See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/264439617

Systematic literature reviews in purchasing and supply management

research: A tertiary study

Article  in  International Journal of Integrated Supply Management · January 2012

DOI: 10.1504/IJISM.2012.052773

CITATIONS READS

37 3,674

2 authors, including:

Christoph Glock
Technische Universität Darmstadt
222 PUBLICATIONS   3,942 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Human Factors in Industry 4.0 View project

Inventory Inaccuracies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christoph Glock on 09 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Systematic literature reviews in purchasing and
supply management research: a tertiary study

Simon Hochrein
Chair of Business Management and Industrial Management
Faculty of Economics
Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
Sanderring 2, 97070 Würzburg, Germany
Fax: +49 931 31 82405

Christoph H. Glock*
Carlo and Karin Giersch Endowed Chair "Business Management: Industrial
Management"
Department of Law and Economics
Darmstadt University of Technology
Hochschulstr. 1, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany
Email: glock@bwl.tu-darmstadt.de
*Corresponding author

Abstract:
This paper studies systematic literature reviews (SLRs) in purchasing and supply
management (PSM) research. First, a process-oriented framework for conducting
SLRs in PSM research is developed and criteria for evaluating SLRs in this
domain are presented. Subsequently, the framework is applied in a case study and
the state of the art of reviewing the literature in PSM research is presented and
evaluated. The results of our study show that literature reviews are becoming
more and more popular in the PSM domain, but that reviews in this area often
lack methodological rigor. The framework presented in this paper may assist
researchers in writing high-quality SLRs in PSM research in the future.
Keywords: sourcing; purchasing; procurement; buying; supply; literature review;
systematic review; meta-analysis; state-of-the-art; systematic overview;
systematic literature review
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Hochrein, S. and Glock, C.H.
(2012) ‘Systematic literature reviews in purchasing and supply management
research: a tertiary study’, Int. J. Integrated Supply Management, Vol. , No. , pp.–.
Biographical notes: Simon Hochrein studied Business Administration (Industrial
Management and Human Resource Management) and now works as a research
assistant at the Chair of Business Management and Industrial Management at the
University of Würzburg. His research interests include purchasing and supply
management, especially purchasing organisation, purchasing and supply
controlling as well as incentive and compensation systems in supply. He has
published in renowned international journals, such as Business Research.

Christoph H. Glock is head of the Carlo and Karin Giersch Endowed Chair
“Business Management: Industrial Management“ at the Technische Universität
Darmstadt. His research interests include inventory management, supply chain
coordination, supply chain organisation, supplier selection and purchasing and
supply management. Dr. Glock has published in renowned international journals,
such as the International Journal of Production Economics, the International
Journal of Production Research, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Business
Research or the Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft.
1 Introduction

Scholarly literature has become more and more complex and diversified over the
last decades. A strong increase in the number of book publications, periodicals,
journals and conference proceedings has been reported in several disciplines
(Fettke, 2006; Peffers and Tang, 2003; vom Brocke et al., 2009; Rahman et al.,
2011) and also prevails in purchasing and supply management (PSM) research.
This trend is due to an increasing specialisation in the academic community and
the fact that many Asian countries are becoming more and more productive in
scientific research (Rahman et al., 2011). This makes it difficult for researchers to
maintain an overview of publications relevant to their field of research.
To avoid the negative consequences of a growing amount of literature and to
benefit from an increasing knowledge base, it is important to regularly analyse,
synthesise and criticise existing works (i.e., so-called primary studies). This can
be done with the help of a literature review (cf. the reviews that have recently
been published in the International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, e.g.
Boone et al., 2007; Hilmola, Hejazi and Ojala, 2005; Nordin and Agndal, 2008;
Rajurkar and Jain, 2011; Sørensen, 2005).
Obviously, every scientific discipline has its own characteristics, and a single
‘correct’ way to conduct a literature review (a so-called secondary study) does
not exist. For this reason, researchers have developed guidelines for conducting
systematic literature reviews (SLRs), such as Torraco (2005) or Tranfield, Denyer
and Smart (2003) for the area of human resource development and business
management. Given that some literature reviews in PSM research lack systematic
methodological standards, the objective of this paper is to develop guidelines for
conducting SLRs in PSM research. To explore the methodological rigour of
literature reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, a review-review (i.e., a so-
called tertiary study) is conducted by developing process-oriented assessment
criteria for evaluating existing SLRs in PSM research. Specifically, the following
research questions are addressed:
 RQ1: How prevalent are SLRs as a research technique in the area of PSM?
 RQ2: How can existing reviews be classified and systematised?
 RQ3: To what extent do SLRs apply methodological rigour?
 RQ4: How should a SLR in PSM research ideally be conducted?
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: The next section briefly
discusses methodological and conceptual issues of literature reviews and
proposes a taxonomy of SLR research. Section 3 focuses on the literature review
process in PSM and defines quality assessment criteria. Section 4 conducts the
tertiary study and applies this framework to SLRs published in the PSM domain,
analyses their content and evaluates them with respect to their methodological
rigour. In the last section, the findings are discussed, implications for future
research are presented and guidelines for conducting SLRs in PSM are suggested.
2 Characteristics of literature reviews

2.1 Purpose and types of literature reviews

A literature review is an approach to structure a research field (Easterby-Smith,

Thorpe and Jackson, 2008; Mentzer and Khan, 1995) and may serve a wide range
of different purposes (Virgo, 1971). The primary objectives are I) summarising
the body of existing research on a specific topic, II) analysing the conceptual
content of the field, III) identifying patterns and research streams, and IV)
informing on the strengths and weaknesses of selected literature (Harland et al.,
2006; Rhoades, 2011; Seuring and Müller, 2007, 2008). The value of a
comprehensive literature review that synthesises research findings should not be
underestimated (Rhoades, 2011). Many authors agree that especially systematic,
stand-alone literature reviews can make an important contribution to existing
research (Boote and Beile, 2005; Gabbott, 2004; Randolph, 2009; Tranfield,
Denyer and Smart, 2003; Woodward, 1977).
Literature reviews are commonly differentiated into narrative reviews,
systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Reviews critically examine the literature
either as stand-alone research related to no other purpose than to reviewing the
literature, or as a part of a paper that aims on making a contribution other than
reviewing the literature (Baker, 2000; Gabbott, 2004; Rhoades, 2011). The
second type of reviews often provides a basis for further research and is not
considered in this paper.
The primary characteristic of a systematic literature review is that it uses a
systematic methodology in reviewing the literature, and that it tries to present
results in a transparent, objective and reproducible way (Rhoades, 2011). This
differentiates SLRs from narrative reviews, which often mix different opinions
and theories and which do not stick to a systematic paper selection and evaluation
procedure (Tranfield, Denyer and Smart, 2003; Collins and Fauser, 2005; Neely
et al., 2010). SLRs mainly use qualitative methods to analyse the literature and
aim on minimising bias by applying a sophisticated and well-documented search
and a clearly defined evaluation procedure (Tranfield, Denyer and Smart, 2003).
The third category of a literature review, the meta-analysis, may finally be
defined as a primarily quantitative and statistical technique for analysing
published works. Meta-analyses extract and consolidate data from individual
articles and try to synthesise findings with the objective of obtaining overall
reliability, which cannot be obtained from a single study alone (Rhoades, 2011;
Tranfield, Denyer and Smart, 2003). Meta-analyses are typically based on SLRs
that need to be conducted beforehand; however, not every SLR results in a meta-
analysis (Neely et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2011).

2.2 Taxonomy for the classification of literature reviews

Several researchers have developed frameworks to categorise literature reviews

(e.g., Torraco, 2005; Webster and Watson, 2002; Manten, 1973; Papier, 1972;
Virgo, 1971). The most frequently cited classification is Cooper’s (1988)
taxonomy of literature reviews, which classifies reviews with the help of six
characteristics. Table 1 illustrates the different categories and review
characteristics used by Cooper (2010) with minor modifications. The ‘focus’ (1)
of a literature review summarises the sub-categories research findings, research
methods, theories, and practices or applications, which are not mutually
exclusive. A typical ‘goal’ (2) of a review is the consolidation of research
findings by resolving conflicts between contradictory views or by creating a
framework to overcome research gaps, but it could also be the criticism of prior
works or the identification of central issues in a certain area. The ‘perspective’ (3)
of a review refers to the way the literature is presented. A review either tries to
ensure that all theories, results or methods are represented in a balanced way
depending on their relevance (neutral perspective), or that special attention is
paid to a certain point of view (espousal of position). In the second case, the
reviewer decides which information is presented to what extent to emphasize the
importance of a particular position. The ‘coverage’ (4) of sources refers to the
amount of research outlets that were considered in searching for relevant
literature and thus influences the number of articles that are included in the
review. Coverage may be differentiated into exhaustive (by including the entire or
almost the entire literature on a topic), exhaustive with selective citation (by
drawing conclusions on the entire literature which are based on an analysis of a
selected sample of works), representative (by presenting a sample that typifies
larger groups of material) and central or pivotal (by describing important initial
efforts that have provided direction for a field) coverage. ‘Organisation’ (5)
describes the way a review is arranged and how the content is analysed. In
addition to Cooper (1988), we differentiate between a historical (topics are
introduced in chronological order), methodological (works are grouped according
to the methods used), author-centric (each article is separately discussed) or
conceptual setup (works are referred to a set of initially defined content
categories). If a conceptual organisation is used, the categories which are used to
group the articles contained in the sample may be based on a classification, a
taxonomy, a conceptual framework and/or a theoretical system (Torraco, 2005;
Webster and Watson, 2002). A literature-based classification system is useful as a
starting point and for conducting a first summary of research, while an
established taxonomy is adequate for describing relationships between different
groups of works (e.g., independent, dependent or mediating variables). Using a
theoretical system ensures that the discussion of papers and the formal categories
are based on a well-established theory (Seuring and Müller, 2008), whereas
developing a framework is helpful for summarising propositions, explanations
and predictions (cf. Glock and Hochrein, 2011). Moreover, SLRs can combine
several of the approaches given above, e.g., by discussing works in a
chronological order within a given conceptual or methodological framework.
Finally, the characteristic ‘audience’ (6) considers the readership addressed by
the review. Cooper’s (1988) taxonomy has frequently been extended in the past,
for example by Fettke (2006), who added several characteristics to the framework.
Table 1 Taxonomy of Literature Reviews
Characteristics Categories
Research findings
Research methods
Focus
Theories
Practices or applications
Integration
Generalisation
Conflict resolution
Goal
Linguistic bridge building
Criticism
Identification of central issues
Neutral representation
Perspective
Espousal of position
Exhaustive
Exhaustive with selective citation
Coverage
Representative
Central or pivotal
Historical
Conceptual (thematic)
Organisation
Author-centric
Methodological
Specialised scholars
General scholars
Audience
Practitioners or policy makers
General public

Source: Adapted from Cooper (2010)

Table 1 also contains an application of the taxonomy to this review article (note
that the categories which are relevant for this review are highlighted).

3 Literature reviews in PSM research

3.1 Process-oriented framework for SLRs in PSM research

Reviewing the literature in a transparent and reproducible way requires that

methodological rigour is applied in searching and evaluating the literature,
although the requirements on the review may vary with focus and research field
(Neely et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2011). Even though a number of reviews have been
published that analyse topics related to PSM, no framework exists which supports
researchers in reviewing the literature in this domain. To close this gap, this
section presents a conceptual framework that helps to structure and evaluate
SLRs in PSM research.
Cooper (1989), Hart (1999) and Fink (2010) developed process-oriented
frameworks for reviewing the literature, which were modified and extended by
many researchers (e.g., Gabbott, 2004; Randolph, 2009). Figure 1 presents a
framework for conducting SLRs that will be used in this paper (see Section 4).
The framework is based on the works of Cooper (2010) and integrates ideas from
Rhoades (2011), Gabbott (2004), Randolph (2009), Torraco (2005), Tranfield,
Denyer and Smart (2003), Jackson (1980), and vom Brocke et al. (2009). The
individual steps of the process framework will be described in detail in Section 4.
Figure 1 Process of a SLR
formulation
1) Problem

1 Define the research topic and structure the review protocol

(e.g., definition of search terms and inclusion/exclusion criteria)
search & selection

2 a) Conduct the literature search and document the search strategy

2) Literature

2 b) Screen all articles and exclude irrelevant ones

3) Data evaluation

3 a) Descriptively evaluate the sample and illustrate data graphically and

statistically
& analysis

3 b) Develop analytical structural dimensions for grouping articles and assess

the sample by data extraction

Determine if a meta-analysis is appropriate

4) Critical analysis, synthesis &

If not, develop a systematic review If yes, select statistical techniques

interpretations

4 a) Analyse the results and

synthesise the findings

Develop a meta-analytical review

4 b) Report results and give Report results, conclusions and
recommendations recommendations

4 c) Work out conclusions and

implications

5) Presentation of research findings

3.2 Evaluation criteria for SLRs in PSM research

This section defines assessment criteria for evaluating the methodological rigour
of SLRs in PSM research. Table 2 contains a list of four main evaluation criteria
and items for their operationalisation. This checklist for evaluating SLRs in PSM
is based on the suggestions of Boote and Beile (2005), Campion (1993),
Randolph (2009), vom Brocke et al. (2009), and Soni and Kodali (2011). Items
which may help to evaluate the methodological rigour of a review have been
grouped into categories, and further they have been labelled as objective or
subjective criteria. Objective criteria can be measured relatively easily, while
subjective criteria require a lot of personal assessment, which complicates
measurement. The list of assessment criteria may serve as a guideline for authors
to ensure that their work meets the basic methodological requirements of a SLR,
and it will be used to evaluate existing reviews in PSM research in Section 4.
Table 2 Evaluation criteria for SLRs in PSM research
Evaluation criteria
Criterion 1: Sample selection and criteria for inclusion or exclusion
 Definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria: Are criteria and the decision rules for the inclusion or
exclusion of articles discussed and clearly stated? (objective) (cf. Boote and Beile, 2005; Neely et al.,
2010; Randolph, 2009; Rhoades, 2011)
 Thoroughness and accuracy: Are wide ranges of areas and related contexts considered? Is the research
field of the paper appropriately covered? Are the key concepts described, and have the most important
topics in the literature been identified? Does the literature review critically point out limitations and
conflicts, and does it delineate ambiguities and boundaries? (subjective) (cf. Boote and Beile, 2005;
Campion, 1993; Cooper, 2010; Soni and Kodali, 2011; Webster and Watson, 2002)
 Quality assessment of sample selection: Is the process of paper selection described and are the selection
criteria mentioned? Are only titles and/or abstracts read by the authors in order to exclude irrelevant
articles, or was (in all cases of reasonable doubt) each article completely read? (objective) (cf. Cooper,
2010; Neely et al., 2010; Randolph, 2009; Rhoades, 2011)
 Sufficiency of sample description: Is the selection strategy clearly explained and is the chosen approach
consistent and verifiable? Is it possible to reproduce the selection process? (subjective) (cf. Neely et al.,
2010; Randolph, 2009; Soni and Kodali, 2011)
 Appropriateness of the sample: Is the sample consistent to the research question and can the results be
generalised? (subjective) (cf. Neely et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2011)

Criterion 2: Description of search process

 Sufficiency of search strategy description: Are the search process and the search strategy described and
documented (e.g. the period covered)? Are multiple databases used for keyword search? Are keywords
used for the database and/or journal search, and are they described? Is a manual search complemented by a
search in electronic databases? If so, are the number and names of journals that were searched given, and
are the methods (e.g. rankings) of journal selection described and justified? Are backward and/or forward
searches applied? Is the sample reduction process described? Is the number of identified articles
mentioned? (objective) (cf. Cooper, 2010; Neely et al., 2010; Randolph, 2009; Rhoades, 2011; Soni and
Kodali, 2011; vom Brocke, 2009)
 Consistency and appropriateness of search strategy: Is the chosen approach consistent and verifiable? Is
any ‘grey literature’ (material that is not subject to editorial control or peer review, such as working
papers) covered, and was the inclusion appropriate? If not, are publication biases analysed? (subjective)
(cf. Neely et al., 2010; Rhoades, 2011)
4 The current state of literature reviews in PSM research

4.1 Applying the process-oriented framework to PSM reviews

In the following, the process-oriented framework and the evaluation criteria

presented in Section 3 will be used to evaluate literature reviews in PSM research.
The problem domain of this paper has already been defined in Section 1 (cf. RQ 1
to 4), and further this article has been classified within the taxonomy for reviews
in Section 2.2. A formal review protocol, which gives a record of the methods
used, will be outlined in Section 4.2 (Step 1 of our framework). Subsequently,
existing SLRs in PSM are searched and selected (Step 2; see Section 4.2 and
Appendix A1 for a detailed report). To facilitate the extraction of content and
methodological characteristics from the selected papers, categories and analytical
dimensions are developed and defined before the selected papers are analysed.
Selected articles are then subjected to data evaluation by descriptively analysing
the sample (Step 3; see Section 4.3), and they are classified in light of Cooper’s
taxonomy (Section 4.3). In Section 4.4, the selected papers are analysed and
synthesised with the help of the evaluation criteria presented in Table 2 (Steps 4
and 5). Recommendations for future review research in PSM are finally made in
Section 4.5.

4.2 Search and selection of SLRs in PSM research

To enable the reader to reproduce the sample, it is necessary to specify the

procedure for searching relevant works as well as the criteria for including and
excluding articles (Torraco, 2005). Vom Brocke et al. (2009) pointed out that
literature reviews need to be both reliable and valid, where validity refers to the
correct implementation of a search strategy and reliability to the replicability of
the search process. In this paper, a review protocol was used for defining
inclusion and exclusion criteria and for coding headings and definitions (cf.
Appendix A1). Thereby, each article was classified based on (1) a formal analysis
of bibliographical data (author names and titles, year of publication, journal name
including volume, issue, page numbers and cross reference), (2) the type of
review (see Section 2.1), (3) the different categories and review characteristics
used (see Section 2.2), (4) content categories including the general research topic
as well as contribution and major findings, and (5) a literature search analysis
category which is discussed in more detail below.
According to the process framework (Figure 1), the search strategy was
defined in a second step. The literature search was initiated by a manual review
of all issues of a number of selected journals. The selection of journals was based
on the journal rankings and evaluations of Menachof et al. (2009), Zsidisin et al.
(2007) and Harzing (2012) as well as the source normalised impact per paper
(SNIP) developed by Moed (2010). After discussing the journal list in a team of
three researchers in PSM, 35 journals were considered as the most important
research outlets for PSM research (cf. Appendix A2). Depending on the focus of
future SLRs in PSM, this list could be extended to include research topic-specific
journals (cf. Walker, 2009; Boone et al., 2007). The search was restricted to SLRs
that appeared in peer-reviewed journals, as it can be assumed that the quality of
publications in refereed journals is on average much higher than in monographs
(vom Brocke et al., 2009; Light and Pillemer, 1984). The analysis was further
limited to articles published in English in the time span from 1980 to 2011 and to
works that could be identified as stand-alone reviews. Papers that did not contain
a description of their literature search strategy were also excluded from the
sample as this was considered to be a central attribute differentiating SLRs from
narrative reviews (see Section 2.1). Categorising published works according to a
given framework was not considered to be sufficient to qualify as a SLR if a
strategy of analysis was not defined. As a consequence, the works of Aissaoui,
Haouari and Hassini (2007), Ellram and Carr (1994), Stamm and Golhar (1993),
and Garg and Deshmukh (1999), which are sometimes referred to as SLRs by
other authors, were not included in our sample. The criteria mentioned above
were complemented by defining a keyword list whose elements were searched in
the headings of potentially relevant articles. The list was generated by defining
two sets of keywords and by combining each keyword from the first group with
each keyword from the second group. Group A contained ‘sourcing’,
‘purchasing’, ‘procurement’, ‘buying’ and ‘supply’, as these are frequently-used
descriptions of PSM-related activities which are consistent to our research aims.
Group B contained ‘literature review’, ‘systematic review’, ‘meta-analysis’,
‘state-of-the-art’, and ‘systematic overview’. The term ‘meta-analysis’ was
included since meta-analyses are usually based on SLRs. Subsequently, all titles
and abstracts of articles that appeared in the pre-selected journals were manually
checked in light of the keywords defined above (cf. Appendix A1). In total, 107
articles were identified that met our search criteria, out of which 75 appeared in
PSCM, 28 in OR/MS/POM and 4 in IMM journals. These papers were subjected
to a further analysis of their abstracts and, if considered relevant or in case of
doubt, selected and completely read to examine their content. In this first manual
literature search step, only 2 papers were considered relevant.
The next step was a search of selected online databases with the keywords
defined above. The intention of this step was to identify additional works that
appeared in other than the pre-selected journals. To increase the probability that
relevant works are found, we searched two databases, Business Source Premier
(BSP) and ABI/Inform Global (ABI), to combine their respective advantages (as
required by Ford and O’Hara, 2008) and to cover multidisciplinary content (as
required by Jascó, 2011). Appendix A2 lists the journal coverage of the
respective electronic databases. For an overview of alternative databases that
could be relevant for the field of PSM, the reader is referred to Menachof et al.
(2009). Articles were considered relevant if they contained one of the keywords
in their title and at least one search term from both keyword groups in their
abstract, which led to 185 articles that were found by BSP and 193 articles that
resulted from ABI. Again, papers that met the search criteria were subjected to an
analysis of their abstract and, in case they seemed to be relevant and had not
already been selected, were included in the sample. After consolidation of results,
4 additional papers were considered relevant in this step of the search phase.
Accordingly, the reference lists were shared with experts in PSM to find
additional literature that could be relevant to the review. This expert consultation
provided 7 relevant articles in addition. A snowball approach was then
conducted by checking references cited in the 13 pre-selected articles (cf.
backward search proposed by vom Brocke et al., 2009 and Webster and Watson,
2002). A ‘forward search’, where articles that cited one of the selected papers
were checked, was also part of our literature search strategy. In total, we
identified 7 additional articles that were then subjected to the selection process.
In the paper selection phase, articles identified by keyword search were
evaluated and assessed for relevance based on their abstracts (cf. Appendix A2,
which also outlines the databases used and the search functionality applied). In
case of doubt or if the content of the paper did not become completely clear from
the abstract, the entire paper was read by at least two reviewers. As working
definition and selection criteria for PSM topics, we defined PSM as the process of
planning, implementing, evaluating, and controlling strategic and operative
purchasing decisions for directing all activities of the purchasing function
towards opportunities consistent with the firm's capabilities to achieve its long-
term goals (Carr and Smeltzer, 1997; Ellram and Carr 1994; Zheng et al., 2007).
Studies that concentrated on supply chain management, which is a more
comprehensive concept that includes PSM, but has a stronger focus on the
coordination and the management of downstream flows of materials, were
excluded from the survey to keep our study focused. In total, three reviewers
were involved in the paper evaluation process. Each reviewer independently
checked the potentially relevant articles and in case of doubt, the relevance of
these articles was discussed to reduce subjectivity and to assure consistency
(Nordin and Agndal, 2008). In sum, this process led to a final sample of 18
articles. The search phase is documented in Appendix A1.

4.3 Data evaluation and analysis of selected SLRs in PSM research

In the next step, it was necessary to group articles contained in the sample and to
structure the data evaluation and critical analysis of this SLR. While authors of
secondary studies typically use content categories for grouping papers before
applying a critical analysis, works that are reviewed in a tertiary study are often
grouped along other dimensions (cf. Fettke, 2006; vom Brocke et al., 2009;
Kitchenham et al., 2009, 2010; Cruzes and Dyba, 2011; da Silva et al., 2011).
The term ‘analytical structural dimensions’ we used in Figure 1 denotes
characteristics which are used for grouping papers contained in the sample and
for structuring the further critical assessment of secondary or tertiary studies.
This section descriptively analyses the identified SLRs (cf. for a similar
approach Dibbern et al., 2004; Soni and Kodali, 2011) and assesses them in light
of Cooper’s taxonomy (cf. Section 2.2) as the first analytical structural dimension.
Section 4.4 will then use chronological and methodological characteristics to
critically evaluate existing reviews as the second analytical structural dimension.
Table 3 lists all SLRs published in the area of PSM in alphabetical order
(author(s) and year of publication) and classifies the selected papers with respect
to the type of review (cf. Section 2.1; Rhoades, 2011). A brief summary of their
research objective(s), the focused research area as well as the contribution of the
reviews were also investigated. Table 3 illustrates that the SLRs addressed a
broad range of topics; only organisational issues in PSM (Johnston and Lewin,
1996; Pagano, 2009; Glock and Hochrein, 2011) and decision support models for
supplier evaluation and selection (Weber, Current, and Benton, 1991; de Boer,
Labro and Morlacchi, 2001; Ho, Xu and Dey, 2010) were the subjects of more
than a single paper. The total number of articles published per year was analysed
as well and the results are shown in Appendix A3. The trend line illustrates that
SLR research has increased over the years. This result is in line with the objective
of this work, which is to synthesise findings of a methodology which is becoming
more and more important. As to the type of review, 2 meta-analyses and 18 SLRs
are contained in the sample.
Table 4 classifies the selected reviews according to Cooper’s taxonomy. As
can be seen, the focus of almost all SLRs we identified was on summarising and
consolidating research findings and methods, while some papers had a focus on
theories and practices. The objective of all reviews was to integrate research
results for generalisation. While 2 articles integrated results for linguistic bridge
building and 3 works for conflict resolution, 14 articles criticised existing works,
and 15 identified central issues in their respective research area. As to the
perspective of the reviews, 12 out of 20 papers applied an espousal of position,
while 8 papers adopted a neutral perspective. Most of the reviews tried to base
their analysis on a representative sample by searching a large number of relevant
research outlets. Wynstra’s (2010) SLR is the only one with an exhaustive
coverage in terms of Cooper’s definition. As de Boer, Labro and Morlacchi (2001)
and van Bommel (2011) did not state the sample size, an assessment of the
coverage was not possible. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that the thematic
approach is the dominant method of structuring the content analysis (18 articles,
out of which 7 articles are exclusively conceptual, 6 are combined with an author-
centric and 5 with a methodological structure), while only 2 articles used a
methodological perspective combined with an author-centric approach. A
historical organisation was not applied. Only Glock and Hochrein (2011)
developed a theory-based conceptual framework. The audience of all 20 SLRs
were specialised and/or general scholars, while 10 works also focused on
practitioners by highlighting managerial implications or best practices for
managers.
Table 3 Identified systematic reviews in PSM
Review
Author(s) Research field and objectives Main findings and implications
type
Identification of key areas addressed in PSM
dissertations; evaluation and analysis of relative shifts in The analysis shows a) that dissertation research in PSM is largely exploratory,
Das and Meta- topical coverage; examination of methodological lacking in dominant paradigms and unifying theories, b) an encouraging trend
Handfield (1997) analysis sophistication, analytical techniques, disciplinary towards causal and confirmatory research designs, and c) a growing use of
approaches and the extent of theory development; organisational, marketing and economic theory to explain PSM phenomena.
discussion of research gaps.
The analysis shows that current portfolio models are grouped into two principal
Presentation of a taxonomy of segmentation bases which
Day, Magnan, taxonomic constructs of power and dependence and relational factors. A prevalent
builds a multi-disciplinary approach to the categorisation
and Moeller SLR use of transaction cost economics in portfolio modelling is stated and existing
of suppliers. The developed taxonomy draws together a
(2010) approaches are advanced with reference to inter-organisational theory and the
holistic view of supplier segmentation.
resource-based view.
The analysis reveals a) a classification of supplier selection methods according to
De Boer, Labro different stages of the supplier selection process, b) that the phases prior to the
Review of decision methods for supporting the supplier
and Morlacchi SLR choice phase of the supplier selection process should receive more attention, c)
selection process.
(2001) that more attention should be paid to the area of service PSM, and d) not all
methods for supplier selection are equally useful in every PSM situation.

Provision of a new research agenda on small company The review leads to the formulation of nine research questions emphasising
Ellegaard (2006) SLR
PSM. supplier relationship management and the effects of owner behaviour on PSM.

The intention of the review is to a) analyse and synthesise

prior research topics and findings, b) provide researchers The review reveals that the research on PO addressed different topics (context
Glock and
SLR with a structural framework on which future research on factors, structural variables, institutional types and performance impact) and
Hochrein (2011)
the organisation of PSM may be oriented, and c) suggest provides anchors and directions for future research.
promising areas for future research.
PSM is not yet a discipline as the field lacks quality of theoretical development
The review analyses whether PSM can be regarded as a
Harland et al. and discussion and coherence. Tests for increasing evidence yield positive results,
SLR (emerging) discipline based on an evaluation framework
(2006) indicating that PSM is progressing in its theoretical development and should be
of research quality.
judged to be an emerging discipline.
Examination of decision making approaches for supplier The review analysed multi-criteria decision-making approaches in supplier
Ho, Xu and Dey evaluation and selection. Identification of a) approaches evaluation and selection. The findings show that proposed approaches uncritically
SLR
(2010) that were prevalently applied, b) evaluation criteria that employ specific frameworks (price or cost is not the most widely adopted
were most frequently used, c) approaches whose use was criterion, quality and delivery are favoured instead) and some approaches seem to
 inadequate to the problem. be inadequate.
Review of organisational buying behaviour and The review shows an integrated model of organisational buying behaviour
Johnston and
SLR presentation of an integrated model of organisational (providing a base for meta-analysis) and provides evidence that more empirical
Lewin (1996)
buying behaviour based on different research streams. research on less frequently used constructs is needed.
Karjalainen, The review integrates different forms and reasons in a conceptual framework and
Review of non-compliant purchasing behaviour and
Kemppainen and SLR proposes avenues for future research (in-depth interviews with PSM professionals
identification of different forms of maverick buying.
van Raaij (2009) supports the validation of maverick buying forms).
Examination of strength, significance, and generality of
Lewin and Meta- The review identifies unresolved questions, clarifies systematic sources of
relationships between the nature of the purchase situation
Donthu (2005) analysis differences across studies and proposes relationships for further examination.
and buying centre structure / buying centre involvement.
The review reveals that the contribution of service sourcing studies in terms of
Review, analysis and categorisation of empirical research
Nordin and theory generation is limited. As most articles dealt with the sourcing process or
SLR in the area of service sourcing in business markets and
Agndal (2008) strategy, less with antecedents to sourcing and sourcing outcomes, suggestions for
provision of some future research directions.
future research are provided.
Review deals with the role of relational capabilities in the The review shows that research on the role of intra-organisational mechanisms in
organisation of international sourcing activities and aims the management of international sourcing activities is highly fragmented. MNCs
Pagano (2009) SLR
to shed light on the organisational capabilities required could provide a valuable ‘research context’ in which to apply and further develop
for implementing international sourcing activities. theoretically the concept of relational capabilities and its main components.
Development of a framework for making strategic
Pazirandeh The review develops a framework and introduces a set of propositions for further
SLR sourcing decisions within humanitarian aid networks for
(2011) research.
vaccines.
Quintens, The review shows that the conceptual foundation of the field of global PSM
Analysis and evaluation of the state of the art of global
Pauwels and remains premature; further research would benefit from a significant convergence
SLR PSM and identification of important antecedents and
Matthyssens in and formalisation of its conceptual basis as well as from more explanatory than
consequences of global PSM.
(2006) descriptive empirical work.
Schoenherr and Review deals with electronic procurement (examination
SLR The review suggests directions for future research.
Tummala (2007) along eight key dimensions).
Presentation of a conceptual framework to analyse and
van Bommel The review formulates two propositions on the basis of the conceptual framework
SLR understand how the implementation process of
(2011) and states that additional empirical research is needed to test the model.
sustainability in industrial supply networks occurs.
Weber, Current Review of the literature in order to provide a
and Benton SLR comprehensive view of the criteria that academicians and The review presents conclusions and potential areas for future research.
(1991) PSM practitioners feel are important in the vendor
 selection process.
Review of the literature on supply partner selection and The review applies a classification framework for comparison of models and
Wu and Barnes classification of previous work in this context. Attention identification of trends and gaps in the literature. The findings highlight an on-
SLR
(2011) is paid to those methods relevant for supply partner going need to develop methods that are able to meet the combination of qualitative
selection in agile supply chains. and quantitative objectives for partner selection problems in practice.
The review shows that the authorship is spread over a relatively large group of
authors, content had a focus on strategic aspects of PSM, the journal is positioned
Review of the origins, contents and impact of all
Wynstra (2010) SLR as a multi-disciplinary journal and a stable and balanced mix of (empirical)
published articles of JPSM.
studies. Recommendations how to further leverage the potential of this journal are
given.
The review reports findings on the future of PSM in terms of changes in various
Analysis of empirical studies and the current state and the
Zheng et al. PSM-related areas, presents a number of major implications for the PSM function,
SLR future of PSM, the key issues in the findings of the
(2007) process and professional bodies and suggestions to address significant gaps in the
higher-quality studies and derived implications.
current body of knowledge.

Table 4 Classification of systematic reviews in PSM

Author(s) Focus Goal Perspective Coverage Organization Audience
Integration for generalisation and Conceptual (sub-topics
Das and Research methods Espousal of Specialised (general)
linguistic bridge building / criticism / Representative based on empirical research)
Handfield (1997) and theories position scholars
identification of central issues / methodological
Day, Magnan, Research findings, Integration for generalisation /
Espousal of Conceptual (taxonomy) / Specialised (general)
and Moeller methods and criticism / identification of central Representative
position author-centric scholars, practitioners
(2010) theories issues
De Boer, Labro
Research findings Integration for generalisation / Espousal of Conceptual (framework) / Specialised (general)
and Morlacchi unspecified
and methods criticism position methodological scholars, practitioners
(2001)
Conceptual (activity areas
Integration for generalisation / Espousal of
Ellegaard (2006) Research findings Representative based on textbook) / author- Specialised scholars
identification of central issues position
centric
Research findings, Integration for generalisation / Conceptual (theory-based
Glock and Espousal of Specialised (general)
methods and criticism / identification of central Representative framework) / author-centric
Hochrein (2011) position scholars
theories issues appendices
Author(s) Focus Goal Perspective Coverage Organization Audience
Research findings,
Harland et al. Integration for generalisation / Espousal of Conceptual (evaluation Specialised (general)
methods and Representative
(2006) criticism position framework) scholars
theories
Ho, Xu and Dey Research findings Integration for generalisation and Neutral Methodological, author- Specialised (general)
Representative
(2010) and methods conflict resolution / criticism representation centric scholars / practitioners
Conceptual (integrated
Johnston and Research findings Integration for generalisation / Neutral Specialised (general)
Representative framework) /
Lewin (1996) and methods identification of central issues representation scholars / practitioners
methodological
Karjalainen,
Integration for generalisation / Neutral Conceptual (content analysis Specialised (general)
Kemppainen and Research findings Representative
identification of central issues representation based on five questions) scholars / practitioners
Raaij (2009)
Lewin and Research findings Integration for generalisation and Neutral Conceptual (cause and effect Specialised (general)
Representative
Donthu (2005) and methods conflict resolution / criticism representation model for meta-analysis) scholars
Research findings, Integration for generalisation / Conceptual (categorization
Nordin and Neutral Specialised (general)
methods and criticism / identification of central Representative of focus areas based on four
Agndal (2008) representation scholars
theories issues basic questions)
Research findings, Integration for generalisation and
Espousal of Conceptual (based on an Specialised (general)
Pagano (2009) methods and linguistic bridge building / criticism / Representative
position existing framework) scholars, practitioners
theories identification of central issues
Pazirandeh Research findings / Integration for generalisation / Espousal of Specialised (general)
Representative Conceptual / author-centric
(2011) practices identification of central issues position scholars / practitioners
Quintens,
Integration for generalisation / Conceptual (sub-topics
Pauwels and Research findings Espousal of Specialised (general)
criticism / identification of central Representative based on the literature) /
Matthyssens and methods position scholars
issues methodological
(2006)
Research findings, Integration for generalisation /
Schoenherr and Neutral Conceptual (classification Specialised (general)
methods and criticism / identification of central Representative
Tummala (2007) representation framework) scholars
theories issues
van Bommel Integration for generalisation / Neutral Specialised (general)
Research findings unspecified Conceptual (framework)
(2011) identification of central issues representation scholars
Author(s) Focus Goal Perspective Coverage Organization Audience
Weber, Current Research findings,
Integration for generalisation / Neutral Specialised (general)
and Benton methods and Representative Conceptual / author-centric
identification of central issues representation scholars / practitioners
(1991) practices
Wu and Barnes Integration for generalisation / Espousal of Methodological / author- Specialised (general)
Research methods Representative
(2011) criticism position centric scholars / practitioners
Integration for generalisation /
Espousal of Conceptual (classification), Specialised (general)
Wynstra (2010) Research methods criticism / identification of central Exhaustive
position methodological scholars
issues
Research findings, Integration for generalisation and Specialised (general)
Zheng et al. Espousal of Conceptual (analytical
methods and conflict resolution / criticism / Representative scholars / practitioners
(2007) position framework) / author-centric
practices identification of central issues or policy makers
4.4 Critical analysis of the search strategy in SLRs in PSM research

The heterogeneity of the articles analysed in this paper, both with respect to the
research question and the methodology used (tertiary study), prohibits the use of
a meta-analysis (Tranfield, Denyer and Smart, 2003). In this section, the literature
search strategies of the identified SLRs are critically analysed in light of the
evaluation criteria formulated in Section 3.2.
Table 5 illustrates that SLRs in PSM were published not only in PSCM-
related journals. The SLRs differ in terms of length, reaching from 9 pages (Ho,
Xu and Dey, 2010) to 43 pages (Glock and Hochrein, 2011). Notwithstanding
that literature reviews commonly require far more pages than regular research
papers (vom Brocke et al., 2009), only 9 out of 20 articles are longer than 15
pages, which is probably due to the submission guidelines and page limitations of
their outlets. This could be the reason why some of the authors did not state their
methods clearly and why more comprehensive analyses were not performed. The
time period covered during the literature search process is not explicitly stated in
all articles. The period covered ranges from 9 years (Ho, Xu and Dey, 2010;
Zheng et al., 2007) to 43 years (Glock and Hochrein, 2011). Wynstra (2010)
provides an exhaustive coverage and addresses only articles published in JPSM.
Table 5 further analyses whether the reviews are based on an established
methodology and whether chronological issues were addressed. The results show
that 7 out of 20 articles did not specify their methodology. 11 articles analysed
chronological issues of published works, in most cases by studying the number
of articles published per year. Only Glock and Hochrein (2011) and Wynstra
(2010) applied a more profound approach to obtain in-depth findings from the
chronological analysis.
Table 5 Results from evaluation of the SLRs in PSM
Author(s) Journal (pages) Period covered during search Methodological references Chronological analysis

Das and Handfield (1997) JOM (21) 1987-1995 (9 years) applied Analysis of topics by year (clusters)

Day, Magnan, and Moeller

IMM (15) Not stated applied unspecified
(2010)

De Boer, Labro and

JPSM (15) Not stated applied unspecified
Morlacchi (2001)

Selected journals were completely

Ellegaard (2006) JPSM (12) unspecified unspecified
checked

Glock and Hochrein NaY; analysis of additional

BuR (43) 1967-2009 (43 years) applied
(2011) chronological aspects1
Impact scores for journals
Harland et al. (2006) IJOPM (24) 1980-2005 (26 years) applied
publishing on PSM discipline issues
Ho, Xu and Dey (2010) EJOR (9) 2000-2008 (9 years) applied NaY
Johnston and Lewin
JBR (15) 1971-1996 (25 years) applied unspecified
(1996)
Karjalainen, Kemppainen
JBE (17) Not stated applied unspecified
and van Raaij (2009)
1967-2002 (Journals; but unlimited
Lewin and Donthu (2005) JBR (10) applied unspecified
within databases)
1975-2005 (a list of 116 articles
Nordin and Agndal (2008) IJISM (28) applied NaY
remained)
Pagano (2009) IMM (11) 1995-2007 (13 years) applied NaY (clusters) and journals
Pazirandeh (2011) IJPDLM (21) Not stated unspecified unspecified
 Quintens, Pauwels and
JPSM (12) 1990-2005 (16 years) unspecified NaY
Matthyssens (2006)

Schoenherr and Tummala

IJProcM (30) Not clearly stated unspecified NaY
(2007)
van Bommel (2011) JCP (10) 2000-2010 (11 years) unspecified unspecified
Weber, Current and
EJOR (17) Not clearly stated applied unspecified
Benton (1991)
Wu and Barnes (2011) JPSM (19) 2001-2011 (11 years) applied NaY
NaY; analysis of additional
Wynstra (2010) JPSM (14) 1994-2009 (16 years) unspecified
chronological aspects2
Zheng et al. (2007) JPSM (15) 1995-2003 (9 years) unspecified NaY (clusters)
Notes: JBE (Journal of Business Ethics); IJProcM (International Journal of Procurement Management); JCP (Journal of Cleaner Production); BuR (Business Research); the other
abbreviations are explained in Appendix 2.
NaY (Number of articles by year); 1 NaY and journals, methodologies by number of articles and year, framework categories by number of articles and year 2 SSCI of
(E)JPSM articles per year (WoS); SNIP per year; citations to (E)JPSM articles by discipline and year (clusters)

Table 6 Results from evaluation of the SLRs in PSM

Databases and journals (number of journals & type
Author(s) Keywords & snowball approach Sample size
of covered publications)
Only dissertations were analysed by Dissertation Database provided 482 dissertations resulting 117 (482 examined in terms of a
Das and Handfield (1997)
Abstracts International database from a search query using defined key words 12-item framework)
Stage 1 databases (EBSCO, ABI and Swets-Wise);
Stage 2 pre-selected journals (not stated; systematically Keyword search applied; Stage 3 snowball
Day, Magnan, and Moeller
assessed going back to the first volume that could be approach applied (reference and citation based 15
(2010)
traced); books, journals, conference proceedings, search)
working papers considered
Database use not stated; refereed journals (no details
De Boer, Labro and
stated), textbooks, dissertations and refereed Not stated Not stated
Morlacchi (2001)
conference proceedings
 Databases and journals (number of journals & type
Author(s) Keywords & snowball approach Sample size
of covered publications)
Databases used (but not stated); 8 pre-selected journals No keyword search; titles and abstracts of
Ellegaard (2006) (PSM and small-business; journal selection justified selected journals were examined; references of 58
with journals’ aims and scope) identified papers were scanned
Databases used (BSP, ABI); 42 pre-selected journals Keyword search in the title and abstract, and
Glock and Hochrein 85 (detailed overview of selection
(journal selection justified with journal rankings and used in combinations (detailed overview of hits);
(2011) process step by step)
references) snowball approach applied
Database search only (ABI); no justified journal Keyword search in the title and abstract, and 41 (initial search: 29  15;
Harland et al. (2006) selection (journal rankings only used for analysis of used in combinations; no snowball approach additional search: 494  105 
database search results) applied 41)
Databases search only (Emerald, Ingenta, Meta-Press,
Ho, Xu and Dey (2010) ABI, ScienceDirect); no pre-selected journals; only Not stated 78
journal articles considered
No database search; only 6 pre-selected journals
Johnston and Lewin 165 (44 empirical and 121
searched (journal selection justified, but no journal Not stated
(1996) conceptual articles)
rankings used)
39 (1097  71 exclusion
Karjalainen, Kemppainen Databases search only (ABI, ScienceDirect); no pre- Keywords stated, search mode clearly stated; no dependant on one reviewer  39
and Raaij (2009) selected journals snowball approach applied selected exclusion dependant on
three reviewers)
Snowball approach applied (References were
Databases search (ABI, BSP, Infotrac, Eric, Psycinfo)
searched for additional studies); more than 30 33 (67  33 empirical works
Lewin and Donthu (2005) and unpublished working papers; issue-by issue
researchers were contacted to identify published between 1979 and 1999)
searches of 7 pre-selected journals
unpublished working papers
Databases search (ABI, Emerald, BSP); no justified
Keyword search; snowball approach applied 175 (500  116  59 by snowball
journal selection (Harzings Journal Quality List and
Nordin and Agndal (2008) (reference lists of the original 116 articles were approach  increased sample 175,
journal rankings only used for analysis of database
scanned for additional references) 119 empirical 56 non-empirical)
search results)
No specified database search; 31 pre-selected journals
Only manual paper selection; no snowball
Pagano (2009) searched (selection justified with journal rankings 47
approach applied
and/or used references)
Pazirandeh (2011) Internet search engine used; 12 selected journals (3 for Keyword search in 9 journals; additional Final sample size not stated (only
 Databases and journals (number of journals & type
Author(s) Keywords & snowball approach Sample size
of covered publications)
manual review, 9 for keyword search; selection not keyword search by internet search engine; information on manual review
justified) keywords clearly stated results)
BSP and databases from the publishers of the 14
Quintens, Pauwels and Two groups of keywords used in combination; 123 (in 31 different academic
journals; complete check of all issues of the 14
Matthyssens (2006) snowball approach applied journals)
journals (journal selection not justified)
Schoenherr and Tummala One search term (‘electronic procurement’) used; 157 (160, 3 articles excluded due
Database search only (ABI); no pre-selected journals
(2007) no snowball approach applied to relevance)
van Bommel (2011) No database search; 12 pre-selected journals stated Four groups of keywords  used in combination Not stated
Weber, Current and
Not stated Not stated 74
Benton (1991)
Database search only (ISI Web of Knowledge), no
Wu and Barnes (2011) Keywords clearly stated 140
journal pre-selection
Wynstra (2010) Exhaustive analysis of fifteen volumes of one journal (JPSM) 351
Databases search (notably Emerald, BSP), academic
and non-academic sources; UK research and Keywords used, combination (unclear); no
Zheng et al. (2007) 42 (214 reviewed)
international studies; several academic journals (e.g. snowball approach applied
JPSM); IPSERA Conference Proceedings
 Table 6 analyses to what extent the search process was accurately described in
the works contained in our sample. With the exception of Weber, Current and
Benton (1991) all identified reviews contain information on the underlying search
process, but differ with respect to quality of description and rigour of
documentation. As mentioned in Section 3, a pre-selection and subsequent review
of relevant journals is recommended. However, only 9 out of 20 works clearly
stated that they included this step in their literature search and explicitly
mentioned the pre-selected journals. Differences, in addition, exist in terms of
methodological rigour of presentation. Zheng et al. (2007, p.70), for example,
stated quite unclear that a ‘wide-ranging review of documented sources relating
to purchasing and supply was undertaken, including academic and non-academic
sources […]’. Which journals or databases were considered in detail does not
become apparent. One database for searching publications was used by 5 articles.
However, if authors decide to use only a single database, ABI or BSP seem to be
good choices as they cover a wide range of business journals and offer more
search options than Scopus and Web of Science (cf. Harland et al., 2006 and
Quintens, Pauwels and Matthyssens, 2006; cf. also Appendix A2). Johnston and
Lewin (1996), Pagano (2009), and van Bommel (2011) only conducted a journal
search and did not use any databases, which can be problematic as the lack of a
comprehensive search procedure may bias the outcome of a SLR (vom Brocke et
al., 2009, p.5). Glock and Hochrein (2011) used the highest number of pre-
selected journals (42), followed by Pagano (2009) with 31. Glock and Hochrein
(2011), Harland et al. (2006), Nordin and Agndal (2008) and Pagano (2009) are
the only works that base their journal selection on journal rankings. Johnston and
Lewin (1996), however, provided some justification for journal selection through
the use of references, while Ellegaard (2006) justified the journal selection with
the journals’ aims and scope. To identify relevant articles, 12 out of 20 works
used keywords either in the course of a database search or for a manual journal
review. In many cases, it did not become clear whether a combination of certain
groups of keywords was used or whether the authors used the keywords
mentioned in the paper independently of each other. Some authors did not
provide detailed information as to whether they applied a keyword search or a
snowball approach for reviewing the journals they had selected. A backward
approach was used by only 6, while a forward search was applied by none of the
articles. Most SLRs accurately documented how many articles were included in
the final sample of the review, with the exception of de Boer, Labro and
Morlacchi (2001), Pazirandeh (2011) and van Bommel (2011). The article
selection process was described in detail only in a few papers, and especially the
quality assessment and selection criteria do not always become apparent.

4.5 Lessons learned and implications for future research

The findings of this tertiary study show that all SLRs contained in our sample
make a contribution to their particular research fields, but that inaccuracies in
documenting the search strategy could be found. Our findings are consistent with
the findings in information system research (vom Brocke et al., 2009). As the
selection phase impacts the validity of the review results (Pateli and Giaglis,
2004), the question arises why some PSM researchers do not adequately
document their literature search process. In accordance to the findings of vom
Brocke et al. (2009, p.7), PSM reviewers ‘may sometimes be either (1) unable to
refer to adequate guidelines for rigorously documenting the literature search, (2)
not fully aware of its importance or (3) hindered to transparently describe their
literature search in its full extent due to editorial constraints’.
In light of the methodological inconsistencies that were identified in several of
the reviewed SLRs, the following guidelines may assist authors in structuring
future literature reviews in PSM:
 The search strategy should be adequately described and the search process
should be documented to enable the reader to replicate and/or to extend the
search.
 The SLR should include an analysis of each article in the sample, but should
not lack a systematic synthesis of research findings. Further, it should test
whether a meta-analysis can be applied or not.
 The findings and results of the reviewed articles as well as the research
design and the methods used should be critically assessed.
 Alternative interpretations of research results should be considered in
synthesising articles.
 The findings of the SLR should clearly relate to the theoretical knowledge
base and/or practical requirements.

5 Limitations of the literature review

Although this paper paid attention to methodological rigor by applying a

replicable selection process in constructing the sample, the findings of the SLR
may be mitigated by limitations of the research methodology. To address these
limitations, the process-oriented framework, the evaluation criteria and the
taxonomy would have to be extended.
First, the search strategy was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed
journals, and publication bias as well as overestimation effects may appear
(Neely et al., 2010). The restriction to academic journals excluded non-peer-
reviewed journals, conference proceedings, books and non-English publications,
among others, and it cannot be ruled out that relevant work has appeared
elsewhere. In addition, keywords and journals were selected in a subjective
manner based on the reviewers’ assessment, and additional SLRs might have
been overlooked. The defined keywords are limiting factors, and alternative
measures for journal relevance may have led to a different sample. Although
multiple channels with different entry and access restrictions were used,
additional databases could minimise any systematic differences between the
empirical articles that are not found by database search. Secondly, the checklist
was developed based only on selected articles with a focus on objective review
assessment criteria, but they cannot replace reviewer judgments as the measures
have not been validated against subject criteria of scientific quality or
contribution (similar to Campion, 1993). The checklist reminds researchers of
important criteria for conducting a high-quality review, but it should not be used
mechanically. However, the value of analysing back-issues of journals, checking
citation indices and searching related areas of the literature should not be
underestimated (Gabbott, 2004). Thirdly, additional evaluation criteria (e.g.,
content-related criteria) which were not used in this paper could be applied to
extend our methodological quality measures. Fourthly, the application of
Cooper’s (1988) taxonomy limits this systematic tertiary study as well.
Obviously, assigning a review paper to a certain category involves subjective
judgment of the reviewers. Biases were reduced in this paper by employing three
reviewers who categorised each paper independently. Fifthly, this paper excluded
NLRs from the analysis. However, although NLRs are characterized by
methodological shortcomings, they may contain important results whose
evaluation on an aggregate level may be interesting. Finally, this study also did
not consider reviews of SCM-related topics, whose inclusion might lead to
additional interesting insights.

6 Conclusions

Due to the increasing amount of publications in PSM research, the analysis,

integration and critique of published works are of high importance. As a result, it
is essential that high quality reviews in PSM research are systematically carried
out to analyse and synthesise existing literature in a transparent and unbiased way.
Drawing on the findings of an analysis of SLRs published in PSM, it was shown
that only 5 journals of the PSCM journal group in our sample published SLRs,
and that some of these reviews did not thoroughly document their search process.
To encourage authors to review the literature in PSM and to submit review papers
to PSM journals, we recommend that editors establish a special category for
SLRs in their journals and that they do not impose too restrictive limits on the
length of review papers. To assist researchers in conducting literature reviews in
PSM, this paper proposed a process-oriented framework for reviewing the
literature and established guidelines for methodologically rigorous SLRs. The use
of this framework in a case study provided evidence for its practicability to
identify existing SLRs in PSM research, to classify selected articles within its
taxonomy and to evaluate the methodological status with the assessment criteria
which are generally submitted for reflexion of PSM research.
A1 Search strategy and summary of results by selection filters

Filter Type Description and guidelines Results BSP ABI

Peer-reviewed journals: Articles that I) appeared in one of the 35 pre-selected journals, II) were
identified during the database search, III) appeared in the reference lists of one of the previously
selected papers, IV) resulted from a forward search in electronic databases of the previously
Inclusion criteria selected papers, and V) were recommended by experts in the research field. Topic: Articles
focusing on PSM research were included, while articles focusing on supply chain management
or logistics were excluded. Language: Only articles published in English. Time span: 1980 to
2011. SLR: Only SLRs as stand-alone research papers.
Group A: ‘sourcing’, ‘purchasing’, ‘procurement’, ‘buying’ and ‘supply’. Group B: ‘literature
Keywords
review’, ‘systematic review’, ‘meta-analysis’, ‘state-of-the-art’ and ‘systematic overview’.
All titles and abstracts of articles that appeared in the 35
Keyword search pre-selected journals were manually checked in light of
(journals) the keywords.1 Ensure substantive relevance by requiring
107 --- ---
that all articles contain one of the keywords in their title
Step I and at least one search term from the keyword list in their
abstract.
Search selected online databases with the keywords
Keyword search
defined above.2 Ensure substantive relevance by requiring
(databases) 185 (new 193 (new
that all articles contain one of the keywords in their title ---
hits 90) hits 58)
and at least one search term from the keyword list in their
Step II
abstract.
1) Consolidation of articles (255 articles)
Results from the 35 pre-selected journals and the selected databases were consolidated and
duplicate articles were eliminated.
2) Content analysis of the articles by defined criteria for SLRs in PSM
Content analysis &
Ensure relevance of content by subjecting all papers to a manual analysis of their abstracts and
Consolidation
by requiring that the selected articles meet the criteria for inclusion and focus on the research
topic. In case of doubt, the articles were completely read to examine their content.
Ensure relevance by reading all remaining articles, by checking the stand-alone characteristic of
the SLR, by applying the assessment criteria and the classification framework of Cooper.
Intermediate
23 44
results
Expert consul- Search for additional articles by sharing the reference list
7
tation (Step V) with PSM scientists.
Snowball
Search for additional articles by backward/ forward search
approach 7
based on all previously selected articles.
(Steps III-IV)
Sample size 20
1
Notes: As some of the pre-selected journals (step I) are completely covered by electronic databases (titles and abstracts), we applied database searches with
defined search strings (a journal-specific ISSN was included in the respective string) in these journals (in substitution of a real manual review). If a journal was not
completely covered by an electronic database, we manually searched all issues that were not covered. Our access to the SCMR journal was limited from 2000 to
2010. Search strings per database are: BSP: TI("sourcing" OR "purchasing" OR "procurement" OR "buying" OR "supply" OR "literature review" OR "systematic
review" OR "meta-analysis" OR "state-of-the-art" OR "systematic overview") AND AB("sourcing" OR "purchasing" OR "procurement" OR "buying" OR
"supply") AND AB("literature review" OR "systematic review" OR "meta-analysis" OR "state-of-the-art" OR "systematic overview") AND IS(XXXXXXXX)
ABI: (TI("sourcing" OR "purchasing" OR "procurement" OR "buying" OR "supply" OR "literature review" OR "systematic review" OR "meta-analysis" OR
"state-of-the-art" OR "systematic overview")) AND (AB("sourcing" OR "purchasing" OR "procurement" OR "buying" OR "supply") AND AB("literature
review" OR "systematic review" OR "meta-analysis" OR "state-of-the-art" OR "systematic overview")) AND ISSN(XXXXXXXX) Scopus: (TITLE("sourcing"
OR "purchasing" OR "procurement" OR "buying" OR "supply" OR "literature review" OR "systematic review" OR "meta-analysis" OR "state-of-the-art" OR
"systematic overview")) AND (ABS("sourcing" OR "purchasing" OR "procurement" OR "buying" OR "supply") AND ABS("literature review" OR "systematic
review" OR "meta-analysis" OR "state-of-the-art" OR "systematic overview")) AND ISSN(XXXXXXXX) 2 For the database search, the ISSN-related
components were excluded from the search string. 3 2 articles out of the 107 articles seemed to be relevant after content analysis. 4 After consolidation of the results
and elimination of duplicate articles, the BSP search retrieved 90 additional papers. The ABI search retrieved 58 additional articles that had not been identified by
manual search or BSP search. All of these articles used one of the keywords in their title and at least one search term from the keyword list in the abstract. After
content analysis, 4 articles identified by BSP and ABI were considered relevant.
A2 Selection of reviewed journals and database coverage

Publication time span

Title and abstract via

journal homepage1

(Google Scholar)3

(Web of Science)3
Journals

Scopus2
SNIP

BSP2

ABI2
JQL
R1

R2

IJISM no 14 0,426 no 2004- X no no n/a n/a 2006-

IJLM 3 5 no x 1990- X X 1998- n/a n/a no
IJL-RA 12 no 0,403 x 1998- X 1999- no n/a n/a 2008-
IJPDLM 2 10 1,563 x 1971- X 1994- 1979- n/a n/a 2005-
JBL 1 2 not x 1978- 2001- X 1987- n/a n/a no
JOM 4 1 4,785 x 1980- X X X n/a n/a 1981-91; 1993-
JPSM 19 8 1,342 x 1994- X 2002- no n/a n/a X
JSCM 16 3 1,689 x 1965- 1993- X 1971- n/a n/a 2005-
SCMIJ 10 11 1,978 x 1996- X 2003- X n/a n/a X
SCMR 5 15 no no 1997- no no 2003- n/a n/a no
TR-E 9 no 2,586 x 1965- 1997- 1997- 1978- n/a n/a 1978-
(1) 11 Purchasing and Supply Chain Management (PSCM) Journals
DS 15 9 2,569 x 1970- X X 1976- n/a n/a 1996-
EJOR 14 23 3,295 x 1977- X X 1978- n/a n/a X
1954-62;
IEEE no 26 2,039 x 1954- 1994- 1976- n/a n/a 1969-
1988-
Inter no 22 0,950 x 1970- X X 1973- n/a n/a 1983-88; 1996-
IJOPM 11 13 2,368 x 1980- X X X n/a n/a 1985; 1995-
IJPE no 25 3,022 x 1976- X X 1977- n/a n/a 1980-
IJPR no 20 1,797 x 1961- X X 2004- n/a n/a 1970-
JORS no 27 1,390 x 1950- X 1993- 1971- n/a n/a 1969-
MS 8 17 3,795 x 1954- X X X n/a n/a 1969-
Omega no 24 3,287 x 1973- X 1997- 1989- n/a n/a X
OR 18 no 3,276 x 1952- X X 1971- n/a n/a 1969-
POM no 12 2,702 x 1992- X 2002- 1997- n/a n/a 1996-
TJ 6 no 1,306 no 1961- X X 1987- n/a n/a 1996-
TS 22 no 3,681 x 1967- X X 1999- n/a n/a 1969-
(2) 14 Operations Research, Management Science, Production & Operations Management (OR, MS, POM) Journals
IMM 20 16 2,215 x 1971- X X 1972- n/a n/a X
JBIM no 19 1,175 x 1986- X 1994- X n/a n/a 1995-
JB2B no 21 0,358 x 1992- X 1993- 1998- n/a n/a 2006-
1969/1971/1973/19
JM 13 no 6,677 x 1936- 2000- X 1971- n/a n/a
77; 1979-81; 1996-
JMR 23 no 3,434 x 1964- 2000- X X n/a n/a 1968; 1996-
(3) 5 International Marketing Management (IMM) Journals
AMJ 21 no 5,979 x 1958- 2010- X 1971- n/a n/a 1975-87; 1989-
BSR no 18 0,108 x 1990- X X 1992- n/a n/a 2005-

HBR 7 4 2,041 x 1922- 1956- X 1971- n/a n/a 1974; 1978-87;

 Publication time span

Title and abstract via

journal homepage1

(Google Scholar)3

(Web of Science)3
Journals

Scopus2
SNIP

BSP2

ABI2
JQL
R1

R2

1989-

1970-88; 1991-92;
SMR 17 6 1,665 x 1960- 1988- X 1972 n/a n/a
2001-
SMJ 24 7 5,076 x 1980- X X X n/a n/a 1996-
(4) 5 General Management & Strategy (GMS) Journals
Total (35 pre-selected journals)
Notes: PSCM: Int. J- of Integrated Supply Management (IJISM); Int. J. of Logistics Management (IJLM); Int. J. of Logistics:
Research & Applications (IJL-RA); Int. J. of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management (IJPDLM); J. of Business
Logistics (JBL); J. of Operations Management (JOM); J. of Purchasing & Supply Management (JPSM); J. of Supply Chain
Management (JSCM); Supply Chain Management – an Int. J. (SCMIJ); Supply Chain Management Review (SCMR);
Transportation Research, Part E (TR-E) OR, MS, POM: Decision Sciences (DS); European J. of Operational Research
(EJOR); IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (IEEE); Interfaces (Inter); Int. J. of Operations & Production
Management (IJOPM); Int. J. of Production Economics (IJPE); Int. J. of Production Research (IJPR); J. of the Operational
Research Society (JORS); Management Science (MS); Omega – The Int. J. of Management Science (Omega); Operations
Research (OR); Production and Operations Management (POM); Transportation J. (TJ); Transportation Science (TS) IMM:
Industrial Marketing Management (IMM); J. of Business & Industrial Marketing (JBIM); J. of Business to Business
Marketing (JB2B); J. of Marketing (JM); J. of Marketing Research (JMR) GMS: Academy of Management J. (AMJ);
Business Strategy Review (BSR); Harvard Business Review (HBR); MIT Sloan Management Review (SMR); Strategic
Management Journal (SMJ) R 1: SCM journal ranking 1 (Menachof et al., 2009) R 2: PSM journal ranking 2 (Zsidisin et al.,
2007) SNIP: Source Normalized Impact per Paper (the data based on Moed’s (2010) SNIP index, that were calculated as a
mean value from 2005-2010 for available data) JQL: Journal Quality List (based on Harzing, 2012). 1 X in this column indicates
that the titles and abstracts of these journals could be examined via journal homepage. 2 “x” in these columns indicates which database
was used for manual review of the respective journal. The coverage data for BSP, ABI and Scopus are taken from the official title lists
provided by the publishers’ webpages. 3 No official title lists about coverage periods were available for Google Scholar and Web of
Science.
A3 Number of SLR articles by year

Number of articles identified by year

14
12
Number of articles

10
8
6
4
2
0
1980-1991 1992-1996 1997-2001 2002-2006 2007-2011
Years

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the editor Dr. Ajay Das, the three anonymous referees and
Matthias Heider for their valuable comments and suggestions which helped to
improve the paper.

References
The articles preceded by ‘*’ are the 20 SLR articles in PSM research identified in section
4.2 and reviewed in section 4.2 and 4.3
Aissaoui, N., Haouari, M. and Hassini, E. (2007) ‘Supplier selection and order lot sizing
modeling: a review’, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 34, No., pp.3516-3540.
Baker, M.J. (2000) ‘Writing a literature review’, The Marketing Review, Vol. 1, No. 2,
pp.219-247.
Boone, C.A., Drake, J.R., Bohler, J.A. and Craighead, C.W. (2007) ‘Supply chain
management technology: a review of empirical literature and research agenda’,
International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.105-124.
Boote, D.N. and Beile, P. (2005) ‘Scholars before researchers: on the centrality of the
dissertation literature review in research preparation’, Educational Researcher, Vol.
34, No. 6, pp.3-15.
Campion, M.A. (1993) ‘Article review checklist: a criterion checklist for reviewing
research articles in applied psychology’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, No. 3,
pp.705-718.
Carr, A.S. and Smeltzer, L.R. (1997) ‘An empirically based operational definition of
strategic purchasing’, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 3,
No. 4, pp.199-207.
Collins, J.A. and Fauser, B.C.J.M. (2005) ‘Balancing the strengths of systematic and
narrative reviews’, Human Reproduction Update, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.103-104.
Cooper, H.M. (1988) ‘Organizing knowledge syntheses: a taxonomy of literature
reviews’, Knowledge in Society, Vol. 1, Spring, pp.104-126.
Cooper (1989) Integrating Research, Applied Social Science Research Methods, 1st ed.,
Sage Publications, Newbury Park.
Cooper, H.M. (2010) Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach, 4th
ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Cooper, H.M. and Hedges, L.V. (2009) ‘Research synthesis as a scientific process’, in
Cooper, H.M., Hedges, L.V. and Valentine, J.C. (Eds.), The handbook of research
synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed., Russell Sage Foundation, New York, pp.3-16.
Cruzes, D. S. and Dybå, T. (2011) ‘Research synthesis in software engineering – a
tertiary study’, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp.440-455.
da Silva, F. Q. B. et al. (2011) ‘Six years of systematic literature reviews in software
engineering – an updated tertiary study’, Information and Software Technology, Vol.
53 No. 5, pp.899-913.
*Das, A. and Handfield, R.B. (1997) ‘A meta-analysis of doctoral dissertations in
purchasing’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.101-121.
*Day, M., Magnan, G.M. and Moeller, M.M. (2010) ‘Evaluating the bases of supplier
segmentation: a review and taxonomy’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 625-639.
*De Boer, L., Labro, E. and Morlacchi, P. (2001) ‘A review of methods supporting
supplier selection’, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 7,
No. 2, pp.75-89.
Dibbern, J., Goles, T., Hirschheim, R. and Jayatilaka, B. (2004) ‘Information systems
outsourcing: a survey and analysis of the literature’, The DATA BASE for Advances in
Information Systems, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 6-102.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P.R. (2008) Management research, 3rd ed.,
Sage Publications, London.
*Ellegaard, C. (2006) ‘Small company purchasing: a research agenda’, Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.272-283.
Ellram, L.M. and Carr, A. (1994) ‘Strategic purchasing: a history and review of the
literature’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.10-18.
Fettke, P. (2006) ‘State-of-the-Art des State-of-the-Art: Eine Untersuchung der
Forschungsmethode "Review" innerhalb der Wirtschaftsinformatik’,
Wirtschaftsinformatik, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.257-266.
Fink, A. (1998) Conducting research literature reviews: from the internet to paper, 1st
ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Ford, L. and O’Hara, L.H. (2008) ‘It’s all academic: Google Scholar, Scirus, and
Windows Live Academic Search’, Journal of Library Administration, Vol. 46, No.
3/4, pp.43-52.
Gabbott, M. (2004) ‘Undertaking a literature review in marketing’, The Marketing Review,
Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.411-429.
Garg, D. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1999) ‘JIT purchasing: literature review and implications
for Indian industry’, Production, Planning & Control, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.276-285.
*Glock, C. and Hochrein, S. (2011) ‘Purchasing organization and design: a literature
review‘, Business Research, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.149-191.
*Harland, C.M., Lamming, R.C., Walker, H., Phillips, W.E., Caldwell, N.D., Johnsen,
T.E., Knight, L.A. and Zheng, J. (2006) ‘Supply management: is it a discipline?’,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26, No. 7,
pp.730-753
Hart, C. (1999) Doing a literature review, reprint of the 1st ed., Sage Publications,
London.
Harzing, A.W.K. (2012) Journal Quality List, 43nd ed. Available at:
http://www.harzing.com (Accessed 19 January 2012).
Hilmola, O-P., Hejazi, A. and Ojala, L. (2005) ‘Supply chain management research using
case studies: a literature analysis’, International Journal of Integrated Supply
Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp.294-311.
*Ho, W., Xu, X. and Dey, P.K. (2010) ‘Multi-criteria decision making approaches for
supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review’, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 202, No. 1, pp.16-24.
Jackson, G.B. (1980) ‘Methods for integrative reviews’, Review of Educational Research,
Vol. 50, No. 3, pp.438-460.
Jascó, P. (2011) ‘The h-index, h-core citation rate and the bibliometric profile of the
Scopus database’, Online Information Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.492-501.
*Johnston, W.J. and Lewin, J.E. (1996) ‘Organizational buying behavior: toward an
integrative framework’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp.1-15.
*Karjalainen, K., Kemppainen, K. and Raaij, E.M. (2009) ‘Non-compliant work
behaviour in purchasing: an exploration of reasons behind maverick buying’, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp.245-261.
Kitchenham, B. et al. (2009) ‘Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – a
systematic literature review’, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 51 No. 1,
pp.7-15.
Kitchenham, B. et al. (2010) ‘Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – a
tertiary study’, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 52 No. 8, pp. 792-805.
*Lewin, J.E. and Donthu, N. (2005) ‘The influence of purchase situation on buying center
structure and involvement: a select meta-analysis of organizational buying behavior
research’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, No. 10, pp.1381-1390.
Light, R.J. and Pillemer, D.B. (1984) Summing up: the science of reviewing research,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London.
Manten, A.A. (1973) ‘Scientific review literature’, Scholarly Publishing, Vol. 5, October,
pp.75-89.
Menachof, D.A., Gibson, B.J., Hanna, J.B. and Whiteing, A.E. (2009) ‘An analysis of the
value of supply chain management periodicals’, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp.145-166.
Mentzer, J.T. and Kahn, K.B. (1995) ‘A framework of logistics research’, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 231-250.
Moed, H.F. (2010) ‘Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals’, Journal
of Informetrics, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.265-277.
Neely, J.G., Magit, A.E., Rich, J.T., Voelker, C.C.J., Wang, E.W., Paniello, R.C.,
Nussenbaum, B. and Bradley, J.P. (2010) ‘A practical guide to understanding
 systematic reviews and meta-analyses’, Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Vol.
142, No. 1, pp.6-14.
*Nordin, F. and Agndal, H. (2008) ‘Business service sourcing: a literature review and
agenda for future research’, International Journal of Integrated Supply Management,
Vol. 4, No. 3/4, pp.378-405.
*Pagano, A. (2009) ‘The role of relational capabilities in the organization of international
sourcing activities: a literature review’, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38,
No. 8, pp.903-913.
Papier, L. (1972) ‘Approaches to establishing dimensions and criteria for evaluation of
review publications’ in ISLIC International Conference on Information Science, Israel
Society of Special Libraries and Information Centres, Tel-Aviv, Israel, pp.213-231.
Pateli, A.G. and Giaglis, G.M. (2004) ‘A research framework for analysing eBusiness
models’, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.302-314.
*Pazirandeh, A. (2011) ‘Sourcing in global health supply chains for developing countries:
literature review and a decision making framework’, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.364-384.
Peffers, K. and Tang, Y. (2003) ‘Identifying and evaluating the universe of outlets for
information systems research: ranking the journals’, Journal of Information
Technology Theory and Application, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.63-84.
*Quintens, L., Pauwels, P. and Matthyssens, P. (2006) ‘Global purchasing: state of the art
and research directions’, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 12, No.
35, pp.170-181.
Rahman, S., Abareshi, A., Bakir, S. and Ahmad, S. (2011) ‘Research orientations of the
selected supply chain management periodical: a critical review’ in Proceedings of the
16th International Symposium on Logistics (ISL 2011), Berlin, Germany, pp.73-80.
Rajurkar, S.W. and Jain, R. (2011) ‘Food supply chain management: review,
classification and analysis of literature’, International Journal of Integrated Supply
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 33-72.
Randolph, J.J. (2009) ‘A guide to writing the dissertation literature review’, Practical
Assessment, Research and Evaluation, Vol. 14, No. 13, pp.1-13.
Rhoades, E.A. (2011) ‘Literature reviews’, The Volta Review, Vol. 111, No. 1, pp.61-71.
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2007) ‘Integrated chain management in Germany: identifying
schools of thought based on a literature review’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol.
15, No. 7, pp.699-710.
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008) ‘From a literature review to a conceptual framework
for sustainable supply chain management’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16,
No. 15, pp.1699-1710.
*Schoenherr, T. and Tummala, V.M.R. (2007) ‘Electronic procurement: a structured
literature review and directions for future research’, International Journal of
Procurement Management, Vol. 1, No. 1/2, pp.8-37.
Soni, G. and Kodali, R. (2011) ‘A critical analysis of supply chain management content in
empirical research’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.238-
266.
Sørensen, L.B. (2005) ‘How risk and uncertainty is used in supply chain management: a
literature study’, International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 1, No.
4, pp.387-409.
 Stamm, C.L. and Golhar, D.Y. (1993) ‘JIT purchasing: attribute classification and
literature review’, Production, Planning & Control, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.273-282.
Torraco, R.J. (2005) ‘Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples’,
Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.356-367.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003) ‘Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review’, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.207-222.
*van Bommel, H.W.M. (2011) ‘A conceptual framework for analyzing sustainability
strategies in industrial supply networks from an innovation perspective’, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp.895-904.
Virgo, J.A. (1971) ‘The review article: its characteristics and problems’, The Library
Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp.275-291.
vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R. and Cleven, A. (2009)
‘Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature
search process’. Paper presented at the 17th European Conference on Information
Systems, 8-10 June 2009. Verona, Italy
Walker, H. (2009) ‘Sustainable procurement: a literature review’. Paper presented at the
18th IPSERA Conference. Supply Management – towards an academic discipline?. 5-
8 April 2009. Wiesbaden, Germany.
*Weber, C.A., Current, J.R. and Benton, W.C. (1991) ‘Vendor selection criteria and
methods’, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.2-18.
Webster, J. and Watson, R.T. (2002) ‘Analysing the past to prepare for the future: writing
a literature review’, Management Information Systems Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 2,
pp.xiii-xxiii.
*Wu, C. and Barnes, D. (2011) ‘A literature review of decision-making models and
approaches for partner selection in agile supply chains’, Journal of Purchasing &
Supply Management, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.256-274.
*Wynstra, F. (2010) ‘What did we do, who did it and did it matter? A review of fifteen
volumes of the (European) Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management’, Journal
of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp.279-292.
Woodward, A.M. (1977) ‘The roles of reviews in information transfer’, Journal of the
American Society for Information Science, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.175-180.
*Zheng, J., Knight, L., Harland, C., Humby, S. and James, K. (2007) ‘An analysis of
research into the future of purchasing and supply management’, Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.69-83.
Zsidisin G.A., Smith, M.E., McNally, R.C. and Kull, T.J. (2007) ‘Evaluation criteria
development and assessment of purchasing and supply management journals’, Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.165-183.

View publication stats