39. [Crossref]

89. Leo R. Vijayasarathy. 2010. Supply integration: An investigation of its multi-dimensionality and relational
antecedents. International Journal of Production Economics 124:2, 489-505. [Crossref]
90. Javier González-Benito, Duilio Reis da Rocha, Dolores Queiruga. 2010. The environment as a determining
factor of purchasing and supply strategy: An empirical analysis of Brazilian firms. International Journal of
Production Economics 124:1, 1-10. [Crossref]
91. Bastiaan Janse, Peter Schuur, Marisa P. de Brito. 2010. A reverse logistics diagnostic tool: the case of the
consumer electronics industry. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 47:5-8,
495-513. [Crossref]
92. Tsu‐Te Andrew Huang, Rodney Anthony Stewart, Le Chen. 2010. Identifying key enablers to improve
business performance in Taiwanese electronic manufacturing companies. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management 30:2, 155-180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Chin-Shan Lu, Ching-Chiao Yang. 2010. Logistics service capabilities and firm performance of
international distribution center operators. The Service Industries Journal 30:2, 281-298. [Crossref]
94. Patrick K.O. Fung, Ivy S.N. Chen. 2010. Human capital for supply chain management capabilities: a study
of international trade intermediaries. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 13:1, 1-12.
[Crossref]
95. T.T. Huang, R.A. Stewart, L. Chen. Knowledge sharing leveraging new product development activities
to derive enhanced business performance: Mixed method study 88-92. [Crossref]
96. Munsung Rhee, 박박박. 2009. The Impact of Internal Business Process in BSC and SCM on the Performance
- Focused on Distribution Companies -. Journal of Distribution and Management Research 12:5, 113-129.
[Crossref]
97. Ting Chi, Peter P.D. Kilduff, Vidyaranya B. Gargeya. 2009. Alignment between business environment
characteristics, competitive priorities, supply chain structures, and firm business performance. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 58:7, 645-669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
98. Ting Chi. 2009. Measurement of business environment characteristics in the US technical textile industry:
an empirical study. Journal of the Textile Institute 100:6, 545-555. [Crossref]
99. Lee Kook-Yong. 2009. A Study on the Impacts of Factors in e-SCM Continuance. The e-Business Studies
10:2, 51-71. [Crossref]
100. Henry C. Co, Frank Barro. 2009. Stakeholder theory and dynamics in supply chain collaboration.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 29:6, 591-611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. Chin-Shan Lu, Chi-Chang Lin, Chiu-Ju Tu. 2009. Corporate social responsibility and organisational
performance in container shipping. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 12:2,
119-132. [Crossref]
102. Herwig Winkler. 2009. How to improve supply chain flexibility using strategic supply chain networks.
Logistics Research 1:1, 15-25. [Crossref]
103. H.S. Wang. 2009. A two-phase ant colony algorithm for multi-echelon defective supply chain network
design. European Journal of Operational Research 192:1, 243-252. [Crossref]
104. T.T. Huang, R. A. Stewart, L. Chen. Knowledge sharing for strengthening manufacturing operation and
business performance 1930-1934. [Crossref]
105. Rodney McAdam, Shirley‐Ann Hazlett, Karen Anderson‐Gillespie. 2008. Developing a conceptual model
of lead performance measurement and benchmarking. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 28:12, 1153-1185. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
106. 박박박. 2008. An Analysis of the Relationship Between Level of Information Oriented, Environmental
Uncertainty, Market Orientation and Performance in Firm. The e-Business Studies 9:4, 47-67. [Crossref]
107. Nabil Mzoughi, Nedra Bahri, Mohamed Skander Ghachem. 2008. Impact of Supply Chain Management
and ERP on Organizational Performance and Competitive Advantage: Case of Tunisian Companies.
Journal of Global Information Technology Management 11:3, 24-46. [Crossref]
108. Tae-Soo Moon, Sung-Bae Kang. 2008. An Empirical Study on the Influence of Environmental,
Organizational, IS Characteristics on the Organizational Balanced Performance of SCM Systems. The
Journal of Information Systems 17:2, 1-26. [Crossref]
109. Dawn H. Pearcy, Delvon B. Parker, Larry C. Giunipero. 2008. Using Electronic Procurement to Facilitate
Supply Chain Integration: An Exploratory Study of US‐based Firms. American Journal of Business 23:1,
23-36. [Abstract] [PDF]
110. Taco van der Vaart, Dirk Pieter van Donk. 2008. A critical review of survey-based research in supply chain
integration. International Journal of Production Economics 111:1, 42-55. [Crossref]
111. Scott Fernie, Anthony Thorpe. 2007. Exploring change in construction: supply chain management.
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 14:4, 319-333. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
112. Arni Halldorsson, Herbert Kotzab, Juliana H. Mikkola, Tage Skjøtt‐Larsen. 2007. Complementary
theories to supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 12:4, 284-296.
113. Bruce Dehning, Vernon J. Richardson, Robert W. Zmud. 2007. The financial performance effects of IT-
based supply chain management systems in manufacturing firms. Journal of Operations Management 25:4,
806-824. [Crossref]
114. Paul D. Cousins, Benn Lawson. 2007. Sourcing Strategy, Supplier Relationships and Firm Performance:
An Empirical Investigation of UK Organizations. British Journal of Management 18:2, 123-137. [Crossref]
115. Katariina Kemppainen, Ari P.J. Vepsäläinen. 2007. Logistical and technological differentiation as a
precondition of supply networking. The International Journal of Logistics Management 18:1, 81-101.
116. Kathryn Cormican, Michael Cunningham. 2007. Supplier performance evaluation: lessons from a large
multinational organisation. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 18:4, 352-366. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
117. Peter Fettke. 2007. Supply Chain Management: Stand der empirischen Forschung. Journal of Business
Economics 77:4, 417-461. [Crossref]
118. Balram Avittathur, Paul Swamidass. 2007. Matching plant flexibility and supplier flexibility: Lessons from
small suppliers of U.S. manufacturing plants in India. Journal of Operations Management 25:3, 717-735.
[Crossref]
119. Javier González‐Benito. 2007. Information technology investment and operational performance in
purchasing. Industrial Management & Data Systems 107:2, 201-228. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
120. Lassâad Lakhal. 2007. Développement et validation d’un instrument de mesure de la qualité dans les
entreprises tunisiennes. Revue internationale P.M.E.: Économie et gestion de la petite et moyenne entreprise
20:2, 151. [Crossref]
121. Ismail Sila. 2007. Examining the effects of contextual factors on TQM and performance through the lens
of organizational theories: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management 25:1, 83-109. [Crossref]
122. Hélio Zanquetto Filho, Andrew Fearne, Nélio Domingues Pizzolato. 2006. Gerenciamento da cadeia
de abastecimento de hortifrutigranjeiros frescos: uma pesquisa exploratória no Reino Unido. Revista de

Administração Contemporânea 10:4, 71-92. [Crossref]
123. Charles R. Gowen, Kathleen L. Mcfadden, Jenny M. Hoobler, William J. Tallon. 2006. Exploring the
efficacy of healthcare quality practices, employee commitment, and employee control. Journal of Operations
Management 24:6, 765-778. [Crossref]
124. Ismail Sila, Maling Ebrahimpour, Christiane Birkholz. 2006. Quality in supply chains: an empirical
analysis. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11:6, 491-502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
125. Alberto Grando, Valeria Belvedere. 2006. District's manufacturing performances: A comparison among
large, small-to-medium-sized and district enterprises. International Journal of Production Economics 104:1,
85-99. [Crossref]
126. Kaushik Sengupta, Daniel R. Heiser, Lori S. Cook. 2006. Manufacturing and Service Supply Chain
Performance: A Comparative Analysis. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 42:4, 4-15. [Crossref]
127. Charles R. Gowen III, Kathleen L. McFadden, William J. Tallon. 2006. On the centrality of strategic
human resource management for healthcare quality results and competitive advantage. Journal of
Management Development 25:8, 806-826. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
128. Ypatia Theodorakioglou, Katerina Gotzamani, George Tsiolvas. 2006. Supplier management and its
relationship to buyers' quality management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11:2,
129. Cristóbal Sánchez‐Rodríguez, David Hemsworth, Ángel R. Martínez‐Lorente, José G. Clavel. 2006. An
empirical study on the impact of standardization of materials and purchasing procedures on purchasing
and business performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11:1, 56-64. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
130. Ganesan Kannabiran, Saumen Bhaumik. 2005. Corporate turnaround through effective supply chain
management: the case of a leading jewellery manufacturer in India. Supply Chain Management: An
131. Suhaiza Zailani, Premkumar Rajagopal. 2005. Supply chain integration and performance: US versus East
Asian companies. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 10:5, 379-393. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
132. Ismail Sila, Maling Ebrahimpour. 2005. Critical linkages among TQM factors and business results.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25:11, 1123-1155. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
133. B. B. Flynn *, E. J. Flynn. 2005. Synergies between supply chain management and quality management:
emerging implications. International Journal of Production Research 43:16, 3421-3436. [Crossref]
134. Max Bergström, Lars Stehn. 2005. Matching industrialised timber frame housing needs and enterprise
resource planning: A change process. International Journal of Production Economics 97:2, 172-184.
[Crossref]
135. Antony Paulraj, Injazz J. Chen. 2005. Strategic Supply Management and Dyadic Quality Performance: A
Path Analytical Model. The Journal of Supply Chain Management 41:3, 4-18. [Crossref]
136. Cindy Claycomb, Cornelia Dröge, Richard Germain. 2005. Applied customer knowledge in a
manufacturing environment: Flexibility for industrial firms. Industrial Marketing Management 34:6,
629-640. [Crossref]
137. Carol J. Robinson, Manoj K. Malhotra. 2005. Defining the concept of supply chain quality management
and its relevance to academic and industrial practice. International Journal of Production Economics 96:3,
315-337. [Crossref]
138. Paul D. Cousins. 2005. The alignment of appropriate firm and supply strategies for competitive advantage.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25:5, 403-428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
139. Damien Power. 2005. Determinants of business‐to‐business e‐commerce implementation and
performance: a structural model. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 10:2, 96-113.
140. Cristóbal Sánchez-Rodríguez, David Hemsworth. 2005. A structural analysis of the impact of quality
management practices in purchasing on purchasing and business performance. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence 16:2, 215-230. [Crossref]
141. Damien Power. 2004. The comparative importance of human resource management practices in the
context of business to business (B2B) electronic commerce. Information Technology & People 17:4, 380-406.
142. Samuel Vieira Conceição, Ronan Torres Quintão. 2004. Avaliação do desenpenho logístico da cadeia
brasileira de suprimentos de refrigerantes. Gestão & Produção 11:3, 441-453. [Crossref]
143. J. Jayaram *, V. R. Kannan, K. C. Tan. 2004. Influence of initiators on supply chain value creation.
International Journal of Production Research 42:20, 4377-4399. [Crossref]
144. Laoucine Kerbache, James MacGregor Smith. 2004. Queueing networks and the topological design of
supply chain systems. International Journal of Production Economics 91:3, 251-272. [Crossref]
145. M. Sadiq Sohail, Amrik S. Sohal, Robert Millen. 2004. The state of quality in logistics: evidence from an
emerging Southeast Asian nation. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 21:4, 397-411.
146. Injazz J Chen, Antony Paulraj. 2004. Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and
measurements. Journal of Operations Management 22:2, 119-150. [Crossref]
147. Cornelia Droge, Cindy Claycomb, Richard Germain. 2003. Does Knowledge Mediate the Effect of Context
on Performance? Some Initial Evidence. Decision Sciences 34:3, 541-568. [Crossref]
148. Shams‐ur Rahman. 2002. The theory of constraints’ thinking process approach to developing strategies
in supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 32:10, 809-828.
149. Ismail Sila, Maling Ebrahimpour. 2002. An investigation of the total quality management survey based
research published between 1989 and 2000. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
150. Kee-hung Lai, E.W.T Ngai, T.C.E Cheng. 2002. Measures for evaluating supply chain performance in
transport logistics. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 38:6, 439-456.
[Crossref]
151. Pietro Romano. 2002. Impact of supply chain sensitivity to quality certification on quality management
practices and performances. Total Quality Management 13:7, 981-1000. [Crossref]
152. C. E. Riddalls, B. Icasati-Johanson, C. M. Axtell, S. Bennett, C. Clegg. 2002. Quantifying the Effects
of Trust in Supply Chains During Promotional Periods. International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications 5:3, 257-274. [Crossref]
153. Michael Morrell, Jean‐Noël Ezingeard. 2002. Revisiting adoption factors of inter‐organisational
information systems in SMEs. Logistics Information Management 15:1, 46-57. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
154. Danny C. K. Ho, K. F. Au, Edward Newton. 2002. Empirical research on supply chain management:
A critical review and recommendations. International Journal of Production Research 40:17, 4415-4430.
[Crossref]
155. Marek Szwejczewski, Keith Goffin, Fred Lemke, Rolf Pfeiffer, Bertram Lohmüller. 2001. Supplier
management in German manufacturing companies ‐ An empirical investigation. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 31:5, 354-373. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
156. Damien J. Power, Amrik S. Sohal, Shams‐Ur Rahman. 2001. Critical success factors in agile supply chain
management ‐ An empirical study. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
157. Keah Choon Tan. 2001. A framework of supply chain management literature. European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management 7:1, 39-48. [Crossref]
158. Chinho Lin, Chu-hua Kuei, Christian N. Madu, Janice Winch. Identifying Critical Success Factors for
Supply Chain Excellence 353-375. [Crossref]
159. Mohd. Nishat Faisal. Managing Risk in Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Supply Chains' Using
Quality Function Deployment (QFD) Approach 1469-1489. [Crossref]
160. Jin Su, Vidyaranya B. Gargeya. Strategic Sourcing and Supplier Selection 149-172. [Crossref]
161. Neha Grover. Performance Measurement 212-241. [Crossref]
162. B. S. Sahay, Vikram Sharma, G. D. Sardana. Supply Chain Management Practices of Indian Automobile
Industry 258-275. [Crossref]
163. Rajeev Kumar. Organizational Performance through Dairy Supply Chain Management Practices: 84-96.
[Crossref]
164. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Role of Sustainable Performance Measurement System in Global Supply Chain
331-348. [Crossref]
165. Neha Grover. Performance Measurement 677-707. [Crossref]
166. Sweety Law, Jacques Verville, Nazim Taskin. Relational Attributes in Supply Chain Relationships 1-24.
[Crossref]
167. Balan Sundarakani, Robert De Souza, Mark Goh. A Case Study of Singapore’s Automotive Supply Chain
200-254. [Crossref]
168. Kijpokin Kasemsap. The Role of Sustainable Performance Measurement System in Global Supply Chain
658-676. [Crossref]

Tan 1999

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

Tan 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Operations & Production Management

Supply chain management: an empirical study of its impact on performance

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

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

Keywords Supply-chain management, TQM, Customer service

examples of truly integrated supply chains (Handfield and Nichols, 1998).

Total quality management practices

and transportation functions are coordinated within organizations (Lee and

Customer relations practices

upstream suppliers. Each entity in the supply chain is a supplier as well as a

perceptual measures as a proxy for actual performance.)

Research hypotheses and survey methodology

Competitive environment, supply chain management practices, and

weakest indicator of competitiveness. The most commonly used TQM practices

and commitment to quality programs, and both strategic and operational

TQM1 TQM2 TQM3 TQM4 TQM5 TQM6 TQM7 TQM practices

PM1 PM2 Performance measures

0.8650 0.1124 4 Growth ± sales

3.7679 1.3564 Eigen value

Regression 5 49.6432 9.9286 12.3792 0.0000

1046 Independent variables Coeff. Std error Beta p

positively with overall performance, further supporting acceptance of

II. Total quality management practices

your firm's practice of the following:

III. Supply base management practices

(1) Market share.

1. V. Mani, Catarina Delgado. Review of Literature 11-80. [Crossref]

Open Book Accounting. European Accounting Review 27:2, 263-287. [Crossref]

performance: An empirical study. Operations Management Research 6:1-2, 19-31. [Crossref]

Asia-Pacific Journal of Accounting & Economics 17:1, 17-39. [Crossref]

de abastecimento de hortifrutigranjeiros frescos: uma pesquisa exploratória no Reino Unido. Revista de

You might also like