Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance: a study on the interactions between customer and
supplier integration
Pamela Danese Pietro Romano
Article information:
To cite this document:
Pamela Danese Pietro Romano, (2011),"Supply chain integration and efficiency performance: a study on the interactions
between customer and supplier integration", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 16 Iss 4 pp. 220 - 230
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541111139044
Downloaded on: 18 January 2016, At: 02:58 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 58 other documents.
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:534537 []
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.
Department of Electrical, Managerial and Mechanical Engineering, University of Udine, Udine, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – This research intends to investigate whether there are synergies that a firm could or should exploit by simultaneously implementing
customer and supplier integration. In particular, the aim is to analyze the impact of customer integration on efficiency, and the moderating role of
supplier integration.
Design/methodology/approach – This study analyzes data from a sample of 200 manufacturing plants. Two hypotheses are tested through a
hierarchical regression analysis. Customer and supplier integration constructs consider items related to different aspects of the integration (e.g. sharing
of production plans and customers’ forecasts, feedback on performance, communication on quality considerations and design changes, joint quality
improvement efforts, close contact, partnerships). The focus of the integration clearly extends beyond the dyad, as it includes the integration of focal
operations upstream and downstream, with both suppliers and customers.
Findings – Supplier integration positively moderates the relationship between customer integration and efficiency, whereas the analyses do not
support the hypothesis that in general customer integration positively impacts on efficiency. They also reveal that, when supplier integration is at a low
level, customer integration can even produce a reduction in efficiency.
Practical implications – Efficiency performance optimization requires levering simultaneously on customer and supplier integration to foster their
interaction, rather than investing and acting on customer integration only. In addition, before deciding whether to invest in customer integration,
managers should ascertain the level of supplier integration, since it acts as a prerequisite for the successful implementation of customer integration.
Originality/value – Compared with previous studies investigating the main impact of customer and supplier integration on a company’s performance,
this research analyzes a model that considers the interaction effect between these integration strategies. This provides a number of original implications
for the interpretation of the relationship between customer and supplier integration and efficiency.
Keywords Supplier relations, Supply chain management, Performance measures, Customer relationship management
220
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
programs are not accompanied by the implementation of a (Lee et al., 2007), or by defining SC integration as a unique
coherent mix of supply chain management (SCM) initiatives concept that includes both upstream and downstream
encompassing, for instance, lead time reduction, supplier integration (Vickery et al., 2003; Kim, 2006).
network rationalization, production network reconfiguration, Focusing our attention on the relationship between
development of partnerships, etc (de Treville et al., 2004; customer integration and efficiency performance, several
Danese et al., 2006; Kim, 2006). In particular, it has been arguments can be found in the literature to support the
proposed that implementing integration both upstream and existence of a positive link. For instance, Lee et al. (1997)
downstream is better than concentrating the firm’s efforts on identify the potential causes of the “bullwhip effect” (i.e. the
integrating customers or suppliers only (Frohlich and natural tendency of decentralized decision-making to amplify,
Westbrook, 2001; Rosenzweig et al., 2003). delay and distort demand information moving upstream in a
Despite this recognition, SCM literature does not make-to-stock supply chain) and recommend strategies for
empirically examine the way these integration practices counteracting its effect. Suggested remedies include sharing
“interact” and whether their simultaneous presence can point-of-sales data and operational alignment to final demand
determine a positive additional synergistic effect on of channel member activities. These practices reduce system
companies’ performance. Several authors distinguish uncertainty and, in turn, costs (Chen et al., 2000; Bayraktar
between integration with customers and suppliers and et al., 2009; Ryu et al., 2009; Coppini et al., 2010;
investigate the main impact of each integration activity on Wangphanich et al., 2010). Lee et al. (2000) demonstrated
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
companies’ performance (Lee et al., 2007). A key question that information sharing lowers costs from 12-23 percent,
however is: are there synergies that a firm could or should while Gavirneni et al. (1999) reported cost reductions of 1-35
exploit by simultaneously implementing customer and percent, when sharing retailers’ demand data. Zhao et al.
supplier integration? (2002) found that information sharing and order co-
This paper intends to contribute to filling this gap by ordination significantly impact on supply chain performance
focusing on efficiency performance. In particular, the aim is to in terms of total costs; while Lin et al. (2002) demonstrated
analyze the impact of customer integration on efficiency, and that sharing demand information allows greater inventory cost
the moderating role of supplier integration. In fact, SCM savings to be achieved.
literature suggests that customer integration, as well as A further important aspect of customer integration is the
reducing inventory and manufacturing costs, usually development of partnership relationships with customers
determines other additional costs, due to the frequent plan (Power, 2005). These can promote cooperation, openness of
modifications required to follow customer needs (Disney and communication and a problem-sharing attitude. Companies
Towill, 2002). Supplier integration could be a useful tool to working in close contact can share information on unexpected
limit the negative implications of customer integration on problems that can occur locally and, on the basis of these,
costs, thus amplifying its positive effect on efficiency. Our activities are adjusted accordingly. Customers could provide
intent is to open an interesting debate on this issue, by the producer with feedbacks on quality and delivery
introducing explanations on how efficiency is not improved by performance, or involve the manufacturer in their quality
using just customer integration practices more extensively, but improvement efforts. Thus, partnership relationships
by simultaneously integrating upstream. guarantee more efficient problem solving and the creation of
The paper is organized as follows. First, it analyzes existing inter-company decision-making routines (Flynn and Flynn,
literature on the impact of customer integration on efficiency 1999; Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001).
and the moderating role of supplier integration, and then From the above arguments, it follows that there is a
discusses the research hypotheses this study intends to theoretical foundation as well as emerging evidence for a
examine. The following section introduces the sampling general positive relationship between customer integration
frame, measures and data collection. This is followed by and efficiency performance.
analyses and discussion of the theoretical and managerial However, although the potential benefits of customer
implications of this study. Finally, conclusions are drawn integration, and in general SC integration, seem compelling, a
which summarize the results found. recent academic debate has arisen on the actual positive
impact of integration on company performance. A couple of
2. Literature review and research hypotheses literature reviews on SCM survey-based research have argued
that studies on the effect of SC integration on performance
2.1 Relationship between customer integration and are not unanimous and that caution is advisable (Fabbe-
efficiency Costes and Jahre, 2008; van der Vaart and van Donk, 2008).
In a recent literature review on survey-based SCM studies, In particular, some authors maintain that the nature of SC
Fabbe-Costes and Jahre (2008) argue that authors generally integration is complex and more knowledge is needed on its
agree that stronger linkages and a higher degree of integration relation to performance. For instance, Stock et al. (2000)
across organizational boundaries lead to better performance conclude that external integration does not necessarily
for the focal organization and its supply network. Some provide performance benefits in all cases. Sezen (2008)
researchers have limited their analyses to integration with found that information sharing and SC integration were not
customers (Closs and Savitskie, 2003; Fynes et al., 2005; significantly related to flexibility, efficiency and output
Sahin and Robinson, 2005) or suppliers (Das et al., 2006; performance (i.e. customer satisfaction and profit). Cousins
Handfield et al., 2009; Jain et al. 2009; Lawson et al., 2009; and Menguc (2006) argue that whilst SC integration clearly
Vachon et al., 2009; Wagner and Krause, 2009) in order to has its benefits, it also has costs and “in some cases it has the
ascertain their distinct contribution to performance. Instead, reverse effect” (p. 616). Coherently, Das et al. (2006) report
in other studies, authors take a broader perspective by that collaborating with other partners can cause increased
considering integration with both customers and suppliers costs of coordination and inflexibility.
221
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
With regard to the relationship between customer upon what they call an “arc of integration” (representing the
integration and efficiency, Disney and Towill (2002) have relative direction – toward suppliers and/or customers – and
investigated the issue of inventory nervousness in downstream degree of integration activity), and demonstrates that the
integrated systems, and its negative effect on costs. They strategy based on the greatest arc of integration guarantees the
claim that, in integrated systems, continuously recalculating best performance. However, they do not distinguish between
inventory control parameters according to demand signals the contribution of customer and supplier integration.
causes fluctuations in target inventory levels or in production Starting from this research, over the years, several studies
quantities. Therefore, a slow reaction to demand signals can have been developed. By extending Frohlich and Westbrook’s
result in a more stable inventory level and a reduction in (2001) research, Rosenzweig et al. (2003) studied the
production quantity fluctuations. In a further work, Disney relationship between SC integration and multiple measures
et al. (2004) suggest that Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) of business performance and the mediating effect of
systems should not be too complex in order to improve the competitive capabilities. Zailani and Rajagopal (2005)
dynamics of supply chains. When testing different analyzed the concept of arcs of integration in the US and
information sharing practices, they show that, although the East Asian context. Based on an extensive literature
players have information available, very complex decision review of multiple aspects of SC integration and performance,
making can result in increased inventory costs. they conclude that most companies integrate their
organization with suppliers and customers by pursuing a
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
222
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
efficiency relationship has not been empirically proved. In process engineer, new product development manager etc). In
other words, there is a lack of empirical evidence proving that order to raise measurement reliability, each questionnaire was
the presence of supplier integration enhances the impact of administered to different respondents within each plant.
customer integration on efficiency, whereas the absence of Researchers involved in HPM project asked the CEOs (or a
supplier integration weakens it. We feel that shedding light on coordinator within each plant) to provide the name and
this point would provide sturdy arguments to explain the contact addresses of the respondents for each questionnaire,
inconsistencies across previous studies on the relationship and to distribute the questionnaires received by individual
between customer integration and efficiency. For these visits or by post to the respondents. Within the research
reasons, this research intends to study the following group, for each country, a group of researchers and a person
hypothesis: in charge of data collection were identified. Each group had to
provide assistance to the respondents, to ensure that the
H2. Supplier integration positively moderates the
information gathered was both complete and correct. We were
relationship between customer integration and
responsible for collecting data from plants located in Italy.
efficiency performance.
The items used in the present research were targeted
Table I summarizes the main issues discussed in the literature toward plant managers, inventory managers and plant
review, that inspired the two hypotheses underlying this superintendents, or their immediate subordinates working in
research. direct contact with customers and suppliers. Respondents
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
223
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
Table II Sample characteristics and customer integration. Two factors with eigenvalues above
1 were extracted and there was comforting evidence for both
n % convergent and discriminant validity. All the items load onto
Total number of plants 200 their intended constructs and have high factor loadings (i.e.
Electronics 67 33.5 more than 0.50), thus reflecting high construct validity.
Machinery 68 34 Further, there are no cross-loadings greater than 0.40,
Transportation components 65 32.5 providing evidence of discriminant validity.
Mean number of hourly and salaried Finally, Cronbach a-values for the three constructs exceed
personnel 639 0.70, indicating high reliability (Nunnally, 1994).
Thus, three multi-item constructs were identified:
Percentage of large-size plants
1 customer integration (CI);
(more than 250 employees) 64
2 supplier integration (SI); and
3 efficiency (EFF).
Given the lack in the SCM literature of a standard scale for As to the efficiency (EFF) construct, it should be noted that
measuring supplier and customer integration, and efficiency the items considered measure the efficiency performance of
performance (within and beyond focal firms’ boundaries), the focal firm – as do several survey-based papers on SCM
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
firstly we identified the central dimensions of integration and (van der Vaart and van Donk, 2008) – but also the benefits
efficiency usually mentioned in the literature. Then, we beyond focal firms’ boundaries (see Zhao et al., 2002; Kim
followed established guidelines for scale development and et al., 2010).
examined the measurement model through exploratory All the items were measured using multi-item perceptual
methods (Hair et al., 2006). scales with values ranging from 1 to 7.
Each construct with its block of items was first factor Table IV shows basic statistics for the three constructs, each
analyzed. This was done to assure the internal rule of obtained by averaging the relevant items.
unidimensionality. Table III reports the items comprising
each construct, and the outputs of SPSS 17.0 obtained by 4. Data analysis and results
factor analyzing the items of each construct separately, along
with reliability test results using Cronbach’s a. Convergent 4.1 Hierarchical regression
validity is demonstrated since, for each construct only one The central issue this research intends to investigate is not
component with an eigenvalue above 1 is identified, the only whether customer integration positively affects efficiency,
variance explained is above 50 percent, and factor loadings but also whether customer and supplier integration interact by
are all above 0.50 (Hair et al., 2006). determining a positive significant effect on efficiency
Then, as suggested by Hair et al. (2006), we ran a principal performance. In particular, this research intends to
component analysis with Varimax rotation on the complete set investigate whether supplier integration can act as
of items that compose the two independent variables: supplier moderator in the customer integration-efficiency relationship.
224
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
Table IV Basic statistics and correlation analysis Table V Hierarchical regression analysis
Correlations Control variables Main effects Interaction effect
Variables Mean S.D. Range SI EFF Model 0 Model 1 Model 2
1 Customer integration (CI) 5.09 0.52 3.39-6.28 0.437 * 0.244 * Constant 4.390 * * * 4.459 * * * 4.386 * * *
2 Supplier integration (SI) 5.31 0.50 3.75-6.70 – 0.455 * Size 1.83E-4 1.10E-4 1.13E-4
3 Efficiency (EFF) 4.54 0.80 2.25-6.64 – – Electronics 20.027 20.113 2 0.106
Transp. com. 0.123 0.104 0.116
Note: *Significant at the 0.01 level (Pearson probabilities)
CI 0.090 0.060 *
SI 0.657 * * * 0.696 * * *
We employed a hierarchical regression procedure, by using SIXCI 0.565 * *
SPSS 17.0 (linear regression module; entering method: by R2 0.053 0.222 0.250
blocks). Firstly, control variables (i.e. firm size and sector) R2 adjusted 0.036 0.199 0.224
were considered in the regression model. The firm size (SIZE) DR2 0.053 0.169 0.028
was measured by the number of employees (hourly and F value of DR2 3.203 * 18.613 * * * 6.352 * *
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
salaried personnel). The sector was inserted in the regression Notes: The values reported are unstandardized regression coefficients;
model by creating dummy variables. The form of dummy * p-value , 0:05 level; * *p-value , 0.01 level; * * *p-value , 0.001 level;
variable coding used was “indicator coding”, which means VIF (variance inflation factor) below 1.501; Tolerance above 0.666
that the regression coefficients for the dummy variables
represent the deviation from the comparison group. The
machinery sector was arbitrarily taken as the baseline/ In all the models, for all the independent variables the VIF is
comparison group. lower than 1.501 and tolerance is greater than 0.666, which
Then, the main independent variables – i.e. CI, SI – were are coherent with the recommended threshold values (Hair
introduced as a block, followed by the interaction term. The et al., 2006). Also the bivariate correlation of CI and SI with
following equation describes the moderated regression tested the interaction term confirms that multicollinearity is not a
in this study: problem in model 2 (correlation between CI *SI and CI is
0.036 ( p-value: 0.617), and between CI *SI and SI is 2 0.042
EFF ¼ b0 þ b1 · CI þ b2 · SI þ b3 · CI · SI þ 1 ð1Þ ( p-value: 0.552)).
As suggested by Jaccard and Turrisi (2003) and Brambor et al. 4.2 Additional analyses for interpreting moderated
(2006), when the b3-coefficient of the product term CI · SI is regression
statistically significant, and R2 increases when this term is By considering the coefficients of Table V (model 2), we can
introduced in the model, the existence of a moderated effect calculate that the marginal effect of CI on EFF depends on
on the CI-EFF relationship is demonstrated. As SI, according to the following formula:
recommended by several authors, to address the problem of
multicollinearity, we mean-centered the independent variables ›EFF
(Jaccard and Turrisi, 2003). Then, we examined ¼ 0:060 þ 0:565 · SI ð2Þ
›CI
multicollinearity diagnostics, by checking the variance
inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance values. where the variable SI is centered. The test of significance of
Table V reports the results of the hierarchical regression the coefficient in equation (2) takes the form of a t test, where
analysis. the standard error is a function of SI (Brambor et al., 2006).
Model 0 represents the first step of the hierarchical We have verified that the t test is significant at a 0.05 level for
regression. The control variables industry and size do not the values of SI lower than 2 0.74, and greater than 0.28 (see
result as significantly related to efficiency performance. Also the Appendix for further details).
in the models 1 and 2 similar results on the effect of control Figure 1 shows how the marginal effect of CI varies when SI
variables on the response variable are found. Thus, we can increases. It is easy to see that CI has a stronger effect on
conclude that when introducing the additional variables in efficiency performance when the level of SI is high. Further,
models 1 and 2, the effect of the control variables appears we can note that for low levels of SI, the effect of CI could
stable. More interestingly, when the independent variables: CI even be negative. This means that, when companies are not
and SI are added to the regression model (model 1), we can integrated upstream, not only are the benefits of CI lost, but
note that SI is significantly related to efficiency performance, also a contrasting effect emerges that risks the achievement of
whereas CI is not. Thus, we found that hypothesis H1 is not good levels of efficiency. Between the values of 2 0.74 and
confirmed, and thus in general it is not possible to conclude 0.28, the marginal effect of CI is not significant.
that CI always improves efficiency. The research sample reveals that the centered variable SI
Model 2 reports the interaction result, along with changes varies from 21.56 to 1.39; 39 percent of sample units falls
occurring to the main variables when the product term was below the SI critical value of 2 0.1. Below this value, CI
introduced. The significant and positive b3 coefficient seems to have a negative influence on efficiency performance
suggests that it is possible to confirm the existence of a (see Figure 1). However, this situation is extreme (i.e.
positive interaction effect between CI and SI. Additional companies with very low level of SI), since most units in the
support is the significant change in R2 from model 1 to 2 sample are above the critical value of 2 0.1, and the remaining
(0.028). Therefore, H2 is fully supported. units show a SI mean value of 20.50.
225
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
Figure 1 The influence of supplier integration on the marginal effect of customer integration
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
To further gain an intuitive understanding of the interaction First, these findings provide new insights to better
effect between CI and SI, we computed and graphed through understand the controversial opinions and results found on
MS-Excel the slope of efficiency performance on CI at a few the CI-efficiency link. Differently from those studies
different values of SI. A suggested strategy is to evaluate the demonstrating that CI significantly improves efficiency
effects of CI on performance at “low”, “medium”, and “high” (Gavirneni et al., 1999; Lee et al., 2000; Lin et al., 2002;
values of SI, where “low” might be defined as one standard Zhao et al., 2002), this research suggests that efficiency
deviation below the mean SI score, “medium” as the mean improvements cannot be achieved merely by improving CI.
value, and “high” as one standard deviation above the mean There is a significant impact on efficiency through CI only
(Cohen and Cohen, 1983). Starting from the coefficients of under certain conditions in terms of supplier integration.
model 2 in Table V, and by using the three mentioned values In particular, Figures 1 and 2 reveal that the positive impact
of the variable SI, three linear equations of efficiency of CI on efficiency increases with rising levels of integration
performance, depending on CI, were created. The visual between the company and its suppliers. A possible
patterns of Figure 2 confirms that the effect of CI on explanation of this positive synergistic effect of SI and CI
efficiency is greater when SI increases; while its effect is can be found in studies on bullwhip effect and systems
negative when SI is at a low level. dynamics (Towill et al., 1992; Lee et al., 1997; Mason-Jones
Figure 2 highlights what Jaccard and Turrisi (2003) classify and Towill, 1999). When the company is closely coupled with
as “disordinal interaction” or “crossover interaction”, namely customers, it can transfer to integrated suppliers all the
an interaction in which the regression line that regresses y information they need to align their production and shipping
onto the focal independent variable (i.e. CI) for a given level plans to the final market demand. Thus, the co-presence of SI
of the moderator (e.g. low level of SI) intersects with the and CI makes it possible to reduce inventories not only at the
correspondent regression line for a different level of the customer-producer interface, but also in the supplier network.
moderator (e.g. high level of SI). This type of interaction is On the contrary, when SI is low, CI can even penalize
very useful for decision making in different situations. For efficiency performance. In fact, as explained above, CI can
instance, it suggests that a high level of CI (right side of cause a “nervousness” effect, arising when companies seek to
Figure 2) should be accompanied by a high level of SI. On the follow market signals and demand changes, that can
other hand a low level of CI (left side of Figure 2) should be negatively affect cost performance (Disney and Towill,
accompanied by a low level of SI. However, the research 2002). As illustrated in some case studies on SC integration
sample reveals that this is a rare situation. In fact, only one (Danese et al., 2009), SI can help to mitigate the negative
impact of the nervousness effect, thus making CI beneficial in
unit in the sample falls below the CI critical value of 2 1.23
terms of cost improvements. Supplier integration can
(i.e. intersection point). Below the intersection point, a low
facilitate coping with this effect as it allows the
level of SI appears to be more convenient (see Figure 2).
manufacturer to be rapidly updated on the progress of its
orders at the supplier’s plant and to decide jointly with the
5. Discussion supplier the most appropriate plan modifications in order to
accommodate final customer requests. Instead, when SI is
Our analyses empirically demonstrate that SI positively low, lack of collaboration with suppliers and uncertainty
moderates the relationship between CI and efficiency (H2), about order progress at the supplier’s plant force the
whereas they do not support that in general CI significantly manufacturer to inefficiently resort to rush deliveries from
and positively impacts efficiency (H1). These results have suppliers and large amounts of safety stocks to anticipate
both theoretical and managerial implications. customer requests and chase demand.
226
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
Figure 2 Efficiency slope at low, medium and high levels of supplier integration
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
Results found on the CI-efficiency link and the moderating and Jayaram et al. (2010), SC integration could go beyond the
effect of SI can have interesting managerial implications. An immediate network, by involving second/third tier customers/
important hint for managers is that efficiency performance suppliers. However, we think that it could be difficult to
optimization requires levering simultaneously on CI and SI to evaluate the involvement of these actors or the integration
foster their interaction, rather than investing and acting on CI between second and first (or third and second) tier suppliers/
only. In fact, when CI is not accompanied by a high level of customers by collecting information from respondents within
SI, this latter can act as a barrier that hinders the positive the focal firms. An ad hoc survey-based research should be
impact of CI on efficiency. This is because the absence of designed to evaluate the integration of the total supply
integration with suppliers does not allow the company to network that should collect information from different
efficaciously manage the nervousness effect caused by CI. respondents within plants positioned in different tiers of the
Therefore managers should be aware of this effect, that could same supply network. In line with Seuring’s (2008)
offset their efforts to improve efficiency through CI. suggestions, we think that collecting data from supply
Finally, by clarifying what should be the impact of CI on chains (i.e. at least two, or three or more stages of the
efficiency and the role of SI, this study offers guidance for supply chains) could be very useful.
managers facing the selection of the most appropriate mix and A further opportunity for future research lies in the analysis
sequence of SC integration initiatives, in order to maximize of possible additional moderating effects on the CI-efficiency
efficiency improvements. After having achieved good levels of relationship, in order to increase the understanding of how to
CI, companies should direct their efforts towards SI, by optimize cost reduction. In SCM literature, it is widely
extending the integration upstream, rather than continuing recognized that performance can be significantly improved
investing on CI. For instance, from model 2 it is easy to when SCM implementation encompasses an appropriate
calculate that starting from a situation with a 6-level of both bundle of initiatives ranging from physical and relational
CI and SI, a one-point increment in CI increases efficiency supply network reconfiguration to inter-organizational process
performance by 8.6 percent; whereas a one-point increment re-engineering (de Treville et al., 2004; Danese et al., 2006;
in SI increases performance by 22.8 percent. Moreover, Kim, 2006; Li et al., 2009). Extending the analysis of
before deciding to invest on CI, managers should ascertain moderated effects would be very interesting because of its
what the level of SI is. In fact, SI paves the way for the implications for management.
successful implementation of CI, because it can help to limit a Finally, future studies could further investigate some
series of problems (e.g. nervousness of plans) that can offset interesting indications which emerged in this research. For
CI benefits. instance, a remarkable and counterintuitive hint resulting
from this study concerns the role of SI when CI is low. As
5.1 Limitations of this study and future research highlighted in the left side of Figure 2, companies
This research also exhibits a series of limitations to be taken characterized by extremely low degrees of integration with
into consideration that suggest some proposals for future their customers seem to be more efficient when integration
research. with suppliers is also low. It could be argued that integration
First, as in several other surveys on SCM (Frohlich and with suppliers in absence of integration with customers is not
Westbrook, 2001; Kim, 2006; Lee et al., 2007), in this study likely to guarantee low stock and efficiency. In fact, suppliers’
we collected information on the level of integration of the plans are aligned with those of the manufacturer, but not with
focal firm with its suppliers and customers. This limits the final demand; and at the same time integrating suppliers
focus of this research to the immediate network of the focal brings with it significant coordination costs. However, this
company. Instead, as suggested by Kannan and Tan (2010) situation (i.e. CI extremely low and SI at a high level) is
227
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
particularly rare and extreme (i.e. only one plant in our Danese, P., Filippini, R., Romano, P. and Vinelli, A. (2009),
sample), and thus further research is necessary to corroborate “Creating e-clusters: a new challenge for supply chain
this finding. management”, Supply Chain Forum: An International
Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 78-90.
6. Conclusion Das, A., Narasimhan, R. and Talluri, S. (2006), “Supplier
integration – finding an optimal configuration”, Journal of
This study intends to contribute to existing literature on SC Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 563-82.
integration by investigating the impact of customer de Treville, S., Shapiro, R.D. and Hameri, A.P. (2004),
integration on efficiency performance and the moderating “From supply chain to demand chain: the role of lead time
role of supplier integration. Results found highlight the need reduction in improving demand chain performance”,
for firms to simultaneously pursue integration with customers Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 6,
and suppliers to improve efficiency performance. In fact, CI pp. 613-27.
alone is not enough to guarantee cost reductions; and if SI is Disney, S.M. and Towill, D.R. (2002), “A procedure for the
low, CI can even make efficiency worse. This provides a optimization of the dynamic response of a vendor-managed
number of original implications for the interpretation of the inventory system”, Computers & Industrial Engineering,
relationship between CI and efficiency. In particular, we can Vol. 43 Nos 1-2, pp. 27-58.
infer that CI can cause additional costs and problems that SI
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
228
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2010), “Supply chain Sahin, F. and Robinson, E.P. (2005), “Information sharing
integration: cluster analysis of the impact of span of and coordination in make-to-order supply chains”, Journal
integration”, Supply Chain Management: An International of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 579-98.
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 207-15. Seuring, S.A. (2008), “Assessing the rigour of case study
Kim, D., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2010), “Performance research in supply chain management”, Supply Chain
assessment framework for supply chain partnership”, Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, pp. 128-37.
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 187-95. Sezen, B. (2008), “Relative effects of design, integration and
Kim, S.W. (2006), “Effects of supply chain management information sharing”, Supply Chain Management:
practices, integration and competition capability on
An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 233-40.
performance”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Singh, P.J. and Power, D. (2009), “The nature and
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 241-8.
effectiveness of collaboration between firms, their
Lawson, B., Cousins, P.D., Handfield, R.B. and Petersen, K.J.
customers and suppliers: a supply chain perspective”,
(2009), “Strategic purchasing, supply management practices
and buyer performance improvement: an empirical study of Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14
UK manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of No. 3, pp. 189-200.
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 2649-67. Stock, G.N., Greis, N.P. and Kasarda, J.D. (2000),
Lee, C.W., Kwon, I.G. and Severance, D. (2007), “Enterprise logistics and supply chain structure: the role
“Relationships between supply chain performance and of fit”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 5,
degree of linkage among supplier, internal integration and pp. 531-47.
customer”, Supply Chain Management: An International Towill, D.R., Naim, M.M. and Wikner, J. (1992), “Industrial
Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 444-52. dynamics simulation models in the design of supply
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Seungjin, W. (1997), chains”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
“The bullwhip effect in supply chains”, Sloan Management & Logistics Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 3-13.
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 93-102. Vachon, S., Halley, A. and Beaulieu, M. (2009), “Aligning
Lee, H.L., So, K.C. and Tang, C.S. (2000), “The value of competitive priorities in the supply chain: the role of
information sharing in a two-level supply chain”, interactions with suppliers”, International Journal of
Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 626-43. Operations & Production Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L. and Sohal, A. (2009), “The impact
pp. 322-34.
of IT implementation on supply chain integration and van der Vaart, T. and van Donk, D.P. (2008), “A critical
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics,
review of survey-based research in supply chain
Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 125-38.
integration”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Lin, F., Huang, S. and Lin, S. (2002), “Effects of information
sharing on supply chain performance in electronic Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 42-55.
Vickery, S., Jayaram, J., Droge, C. and Calantone, R. (2003),
commerce”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 258-68. “The effects of an integrative supply chain strategy on
Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R. (1999), “Total cycle time customer service and financial performance: an analysis of
compression and the agile supply chain”, International direct versus indirect relationship”, Journal of Operations
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1/2, pp. 61-73. Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 523-39.
Nunnally, J.C. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, Wagner, S. and Krause, D.R. (2009), “Supplier development:
New York, NY. communication approaches, activities and goals”,
Ou, C.S., Liu, F.C., Hung, Y.C. and Yen, D.C. (2010), International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 12,
“A structural model of supply chain management on firm pp. 3161-77.
performance”, International Journal of Operations Wangphanich, P., Kara, S. and Kayis, B. (2010), “Analysis of
& Production Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 526-45. the bullwhip effect in multi-product, multi-stage supply
Power, D. (2005), “Supply chain management integration chain systems – a simulation approach”, International
and implementation: a literature review”, Supply Chain Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 15, pp. 4501-17.
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, Wiengarten, F., Humphreys, P., Guangming, C., Fynes, B.
pp. 252-63. and McKittrick, A. (2010), “Collaborative supply chain
Romano, P. (2009), “How can fluid dynamics help supply
practices and performance: exploring the key role of
chain management?”, International Journal of Production
information quality”, Supply Chain Management:
Economics, Vol. 118 No. 2, pp. 463-72.
Rosenzweig, E.D., Roth, A.V. and Dean, G.V. (2003), An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 463-73.
“The influence of an integration strategy on competitive Zailani, S. and Rajagopal, P. (2005), “Supply chain
capabilities and business performance: an exploratory study integration and performance: US versus East Asian
of consumer product manufacturers”, Journal of Operations companies”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 437-56. Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 379-93.
Ryu, S., Tsukishima, T. and Onari, H. (2009), “A study on Zhao, X., Xie, J. and Zhang, W.J. (2002), “The impact of
evaluation of demand information-sharing methods in information sharing and ordering co-ordination on supply
supply chain”, International Journal of Production chain performance”, Supply Chain Management:
Economics, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 162-75. An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 24-40.
229
Supply chain integration and efficiency performance Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Pamela Danese and Pietro Romano Volume 16 · Number 4 · 2011 · 220 –230
230
This article has been cited by:
1. Baofeng Huo, Zhaojun Han, Haozhe Chen, Xiande Zhao. 2015. The effect of high-involvement human resource management
practices on supply chain integration. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 45:8, 716-746.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Ferry Jie, Kevin A. Parton, Mustafid. 2015. Supply chain performance flexibility in the Australian beef industry. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 1-18. [CrossRef]
3. Cunlu Zhang, Angappa Gunasekaran, William Yu Chung Wang. 2015. A comprehensive model for supply chain integration.
Benchmarking: An International Journal 22:6, 1141-1157. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Liang-Tu Chen. 2015. Buyer–supplier relationship and optimisation model in a dynamic collaborative network with shortages
allowed. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 1-13. [CrossRef]
5. Laura Macchion, Antonella Moretto, Federico Caniato, Maria Caridi, Pamela Danese, Andrea Vinelli. 2015. Production and
supply network strategies within the fashion industry. International Journal of Production Economics 163, 173-188. [CrossRef]
6. Dimitrios Chatzoudes, Prodromos ChatzoglouSupply Chain Integration (SCI) measured from an information sharing perspective:
Examining its impact on business success 52-63. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
7. Rafaela Alfalla-Luque, Juan A. Marin-Garcia, Carmen Medina-Lopez. 2015. An analysis of the direct and mediated effects of
employee commitment and supply chain integration on organisational performance. International Journal of Production Economics
162, 242-257. [CrossRef]
8. 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]
9. Zurita Mohd Saleh, Rosmimah Mohd Roslin. 2015. Supply Chain Integration Strategy: A Conceptual Model of Supply Chain
Relational Capital Enabler in the Malaysian Food Processing Industry. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 172, 585-590.
[CrossRef]
10. Saba Hinrichs, Deepa Jahagirdar, Céline Miani, Benoit Guerin, Ellen Nolte. 2014. Learning for the NHS on procurement and
supply chain management: a rapid evidence assessment. Health Services and Delivery Research 2, 1-132. [CrossRef]
11. Wantao Yu, Roberto Chavez, Mengying Feng, Frank Wiengarten. 2014. Integrated green supply chain management and
operational performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:5/6, 683-696. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Young-Joon Seo, John Dinwoodie, Dong-Wook Kwak. 2014. The impact of innovativeness on supply chain performance: is
supply chain integration a missing link?. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:5/6, 733-746. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
13. Hana Lostakova, Zuzana Pecinova. 2014. The Role of Partnership and Flexibility in Strengthening Customer Relationships in
the B2B Market. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 150, 563-575. [CrossRef]
14. Baofeng Huo, Yinan Qi, Zhiqiang Wang, Xiande Zhao. 2014. The impact of supply chain integration on firm performance.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 19:4, 369-384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. M. Tawfik Mady, Tarek T. Mady, Sarah T. Mady. 2014. Procurement performance and manufacturer-supplier relationships: a
multivariate analysis in Kuwaiti manufacturing companies. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 29:5, 417-426. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
16. Yuanqiong He, Kin Keung Lai, Hongyi Sun, Yun Chen. 2014. The impact of supplier integration on customer integration and
new product performance: The mediating role of manufacturing flexibility under trust theory. International Journal of Production
Economics 147, 260-270. [CrossRef]
17. Lixin Shen, Kannan Govindan, Atul B. Borade, Ali Diabat, Devika Kannan. 2013. An evaluation of vendor managed inventory
practices from small and medium indian enterprises. Journal of Business Economics and Management 14, S76-S95. [CrossRef]
18. Pamela Danese. 2013. Supplier integration and company performance: A configurational view. Omega 41, 1029-1041. [CrossRef]
19. Wantao Yu, Mark A. Jacobs, W. David Salisbury, Harvey Enns. 2013. The effects of supply chain integration on customer
satisfaction and financial performance: An organizational learning perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 146,
346-358. [CrossRef]
20. Oscar F. Bustinza, Glenn C. Parry, Ferran Vendrell-Herrero. 2013. Supply and demand chain management: the effect of adding
services to product offerings. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:6, 618-629. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Guo‐Ciang Wu. 2013. The influence of green supply chain integration and environmental uncertainty on green innovation in
Taiwan's IT industry. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:5, 539-552. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Dong-Young Kim. 2013. Relationship between supply chain integration and performance. Operations Management Research 6,
74-90. [CrossRef]
23. Na Fu, Patrick C. Flood, Janine Bosak, Tim Morris, Philip O'Regan. 2013. Exploring the performance effect of HPWS on
professional service supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:3, 292-307. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
24. Teresa Vallet‐Bellmunt, Pilar Rivera‐Torres. 2013. Integration: attitudes, patterns and practices. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal 18:3, 308-323. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Luciano Ciravegna, Pietro Romano, Alan Pilkington. 2013. Outsourcing practices in automotive supply networks: an exploratory
study of full service vehicle suppliers. International Journal of Production Research 51, 2478-2490. [CrossRef]
26. Li Zhao, Baofeng Huo, Linyan Sun, Xiande Zhao. 2013. The impact of supply chain risk on supply chain integration and
company performance: a global investigation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 18:2, 115-131. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
27. Pamela Danese, Pietro Romano, Marco Formentini. 2013. The impact of supply chain integration on responsiveness: The
moderating effect of using an international supplier network. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review
49, 125-140. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by WUHAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 02:58 18 January 2016 (PT)
28. Baofeng Huo. 2012. The impact of supply chain integration on company performance: an organizational capability perspective.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 17:6, 596-610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Davide Aloini, Riccardo Dulmin, Valeria Mininno, Simone Ponticelli. 2012. Supply chain management: a review of
implementation risks in the construction industry. Business Process Management Journal 18:5, 735-761. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
30. Fernando Turrado García, Luis Javier García Villalba, Javier Portela. 2012. Intelligent system for time series classification using
support vector machines applied to supply-chain. Expert Systems with Applications 39, 10590-10599. [CrossRef]
31. S. J. Gorane, R. kant, M. D. SinghFunctional benchmarking of organisations on the basis of supply chain performance measures
146-151. [CrossRef]
32. Pietro Romano, Marco Formentini. 2012. Designing and implementing open book accounting in buyer–supplier dyads: A
framework for supplier selection and motivation. International Journal of Production Economics 137, 68-83. [CrossRef]
33. Pamela Danese, Pietro Romano, Thomas Bortolotti. 2012. JIT production, JIT supply and performance: investigating the
moderating effects. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:3, 441-465. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]