The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
IJPPM
64,8
1068
Received 29 April 2014
Revised 27 October 2014
24 December 2014
Accepted 29 December 2014
International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
Management
Vol. 64 No. 8, 2015
pp. 1068-1091
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-04-2014-0064
Performance measurement and
metrics in supply chains:
an exploratory study
Wojciech Piotrowicz and Richard Cuthbertson
Saїd Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the approaches and metrics used to measure supply
chain (SC) performance, and to understand the relative perceived importance of such measures.
Design/methodology/approach – This research is based on empirical data captured through a
survey of SC professionals in a variety of business sectors.
Findings – The research confirms the importance of the balanced scorecard (BSC) approach, with BSC,
SCOR and economic value added being the most commonly used tools. Economic metrics dominate, focused
on cost and customer service. While social and environmental-related measures are of emerging importance,
they appear to be of similar importance to economic metrics only when backed up by a legal obligation.
Research limitations/implications – The small sample of 51 companies was based on access and
the group is not wholly representative of all businesses. Respondents were mainly managers from EU
countries involved in procurement, logistics and transport activities. Surveyed companies included
manufacturing, automotive, retail, logistics services and wholesaling businesses.
Practical implications – The common key performance indicators (KPI’s) are identified. These
include measures related to: quality, efficiency, responsiveness, health and safety, employees, emission,
natural resources utilisation, waste and recycling. Issues that influence the usage of measurement
systems as well as the company and SC levels are ranked.
Social implications – Implementation of a monitoring system and subsequent usage of the collected
data may help to reduce negative external impacts on society and the environment.
Originality/value – The field of SC performance management is still developing, with growing empirical
work. Nevertheless this paper is one of the first attempts to carry out such an analysis focused on metrics
and their usage. The survey instrument has been tested and can now be applied to other contexts.
Keywords Performance, Supply chain, Performance measurement, Supply chain management,
Performance management systems, Performance measures
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The field of performance measurement (PM) in a supply chain (SC) context is maturing;
this is reflected in the academic literature, as publications are moving from the conceptual
to the empirical. However, as stated by Gopal and Thakkar (2012), there is still a lack of
systemic empirical work focused on this topic, which suggests that there has not been
much change since 2007, when a similar observation was made by Gunasekaran and
Kobu. Even though there are publications based on empirical data, the case study
approach dominates SC research, with limited survey-based research. However, case
studies and surveys should inform one another and thus capture the state of supply
chain performance measurement (SCPM). As part of this research, we launched an
exploratory survey to look at PM tools, individual metrics, metrics categories and their
perceived importance. In the research reported here, we carried out an exploratory
Research was completed as part of the EU-funded BestLog project. Preliminary version of this paper
was presented at the International Logistics and Supply Chain Congress, Izmir, Turkey (2011).
questionnaire survey. We consider social, economic and environmental metrics, which Performance
are used to capture the impact of a SC on all three of these pillars of sustainability. measurement
In addition, we analyse the importance of different external and internal factors that
determine the usage of the PM systems at the SC and corporate levels. This paper is
and metrics
structured as follows: after a brief literature review, the methodology is described, at the in SC
beginning of each sub-section we explain how the questions were constructed, then the
findings are presented and discussed. Finally the conclusions and recommendations for 1069
practice and future research are identified.

2. Recent literature reviews

There are several published literature reviews that are focused on various aspects of
SCPM thus we would like to refer to such publications instead of repeating their findings
(literature cited in this paper was updated in June 2013). There were three early literature
reviews published in 2006-2007 (Chan et al., 2006; Shepherd and Gunter, 2006;
Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2007) and a further review of 24 publications was completed by
Akyuz and Erkan (2009). In addition, Gopal and Thakkar (2012) identified and reviewed
28 journal papers focused on SCPM that were published between 2000 and 2011. Their
review covered the design, implementation and monitoring of measures in the SC context.
There are also papers that are focused on a specific area of SCPM, such as
environmental and green metrics (Clift, 2003; El Saadany et al., 2011; Hervani and
Helms, 2005; Olugu et al., 2011; Shaw et al., 2010; Björklund et al., 2012), metrics in
humanitarian relief (Beamon and Balcik, 2008), build-to-order (Sharif et al., 2007),
closed-loop (Mondragon et al., 2011) or agri-food chains (Aramyan et al., 2007) as well as
the role of SCPM in quality improvement (Cagnazzo et al., 2010).
Reviews by Nudurupati et al. (2011) and Taticchi et al. (2010) are focused on wider
issues related to PM, beyond the SC context. Gopal and Thakkar (2012) identified key
research issues related to PM in SCs, which included problems in the integration of
environmental measures and SC models, the creation of sustainable SC measures, and
the extent to which organisations are using sustainability-related SC measures – the
topic that is covered in this paper. Taticchi et al. (2010), based on citations, concluded
that PM and sustainability is one of the emerging topics within the field.
Several authors (Gopal and Thakkar, 2012; Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz, 2011)
observed a shift, which took place in 2007/2008, from conceptual to empirical research.
Despite this shift, among the 28 papers reviewed by Gopal and Thakkar (2012), only nine
papers reported findings from surveys, which indicates that survey-based research is not
widely used in the field, thus this paper will enhance the current level of knowledge.

3. Methodology
The questionnaire was designed based on a literature review and created in an electronic
format (using Survey Monkey). The first version of the questionnaire was reviewed and
tested by academics and consultants from the SC field. The aim of the test was to ensure
the quality of the survey instrument. Feedback was collected and incorporated into the
final version of the questionnaire. The survey was advertised on EU project and the
logistics association web sites, with logistics managers being the main target. The aim of
this work was to provide an exploratory analysis, using convenience sampling, so one
limitation of this research is that the findings are not representative of the whole
population. To increase our understanding of the context, we asked about the
respondents’ position, sector, headquarters location, main scope of operations and
number of employees. In the survey design we accepted that some information might be
IJPPM unknown to the respondents (e.g. environmental measures might be under the
64,8 responsibility of the Corporate Social Responsibility department), so to avoid incorrect
answers respondents were allowed to skip questions. A total of 107 questionnaires were
completed. However, some were not completed by practitioners, but by academics or
consultants, and others lacked some basic information. Such questionnaires were
manually removed and were not analysed further, leaving 51 completed questionnaires.
1070 Where the number of specific answers was very low we merged them into an “other”
category, and mention this wherever relevant. As there was the possibility of skipping a
question of the online survey, the number of responses to each question varies
(as indicated in each diagram or table listed in this paper). The data collected were then
exported to SPSS and analysed – descriptive analysis, graphical presentation tools,
cross-tabulations and correlations were applied. The first research goal was to provide a
snapshot of the status of SCPM using a pilot study; the second goal was to test the
survey in a real setting and on a wider group of respondents, so that after modification it
could be used in future research with more targeted sampling procedures. The
questionnaire was created from the literature related to PM in SCs. This approach also
has limitations, as only metrics listed in the body of literature with a clear SC or logistics
focus were included in the questionnaire. The sources are mentioned at the beginning of
each section of the paper.
The online questionnaire incorporated the following sections:
• context – information about respondents and their organisations;
• PM methods and tools used by organisations to measure performance;
• metrics categories used by organisations;
• factors that influence metrics usage at the company level;
• factors that influence metrics usage the SC level; and
• metrics used to measure SC performance and their perceived importance
(social, economic and environmental impact).

4. Respondents and their organisations

The aim of the first section was to capture contextual information about the
respondents, to define the main scope of their organisations as well as their role within
the SC. The majority of respondents were from the logistics services sector, followed by
retail and consumer goods. The “other” category includes companies in the bulk and
chemical sectors, as well as companies that operate in more than one sector. The
automotive sector was also represented (Figure 1).
The majority of companies have multiple core activities, as well as additional non-core
activities. The most common single core activities were: manufacturing, retail and
wholesaling, transport, logistics value added services and warehousing (Figure 2).
As the research was focused on the European Union, the majority of companies (46)
were located in Europe (EU/EEA), with four in non-EU countries: two companies
from the USA and a single respondent from both Peru and Turkey. The majority
of organisations operate internationally (35), eight operate in the EU only, while six of
them operate at the country level only. The size of the companies, by employment, is
presented in the Table I.
Regarding the individual respondents, most were from managerial positions:
directors or senior managers (18 respondents), departmental and line managers (18),
 Performance
20 measurement
and metrics
in SC
15

1071
Count

10

0
Logistics Other Retail Automotive

Sector
Figure 1.
Notes: n=51. Merged into smaller number of categories. Multiple Responses by sector
answers allowed. Missing 1

25

20

15
Count

10

0
Multiple core Manufacturing Retail and Transport Logistics value Warehousing
activities Wholesaling add

Key company activities merged Figure 2.

Key activities
Notes: n=51. Multiple answers allowed. Missing 5

while 13 respondents held expert or advisory roles. The majority of respondents

indicated that their own department is responsible for a variety of operations: such as
procurement, logistics, transport or warehousing.
Findings from the questionnaire are presented in the following sections.
IJPPM 5. Process – methods and tools used to measure SC performance
64,8 In the survey we wanted to find out what methods and tools were used by companies to
capture performance. Based on the literature we created a list of approaches identified
in companies or proposed to measure SC performance, these include:
• SC measurement system (Holmberg, 2000; Saad and Patel, 2006; Thakkar et al., 2009);
• SCPM framework (Beamon, 1999);
1072
• balanced scorecard (BSC) (Kaplan and Norton, 1992);
• frameworks based on the scorecard approach/modifications of the BSC
(Bullinger et al., 2002; Brewer and Speh, 2000; Brewer and Speh, 2001; Sharif
et al., 2007; Park et al., 2005; Chia et al., 2009; Bhagwat and Sharma, 2007a;
Bhagwat and Sharma, 2007b);
• economic value added (EVA) (Lambert and Pohlen, 2001);
• process-based measurement (Chan and Qi, 2003a);
• fuzzy-set approach (Chan and Qi, 2003b; Ganga and Carpinetti, 2011; Vaidya and
Hudnurkar, 2013); and
• SCOR model (Bullinger et al., 2002; Thakkar et al., 2009).
Among the respondents, 22 companies use a single measurement method, while
16 use more than one approach, nine companies did not use any method, while six
respondents were not aware of such a method in use and thus were unable to provide
an answer.
Based on the answers, it is possible to observe (Figure 2) that the most commonly
used approach is a BSC in both original (16 answers) and modified versions (additional
four answers). This was followed by process-based measurement (15 companies).
The SCOR model was rated as the third most common approach (12 companies).
The fourth most common answer was that the company did not use any PM system.
EVA was used by seven companies.

6. Content – metrics categories used by organisations

Apart from the methods, we asked about the main metrics groups (categories) used
in the companies, based on the literature review:
• plan/source/make/deliver (Gunasekaran et al., 2001, 2004; Berrah and Clivillé, 2007);
• strategic/tactical/operational (Gunasekaran et al., 2004; Bhagwat and Sharma,
2007b; Berrah and Clivillé, 2007);

Number of employees Frequency %

Valid 1-100 6 12.2

101-500 15 30.6
501-1,000 8 16.3
1,001-5,000 7 14.3
More than 5,000 13 26.5
Table I. Total (n) 49 100
Company size Note: n ¼ 49
 • financial/customer/organisational/innovation (Bullinger et al., 2002); Performance
• financial/customer/process/growth (Kaplan and Norton, 1992, 1993, 1996; Brewer measurement
and Speh, 2000; Brewer and Speh, 2001); and metrics
• SC/process/function (Bullinger et al., 2002); in SC
• qualitative/quantitative (Chan et al., 2003; Shepherd and Gunter, 2006);
•
1073
resources/output/flexibility (Beamon, 1999; Angerhofer and Angelides, 2006);
• financial/non-financial (Gunasekaran et al., 2001, 2004); and
• cost/customer/responsiveness/productivity (Chan et al., 2003).
The most commonly listed were the SCOR metrics (plan/source/make/deliver), with
16 answers. The metrics were separated into strategic/tactical/operational (14 cases) or
SC/process/function perspectives (12 respondents) and included both qualitative and
quantitative indicators (12 respondents). The BSC-like groups were also indicated by
12 respondents each (Figures 3 and 4).
Note that there is a lack of correlation between the overall approach and the metrics
in use (e.g. more SCOR metrics than approach, fewer BSC metrics than approach).
We will consider this more fully in our later discussion.

7. PM at company level – impact factors and their importance

In the questionnaire we asked respondents about which impact factors were important
at the company (organisational) level. When designing this section, we considered some
problems with PM identified in the literature, such as:
(1) metrics are not related to strategy (Beamon, 1999; Bullinger et al., 2002;
Holmberg, 2000; Morgan, 2004);
(2) metrics do not include the effects of uncertainty (Beamon, 1999);
(3) metrics do not provide a forward-looking perspective (Bullinger et al., 2002);

The Balanced Scorecard (unchanged)

The Process-based Measurement

SCOR model

We do not use any method or tool

Economic Value Added

I do not know

The Supply Chain Measurement System

The Supply Chain Performance Measurement Framework

Framework based on Balanced Scorecard Figure 3.

Methods and tools
Fuzzy-set approach used to measure
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
supply chain
performance
Notes: n=51. Multiple responses allowed
IJPPM Plan/Source/Make/Deliver
64,8 Strategic/Tactical/Operational

Supply Chain/Process/Function perspectives

Qualitative/Quantitative

1074 Financial/Customer/Process/Growth

Financial/Customer/Organisational/Innovation perspectives

Cost/Customer/Responsiveness/Productivity

Financial/Non-financial

Resources/Output/Flexibility

Tangible/Intangible
Figure 4.
Metrics 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
groups in use
Notes: n=51. Multiple responses allowed. 4 missing

(4) managers have problems understanding metrics that are not from their
functional area (Brewer and Speh, 2001);
(5) metrics are not tied to effectiveness and efficiency (Bullinger et al., 2002);
(6) metrics are not linked with customer needs (Holmberg, 2000);
(7) there is a lack of balance between financial and non-financial metrics
(Gunasekaran et al., 2001; Beamon, 1999; Bullinger et al., 2002; Holmberg, 2000);
(8) there are too many metrics in use at the same time (Holmberg, 2000); and
(9) there is no clear distinction between strategic-, tactical- and operational-level
metrics (Gunasekaran et al., 2001).
The respondents were provided with a Likert scale to rate the importance of these:
1 – not important, 2 – slightly important, 3 – important, 4 – very important and
5 – critical. The survey responses (Table II) indicate the importance of metrics linked to
the fulfilment of customer needs (4.0/4.0/1.02 – median/mean/standard deviation), that
metrics should be easy to understand at all managerial levels (4.0/3.88/1.01), and that
metrics should be linked to the company strategy (4.0/3.74/1.26), as well as providing a
forward-looking perspective (4.0/3.64/0.83).

8. PM at the SC level – impact factors and their importance

Another issue included in the questionnaire concerned the factors that influence the
usage and exchange of metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) between SC
members. This question was also developed based on the literature, where the
following problems were listed:
• problems overcoming mistrust and suspicion between organisations (Brewer and
Speh, 2001; Morgan, 2004);
• problems with cooperation rather than competition (Morgan, 2004; Lambert and
Pohlen, 2001);
Factor Median Mean Min. Max. Variance SD Responses
Performance
measurement
Be linked to customer needs fulfilment 4 4 2 5 1.03 1.02 32 and metrics
Be easy to understand at all managerial levels 4 3.88 2 5 1.02 1.01 32
Company strategy and performance systems in SC
should be linked together 4 3.74 1 5 1.6 1.26 31
Reflect company strategy 4 3.68 1 5 1.23 1.11 31
Provide a forward-looking perspective 4 3.64 2 5 0.68 0.83 28 1075
Be tied to effectiveness 4 3.59 1 5 0.89 0.95 32
Be tied to efficiency 4 3.59 1 5 0.83 0.91 32
The number of metrics in use should Table II.
be limited 3 3.38 1 5 1.02 1.01 32 Factors that
Clear differentiation between operational, influence metrics
tactical and strategic metrics is needed 3 3.3 1 5 1.03 1.02 33 usage at the
Include effects of uncertainty 3 3.1 1 5 1.31 1.14 29 company level
Financial and non-financial metrics should (based on
be balanced 3 3.06 1 5 1.35 1.16 32 36 answers)

• problems with relationships and differences between SC members (Holmberg,

2000; Brewer and Speh, 2001; Lambert and Pohlen, 2001);
• the initial costs of the PM system (Morgan, 2004);
• the complexity of SC activities (Lambert and Pohlen, 2001);
• PM systems ignore the different strategies of individual organisations
(Beamon, 1999);
• individual organisations have different goals and objectives (Brewer and
Speh, 2001);
• every organisation in the SC has a different corporate culture, policies and
routines (Holmberg, 2000); and
• metrics and PMs not reflect inter-organisational performance (Lambert and
Pohlen, 2001; Brewer and Speh, 2001).
The measurement scale for this question was the same Likert scale as used in the
earlier question. Respondents rated SC issues as less important than company
(organisational) issues (see Tables II and III).
The highly rated factors at the SC level include:
• organisational goals and objectives (4.0/3.43/0.88);
• visibility of links between organisational and SC performance (3.0/3.33/0.88);
• level of trust between organisations (3.0/3.30/0.95); and
• organisational strategies (3.0/3.27/0.92).

9. Metrics used to measure SC performance and their importance

The last, and largest, section in the questionnaire related to individual metrics within
different groups, which are used to reflect SC impact and their perceived importance.
We looked at three groups of metrics that influence sustainability (social, economic and
environmental), which were further divided into three sub-dimensions each (Figure 5).
IJPPM Factor Median Mean Min. Max. Variance SD Responses n
64,8
Organisational goals and objectives 4.00 3.43 2.00 5.00 0.77 0.88 28
Visibility of links between organisational
and supply chain performance 3.00 3.33 1.00 5.00 0.77 0.88 27
Level of trust between organisations 3.00 3.30 2.00 5.00 0.91 0.95 27
Organisational strategies 3.00 3.27 2.00 5.00 0.84 0.92 26
1076 Cost of measurement system
implementation 3.00 3.20 1.00 5.00 0.83 0.91 25
Level of cooperation between partners 3.00 3.19 1.00 5.00 0.93 0.96 27
Ability to reflect inter-organisational
performance 3.00 3.19 2.00 5.00 0.77 0.88 27
Table III. Organisational culture 3.00 3.19 1.00 5.00 0.93 0.96 27
Factors which Level of supply chain complexity 3.00 3.19 1.00 5.00 0.93 0.96 27
influence usage and Legal requirements 3.00 3.19 1.00 5.00 0.80 0.90 27
exchange of metrics Competition 3.00 3.15 2.00 5.00 0.75 0.86 27
across supply Industry standards 3.00 3.08 1.00 5.00 1.03 1.02 27
chain (based Organisational policies 3.00 2.89 1.00 5.00 1.26 1.12 27
on 31 answers) Industry type 2.50 2.58 1.00 5.00 1.13 1.06 27

Sustainability

Social Economic Environmental

Health and safety Quality Emissions

Noise Efficiency Natural resources utilisation

Figure 5.
Metrics dimensions Employees Responsiveness Waste and recycling
and sub-dimensions
Source: Piotrowicz and Cuthberson (2012)

A list of individual metrics was created based on the literature and verified with
practitioners; the number of metrics was different for each sub-dimension
(see Appendices 1-3 for a full list of metrics used in the questionnaire). In the online
survey, respondents were first asked if they could provide information about certain
dimensions and sub-dimensions of the metrics; if the answer was negative, they were
automatically moved to the next section or question (skip-logic was built into the
survey). Based on the number of answers it is possible to propose that the usage of
social and environmental metrics was lower compared to the traditional economic,
business-oriented metrics. We completed non-parametric tests for randomness
(one-sample runs test), which indicated that at a significance level of 0.05 the
hypothesis of random sequences of values was retained, except for two variables
“energy use” and “response time”.

9.1 The economic dimension

The economic dimension of metrics was separated into three sub-dimensions related to:
quality, efficiency and responsiveness.
 The first set of questions was related to the importance of quality. Altogether nine Performance
metrics were listed (Table AI). In the quality dimension, the highly rated metrics were measurement
as follows (median/mean/standard deviation):
•
and metrics
on-time delivery (4.00/4.23/0.81);
in SC
• customer satisfaction (4.00/4.18/0.80);
• order fill rate (4.00/3.96/0.93); and 1077
• product/service availability (4.00/3.76/0.83).
The efficiency dimensions included the longest list of metrics (Table AII), with the
highly rated metrics being:
• distribution costs (4.5/3.94/1.29);
• total costs (4.00/4.18/0.88);
• transport costs (4.00/4.06/0.90); and
• loading capacity utilisation (4.00/3.80/1.15).
However, we can observe that the standard deviation is higher in this case compared to
the quality metrics.
Of the responsiveness-related measures (Table AIII), the most important were:
• stock-outs (4.00/3.75/1.13);
• product lateness (4.00/3.59/1.06);
• lead time (4.00/3.58/1.26); and
• forecast accuracy (4.00/3.29/1.10).

9.2 The social dimension

The social metrics were separated into three sub-dimensions related to: health and
safety, employees and noise emission.
The top three health and safety measures (Table AIV) were:
• number of accidents (employees) (3.50/3.56/1.09);
• work conditions (3.00/3.44/0.96); and
• number of accidents (non-employees) (3.0/3.23/1.17).
For noise emission, only three metrics were identified (Table AV). It is possible to
observe that only between nine and 12 organisations indicated that they consider any
type of noise emission in their PM systems. The metrics importance was lower
compared to other dimensions:
• noise volume (3.00/2.75/1.14);
• time of noise emission (2.00/2.22/1.09); and
• noise emission in urban areas (2.50/2.40/1.26).
In the employees sub-dimension (Table AVI), the most important measures listed were:
• employees skills (4.00/3.81/0.83);
• employees satisfaction (3.50/3.56/0.96); and
• per cent of labour cost spent on training (3.00/3.08/0.86).
IJPPM Compared to the economic dimensions, the average rating level of the social dimensions
64,8 was lower; none of the metrics were classified overall as very important/critical
(mean scores of between 4 and 5).

9.3 The environmental dimension

The final dimension was related to the environmental metrics, which was separated into
1078 three sub-dimensions related to: emissions, natural resources and waste and recycling.
In the emissions sub-dimension we observed that the number of responses was very
low (Table AVII), which might suggest that emission-related metrics are not commonly
used among respondents. However they could be used by other departments within the
organisation as the majority of respondents were from departments responsible for
operations. The overall rating of importance was also not high, and with a high
standard deviation:
• level of CO2 emission (3.00/3.42/1.44);
• level of CO2 emission from transport processes (3.00/2.90/1.29); and
• level of CO2 emission from infrastructure (3.00/2.44/1.24).
In the natural resources sub-dimension the metrics were rated as followed:
• energy use (3.00/3.36/0.84);
• water consumption (3.00/3.08/0.90); and
• energy consumption/revenue (3.00/2.92/1.04).
The waste and recycling top three metrics were rated as follows:
• level of waste (3.00/3.06/1.00);
• level of products recycled (3.00/2.86/66); and
• level of products reused (3.00/2.60/0.74).

9.4 Correlation between metrics

As the next step, the statistical correlations between variables (metrics) were analysed.
The aim of this analysis was to establish whether there are links between metrics, both
across categories and within sub-categories – i.e. to identify links between pairs of metrics
that are highly rated by the questionnaire respondents. To look at the correlation between
various metrics we ran Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Spearman’s ρ) and
Kendall rank correlation coefficient (Kendall’s τ_b) tests, which can be applied to identify
correlations in small samples. The tests were computed using SPSS, and the correlation
was checked for all the top-rated metrics in each sub-dimension (as listed in the sections
9.1-9.3). Table IV shows the 12 paired metrics that were correlated at the 0.01 level
(two-tailed) when the correlation was indicated in both tests (Spearman’s and Kendall’s).
Among the correlated metrics we could distinguish links between metrics (Table IV):
• in the same dimension and sub-dimension (pairs 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12);
• in the same dimension, but in a different sub-dimension (pair 8); and
• across different dimensions and sub-dimensions (pairs 1, 3, 4, 9).
Most pairs of metrics were correlated within a single dimension and sub-dimension (pairs 2,
5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12). The relationship between these variables is fairly obvious. For example,
 Location of the correlated metrics
Performance
Spearman’s Kendall’s in the dimension, sub-dimension measurement
Pair no. Pair of correlated metrics ρ τ_b (see Figure 5) and metrics
1 Loading capacity utilisation – 0.961** 0.933** Metrics in various dimensions/ in SC
time of noise emission 0.000 0.005 sub-dimensions: social/noise
8 8 emission and economic/efficiency
2 Level of CO2 emission from 0.955** 0.897** Metrics within the same 1079
transport processes – level of dimension/sub-dimension –
CO2 emission from 0.000 0.003 environmental/emissions
infrastructure 9 9
3 Employees skills – level of CO2 0.930** 0.873** Metrics in various dimensions/
emission from transport 0.001 0.007 sub-dimensions: social/employees
processes 8 8 and environmental/emissions
4 Loading capacity utilisation – 0.887** 0.852** Metrics in various dimensions/
noise emission in urban areas 0.001 0.006 sub-dimensions: social/noise and
9 9 economic/efficiency
5 Level of waste – level of 0.799** 0.779** Metrics within the same
products recycled dimension and sub-dimension –
0.001 0.003 environmental/waste and
13 13 recycling
6 Transport costs – loading 0.777** 0.728** Metrics within the same
capacity utilisation 0.001 0.003 dimension and sub-dimension –
14 14 economic/efficiency
7 Level of products recycled – 0.749** 0.731** Metrics within the same
level of products reused dimension and sub-dimension –
0.003 0.006 environmental/waste and
13 13 recycling
8 Employees satisfaction – work 0.754** 0.714** Metrics within the same
conditions dimension social, but different
0.001 0.002 sub-dimensions: health and
15 15 safety, employees
9 Employees skills – energy 0.757** 0.691** Metrics various dimensions/sub-
efficiency per tonne-kilometre dimensions: social/employees and
0.003 0.006 environmental/natural resources
13 13 utilisation
10 Product lateness – lead time 0.743** 0.657** Metrics within the same
0.001 0.002 dimension and sub-dimension –
17 17 economic/responsiveness
11 Employees skills – employees 0.650** 0.587** Metrics within the same
satisfaction 0.006 0.009 dimension/sub-dimension –
16 16 social/employees
12 On-time delivery – order 0.596** 0.544** Metrics within the same
fill rate 0.003 0.005 dimension and sub-dimension –
22 22 economic/quality
Notes: Order from the most to the least correlated. Values in the Spearman’s and Kendall’s tests cells: Table IV.
correlation coefficient; sig (two-tailed); number of responses. **Correlation is significant at the Correlation between
0.01 level (two-tailed) metrics

if there is a focus on CO2 emissions then such emissions are likely to be measured regardless
of the source (Pair 2: transport and infrastructure). Similarly, it is not surprising that there is
a correlation between waste, reuse and recycling (Pairs 5 and 7).The one correlated pair in
the same dimension, but in a different sub-dimension (Pair 8) is also easily understood
in that one might expect employee satisfaction and work conditions to be related.
IJPPM However, the correlated pairs across different dimensions and sub-dimensions
64,8 (Pairs 1, 3, 4, 9) are less easily explained. Pairs 1 and 4 might suggest that where there
are stronger transportation metrics, then social aspects of transportation are
considered alongside the economic. Hence loading capacity utilisation is correlated
both with time of noise emission as well as the level of noise emission in urban areas.
However, the link between Pairs 3 and 9 is more difficult to explain, where employees
1080 skills are correlated with both the level of CO2 emission from transport processes, as
well as the energy efficiency per tonne-kilometre. It may simply be that a more
educated workforce will be more aware of environmental issues but the explanatory
relationship is not entirely clear.

10. Discussion
This research is exploratory; nevertheless, there are some interesting observations to
be made.
The BSC was listed as the most common approach (19 of 51 companies indicated its
usage), while process-based measurement as the second (15 organisations). The SCOR
model was the third choice (12 users). These results are not surprising considering the
importance and popularity of SCOR and BSC (Akyuz and Erkan, 2009; Shepherd and
Gunter, 2006), with the work of Kaplan and Norton being the most cited among the PM
authors (see Taticchi et al., 2010). In fourth place was the answer that the company did not
use any method or tool for PM at all, which should be explored further as this could indicate
that there was no performance system in use, or perhaps more likely, the performance
system is not formally recognised. The popularity of the BSC approach is also reflected in
other academic work focused on Supply Chain Performance Measurement Systems
(SCPMS) (i.e. Bhagwat and Sharma, 2007b; Sharif et al., 2007; Chia et al., 2009; Bullinger
et al., 2002). Unlike the SCOR model, which is sector specific, the BSC is applied in a variety
of industries and for different purposes, which could provide interesting opportunities for
cross-sector-studies, and may enable learning from different contexts. The EVA was rated
as the fourth approach applied by the surveyed organisations (seven answers).
The selection of metrics groups or categories raises questions related to the links
between the methods and the metrics groups. While in the previous question respondents
indicated a high usage of the BSC-type approaches, among them only nine identified
scorecard-like metrics categories as used within the organisation. Even though the SCOR
model was listed in third place, the SCOR metrics categories were listed as the most
commonly used; this needs additional explanation as there is a discrepancy between
these answers. A potential explanation could be that the BSC is applied as a philosophy
of assessing the performance rather than a specific tool. Also the BSC-like approach could
be combined or supported by other tools such as: AHP (Sharma and Bhagwat, 2007)
or SCOR (Bullinger et al., 2002), which further complicates the situation. In any case, this
apparent discrepancy suggests that no approach is applied in a pure way but rather
adapted to suit the practical situation.
An additional problem relating to the BSC categories is that while they are using at
least four dimensions, there are differences in how the categories are named, even in the
SCPMS context:
• financial/customer/organisational/innovation (Bullinger et al., 2002);
• customers/internal processes/innovation/finance (Kleijnen and Smits, 2003);
• financial/customer/internal/people (Sharif et al., 2007);
 • financial/business process/innovation and learning/customer (Brewer and Performance
Speh, 2000); measurement
• financial/customer/innovation and learning/internal business (Bhagwat and and metrics
Sharma, 2007a); and in SC
• financial/internal process/innovation and improvement/customers (Gunasekaran
and Kobu, 2007). 1081
While there are two common heading for the financial and customer dimensions, the
remaining dimensions are changing. This could result in problems in capturing how the
BSC categories were defined within the organisations. The division into strategic/tactical/
operational levels was listed in 14 cases; this classification was also widely used in
the literature (i.e. Gunasekaran et al., 2004; Bhagwat and Sharma, 2007b; Berrah and
Clivillé, 2007; Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz, 2008). However, there is still the question as to
how organisations are assigning individual metrics into particular levels.
The factor that was listed as the most important influence on the PM system was
the need to fulfil customer needs, which was indicated earlier in the literature
(Bullinger et al., 2002). The importance of this factor is also reflected in the high rating
of metrics related to customer service such as: on-time delivery, customer satisfaction
and product/service availability.
Among other important factors was the issue widely listed in the literature (Beamon,
1999; Bullinger et al., 2002; Holmberg, 2000; Morgan, 2004; Gunasekaran et al., 2001;
Shepherd and Gunter, 2006) regarding the linkages between strategy and the
PM system, i.e. the need of the SCPMS to reflect and monitor company strategy, which
is also a key BSC concept.
The importance of a PM system that is easy to understand at all managerial levels,
as indicated by Brewer and Speh (2001) was also highly scored. Despite wide usage of
the BSC, the need for the balance between financial and non-financial metrics was rated
as the least important issue, which is contradicting the main idea of “balance” between
financial and non-financial measures in the BSC. This was a surprising finding that
should be explored further.
None of the factors that influence metric sharing between SC members were
rated as critical; all were within the important/very important range, lower compared
to the impact at the organisational level. The differences between organisational
goals and objectives (Brewer and Speh, 2001), were rated as the biggest issue.
This was followed by problems related to the lack of visible links between the
performance of an individual organisation and performance at the SC level. As listed
earlier in the literature, trust between SC partners (Brewer and Speh, 2001;
Morgan, 2004) was recognised as an important issue. The influence of sector type and
industry standards were rated low, which could reflect the type of SC, lean vs
agile, rather than the industry. This issue related to the impact of external factors
(see Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz, 2011) on SCPM and needs further investigation.
10.1 Sustainability metrics – selections of KPIs
Based on the responses it was possible to identify the top-rated metrics (KPI’s)
according to their perceived importance (Table V). The top nine metrics in the social
and environmental dimensions and the 12 metrics in the economic dimension provide a
manageable set of 30 key metrics that could be applied to monitor SC performance.
Overall, the perceived importance confirms that the key metrics are in the economic
dimension, as already indicated in the literature (Saadany et al., 2011; Cuthbertson and
IJPPM Sustainability
64,8 Social Economic Environmental

Health and safety Quality Emissions

1. Number of accidents 1. On-time delivery 1. Level of CO2 emission
(employees) 2. Customer satisfaction 2. Level of CO2 emission from transport
2. Work conditions 3. Order fill rate processes
1082 3. Number of accidents 4. Product/service 3. Level of CO2 emission from
(non-employees) availability infrastructure
Noise Efficiency Natural resources utilisation
1. Noise volume 1. Distribution costs 1. Energy use
2. Time of noise emission 2. Total costs 2. Water consumption
3. Noise emission in urban 3. Transport costs 3. Energy consumption/revenue
areas 4. Loading capacity
Table V. utilisation
Most important
supply chain Employees Responsiveness Waste and recycling
metrics – supply 1. Employees skills 1. Stock-outs 1. Level of waste
chain key 2. Employees satisfaction 2. Product lateness 2. Level of products recycled
performance 3. Per cent of labour cost 3. Lead time 3. Level of products reused
indicators (KPI’s) spent on training 4. Forecast accuracy

Piotrowicz, 2008). Four metrics, all from the economic dimension, were selected as the
most important (median/mean/standard deviation):
• on-time delivery (4.00/4.23/0.81);
• customer satisfaction (4.00/4.18/0.80);
• total costs (4.00/4.18/0.88); and
• transport costs (4.00/4.06/0.90).
In fact, the majority of economic metrics were rated with a mean over 3.0, with the
exception of order cycle and new product time-to-first sale (both 2.93). It is interesting
that those metrics from the economic dimension that could be used as proxies to look at
the environmental impact were also rated quite low: empty runs (3.36), unnecessary
runs (3.21) and distance travelled (3.20). (Tonne-km transported also received a low
score (3.06), however it is not the best measure as there could be volume restrictions on
the goods transported.) Again, this emphasises the focus on fulfilling customer needs
rather than efficiency (or environmental considerations) per se.
There were some social and environmental metrics that were rated as important or very
important (scores of between 3 and 4) – within them the employee-related metrics
dominated: employee skills (3.81) and satisfaction (3.56) are higher than some of the metrics
in the economic dimension. Although the number of accidents was highly rated, measuring
this is usually a legal requirement. The number of respondents who indicated usage of the
social and environmental metrics was also lower compared to the economic ones, which
suggests that in some companies social and environmental measurement is not present, or
is under the responsibility of a different department from that of the respondent.
Earlier papers, such as Gunasekaran et al. (2004), Shepherd and Gunter (2006) and
Martin and Patterson (2009), did not include a review of social and environmental
metrics, thus it is hard to compare findings.
 When looking at the correlation between metrics (Table IV), some of the links are Performance
possible to explain, such as the correlation between on-time delivery and the order fill measurement
rate, others need further investigation, such as the correlation between employees skills
and energy efficiency. Correlation might indicate similarity between the metrics
and metrics
(product lateness and lead time), that both metrics are measuring a similar parameter in SC
(level of products recycled and level of waste), or that one metric is a component of
the second one (transport costs and loading capacity utilisation). On the other hand, the 1083
correlation may just be spurious. The analysis of such a small sample cannot confirm
either way, but does indicate some possibilities.

11. Conclusions and directions for further research

This research tested the survey instrument in a real-life setting. Although a pilot
study, there are certain recommendations and conclusions that can be drawn for both
practitioners and academics alike.

11.1 Implications for practice

Based on the findings it is possible to conclude that organisations should focus on
SCPMS approaches that are most commonly used (BSC, SCOR and EVA), to allow
easier integration across the whole SC. To increase understanding of the whole SC, it is
important to consider the design of the organisational PMS, such as the definition of
individual metrics in order to better integrate both organisational and SCPMs. There
should be agreement on the common SC goals and objectives to help to create a list of
joint KPIs – the set of key metrics that should be agreed, measured and shared between
SC members across the SC. Any joint KPIs should be easy to understand by each SC
partner. While other, but interlinked, KPIs should reflect organisational strategy. When
designing a PMS, organisations could look in the first instance at the major KPIs
identified by respondents (Table V), and adjust them to suit their organisational and SC
needs as necessary. The key measurement areas are: costs (total and transport related),
as well as customer related measures (customer satisfaction and on-time delivery),
which influence financial performance. Even though the rating of non-economic metrics
was lower compared to economic ones, it is clear that truly balanced measurement
should include social and environmental metrics. This will often require new
knowledge and skills to implement. Thus, the importance of employee-related measures
should also not be neglected.
There are also some potential public policy implications for practice as social and
environmental measures only appear to be of a similar importance to economic metrics
when they are backed up by a legal obligation.

11.2 Implications for further research

The results indicate the need to both modify the questionnaire and the research process:
• The sampling would ideally be stratified to reflect relevant SCs, by industry,
SC model, route or dominating organisation (due to the size of the sample, we
were unable to carry out any significant contextual analysis).
• Measurement in emerging and developing countries could be compared to
capture differences in the focus on social and environmental measures across
markets, especially as many of these are driven by legislation and consumer
requirements rather than initial organisational goals.
 •
IJPPM The respondents would ideally be targeted to reflect different organisational
64,8 perspectives. There are several options here: a concentration on certain managerial
levels only (senior managers vs operational managers), or a concentration on
selected functions only. This study was mainly targeting logistics managers. If the
survey were to be precisely targeted, the list of questions could be shortened as
some background information could be omitted.
1084 • The number of methods and tools can be reduced in the questionnaire based on
the findings. In addition, further research might cover selected methods only,
such as a survey of companies that use the BSC or the SCOR model, to find out
how such approaches have been adjusted to reflect individual needs.
• In the social and environmental sub-dimensions, the metrics should be reviewed and
extended, analysing literature that is looking beyond economic SC performance (i.e.
Saadany et al., 2011; Björklund et al., 2012; Bai et al., 2012; Seuring and Müller, 2008;
Cetinkaya et al., 2011), as well as reflecting some of the findings of this research.
• The number of metrics and metrics groups may also be reduced, focus can be on
the most important SC metrics – Table V. The challenge is how to reflect
modifications in standard approaches, such as the addition of a new dimension or
category into the BSC, while at the same time restricting the number of open
questions in the questionnaire.

11.3 Final conclusions

This exploratory pilot survey was one of the first attempts to look at metrics and their
importance in the SC environment. The findings suggest that while a BSC approach
might dominate SC metrics thinking amongst practitioners, when looking at individual
metrics the reality is less balanced. Economic metrics dominate in practice, especially
those focused on cost and customer service. While social and environmental-related
measures are of emerging importance, they appear to be of a similar importance to
economic metrics only when backed up by a legal obligation. At a more detailed level,
issues such as trust between organisations, individual organisational strategies and
goals as well as the visibility of links between performance at SC and individual levels
were rated as the most important in influencing SCPM. Such findings need further
investigation and we believe that this paper will stimulate further research in this area.

References
Akyuz, G.K. and Erkan, T.E. (2009), “Supply chain performance measurement: a literature
review”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 17, pp. 1-19.
Angerhofer, B.J. and Angelides, M.C. (2006), “A model and a performance measurement system
for collaborative supply chains”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 283-301.
Aramyan, L.H., Alfons, G.J.M.O.L., Jack, G.A.J.v.d.V. and Olaf van, K. (2007), “Performance
measurement in agri-food supply chains: a case study”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 12
No. 4, pp. 304-315.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., Wei, X. and Koh, L. (2012), “Evaluating ecological sustainable performance
measures for supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 78-92.
Beamon, B. and Balcik, B. (2008), “Performance measurement in humanitarian relief chains”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 4-25.
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Measuring supply chain performance”, International Journal of Operations Performance
& Production Management, Vol. 19 Nos 3-4, pp. 275-292.
measurement
Berrah, L. and Clivillé, V. (2007), “Towards an aggregation performance measurement system and metrics
model in a supply chain context”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 58 No. 7, pp. 709-719.
in SC
Bhagwat, R. and Sharma, M.K. (2007a), “Performance measurement of supply chain management
using the analytical hierarchy process”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 666-680. 1085
Bhagwat, R. and Sharma, M.K. (2007b), “Performance measurement of supply chain management: a
balanced scorecard approach”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 43-62.
Björklund, M., Martinsen, U. and Abrahamsson, M. (2012), “Performance measurements in the greening
of supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 29-39.
Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.W. (2000), “Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain
performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.W. (2001), “Adapting the balanced scorecard to supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-56.
Bullinger, H.-J., Kuhner, M. and van Hoff, A. (2002), “Analysing supply chain performance using
a balanced measurement method”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40
No. 15, pp. 3533-3543.
Cagnazzo, L., Taticchi, P. and Brun, A. (2010), “The role of performance measurement systems to
support quality improvement initiatives at supply chain level”, International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 163-185.
Cetinkaya, B., Cuthbertson, R., Ewer, G., Klaas-Wissing, T., Piotrowicz, W. and Tyssen, C. (2011),
Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Practical Ideas for Moving Towards Best Practice,
Springer Verlag, Heidelberg.
Chan, F.T.S. and Qi, H.J. (2003a), “Feasibility of performance measurement systems for supply
chain: a process-based approach and measures”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14
No. 3, pp. 179-190.
Chan, F.T.S. and Qi, H.J. (2003b), “An innovative performance measurement method for supply
chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 209-223.
Chan, F.T.S., Chan, H.K. and Qi, H.J. (2006), “A review of performance measurement systems for
supply chain management”, International Journal of Business Performance Management,
Vol. 8 Nos 2-3, pp. 110-131.
Chan, F.T.S., Qi, H.J., Chan, H.K., Lau, H.C.W. and Ip, R.W.L. (2003), “A conceptual model of
performance measurement for supply chains”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 635-642.
Chia, A., Goh, M. and Hum, S.-H. (2009), “Performance measurement in supply chain entities: balanced
scorecard perspective”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 605-620.
Clift, R. (2003), “Metrics for supply chain sustainability”, Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy, Vol. 5 Nos 3-4, pp. 240-247.
Cuthbertson, R. and Piotrowicz, W. (2008), “Supply chain best practices – identification and
categorisation of measures and benefits”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 389-404.
Cuthbertson, R. and Piotrowicz, W. (2011), “Performance measurement systems in supply chains:
a framework for contextual analysis”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 583-602.
El Saadany, A., Jaber, M. and Bonney, M. (2011), “Environmental performance measures for
supply chains”, Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 1202-1221.
IJPPM Ganga, G.M.D. and Carpinetti, L.C.R. (2011), “A fuzzy logic approach to supply chain performance
management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 134 No. 1, pp. 177-187.
64,8
Gopal, P. and Thakkar, J. (2012), “A review on supply chain performance measures and metrics:
2000-2011”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61
No. 5, pp. 518-547.
Gunasekaran, A. and Kobu, B. (2007), “Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply
1086 chain management: a review of recent literature (1995-2004) for research and applications”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 2819-2840.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGaughey, R.E. (2004), “A framework for supply chain performance
measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 333-347.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001), “Performance measures and metrics in a
supply chain environment”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1-2, pp. 71-87.
Hervani, A.A. and Helms, M.M. (2005), “Performance measurement for green supply chain
management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 330-353.
Holmberg, S. (2000), “A system perspective on supply chain measurement”, International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 10, pp. 847-868.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard – measures that drive
performance”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 71-79.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1993), “Putting the balanced scorecard to work”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 71 No. 5, pp. 134-147.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kleijnen, J.P.C. and Smits, M.T. (2003), “Performance metrics in supply chain management”,
Journal of Operational Research Society, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 507-514.
Lambert, D. and Pohlen, T. (2001), “Supply chain metrics”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Martin, P.R. and Patterson, J.W. (2009), “On measuring company performance within a supply
chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 2449-2460.
Mondragon, A.E.C., Lalwani, C. and Mondragon, C.E.C. (2011), “Measures for auditing
performance and integration in closed-loop supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 43-56.
Morgan, C. (2004), “Structure, speed and salience: performance measurement in the supply chain”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 522-536.
Nudurupati, S.S., Bititci, U.S., Kumar, V. and Chan, F.T. (2011), “State of the art literature review on
performance measurement”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 279-290.
Olugu, E.U., Wong, K.Y. and Shaharoun, A.M. (2011), “Development of key performance
measures for the automobile green supply chain”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 567-579.
Park, J.H., Lee, J.K. and Yoo, J.S. (2005), “A framework for designing the balanced supply chain
scorecard”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 335-346.
Piotrowicz, W. and Cuthberson, R. (2012), “A structured approach for assessing sustainable best
practices in supply chains”, in Golińska, P. and Hajdul, M. (Eds), Sustainable Transport:
New Trends and Business Practices, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 41-65.
Saad, M. and Patel, B. (2006), “An investigation of supply chain performance measurement
in the Indian automotive sector”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Nos 1-2,
pp. 36-53.
Saadany, A.M.A.E., Jaber, M.Y. and Bonney, M. (2011), “Environmental performance measures Performance
for supply chains”, Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 1202-1221.
measurement
Seuring, S. and Müller, M. (2008), “From a literature review to a conceptual framework for and metrics
sustainable supply chain management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 15,
pp. 1699-1710. in SC
Sharif, A.M., Irani, Z. and Lloyd, D. (2007), “Information technology and performance
management for build-to-order supply chains”, International Journal of Operations & 1087
Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1235-1253.
Sharma, M.K. and Bhagwat, R. (2007), “An integrated BSC-AHP approach for supply chain
management evaluation”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 57-68.
Shaw, S., Grant, D.B. and Mangan, J. (2010), “Developing environmental supply chain performance
measures”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 320-339.
Shepherd, C. and Gunter, H. (2006), “Measuring supply chain: current research and future
directions”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55
Nos 3-4, pp. 242-258.
Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F. and Cagnazzo, L. (2010), “Performance measurement and management:
a literature review and a research agenda”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1,
pp. 4-18.
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A. and Deshemukh, S. (2009), “Supply chain performance measurement
framework for small and medium scale enterprises”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 702-723.
Vaidya, O. and Hudnurkar, M. (2013), “Multi-criteria supply chain performance evaluation:
an Indian chemical industry case study”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 293-316.

(The Appendix follows overleaf.)

IJPPM Appendix
64,8
Importance of metrics Median Mean Minimum Maximum SD Variance Valid n

Product quality 4.00 3.71 1.00 5.00 1.19 1.41 21

Customer satisfaction 4.00 4.18 2.00 5.00 0.80 0.63 22
1088 Returns/refusals by customers 4.00 3.85 2.00 5.00 0.93 0.87 20
Supplier performance 4.00 3.74 1.00 5.00 0.93 0.87 19
Product/service availability 4.00 3.76 2.00 5.00 0.83 0.69 21
Table AI. On-time delivery 4.00 4.23 2.00 5.00 0.81 0.66 22
Metrics in the Order fill rate 4.00 3.96 2.00 5.00 0.93 0.86 23
economic dimension, Reliability of forecasts 4.00 3.65 2.00 5.00 0.93 0.87 20
sub-dimension: Damage free shipments 3.00 3.42 2.00 5.00 1.02 1.04 19
quality Note: Additional metrics listed by respondents: internal quality, product damages, inventory differences

Median Mean Minimum Maximum SD Variance Valid n

Total costs 4.00 4.18 2.00 5.00 0.88 0.78 17

Inventory costs 3.00 3.65 2.00 5.00 1.06 1.12 17
Transport costs 4.00 4.06 3.00 5.00 0.90 0.81 17
Picking costs 3.00 3.27 1.00 5.00 1.33 1.78 15
Labour cost 4.00 3.76 1.00 5.00 1.20 1.44 17
Distribution costs 4.50 3.94 1.00 5.00 1.29 1.66 16
Manufacturing costs 3.00 3.29 1.00 5.00 1.38 1.91 14
Cost per unit 3.00 3.50 1.00 5.00 1.37 1.87 16
Distance travelled 3.00 3.20 1.00 5.00 1.26 1.60 15
Unnecessary runs 3.00 3.21 2.00 5.00 1.05 1.10 14
Empty runs 3.00 3.36 1.00 5.00 1.34 1.79 14
Tonne-kilometres transported 3.00 3.06 1.00 5.00 1.61 2.60 16
Volume/truck transported 4.00 3.60 1.00 5.00 1.55 2.40 15
Volume/customer transported 4.00 3.60 1.00 5.00 1.55 2.40 15
Tonne-kilometres/transport mode 3.00 3.36 1.00 5.00 1.50 2.25 14
Resources utilisation 3.00 3.50 1.00 5.00 1.26 1.60 16
Table AII. Warehouse utilisation 4.00 3.60 1.00 5.00 1.30 1.69 15
Metrics in the Truck utilisation 3.00 3.43 2.00 5.00 1.22 1.49 14
economic dimension, Loading capacity utilisation 4.00 3.80 2.00 5.00 1.15 1.31 15
sub-dimension: Productivity 4.00 3.61 1.00 5.00 1.09 1.19 18
efficiency Picking/lading productivity 3.50 3.43 1.00 5.00 1.45 2.11 14

Median Mean Minimum Maximum SD Variance Valid n

Response time 3.50 3.39 1.00 5.00 0.92 0.84 18

New product time-to market 3.00 3.23 1.00 5.00 1.42 2.03 13
New product time-to-first sale 3.00 2.93 1.00 5.00 1.38 1.92 14
Table AIII. Stock-outs 4.00 3.75 1.00 5.00 1.13 1.27 16
Metrics in the Product lateness 4.00 3.59 1.00 5.00 1.06 1.13 17
economic dimension, Lead time 4.00 3.58 1.00 5.00 1.26 1.59 19
sub-dimension: Forecast accuracy 4.00 3.29 1.00 5.00 1.10 1.22 17
responsiveness Order cycle 3.00 2.93 1.00 4.00 0.88 0.78 15
 Performance
measurement
and metrics
Median Mean Minimum Maximum SD Variance Valid n
in SC
Toxic and hazardous emissions 3.00 2.70 1.00 5.00 1.34 1.79 10
Number of accidents (employees) 3.50 3.56 2.00 5.00 1.09 1.20 16
Number of accidents (non-employees) 3.00 3.23 1.00 5.00 1.17 1.36 13 1089
Number of accidents that involve Table AIV.
company vehicles 3.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 1.24 1.54 14 Metrics in the social
Work conditions 3.00 3.44 2.00 5.00 0.96 0.93 16 dimension,
Note: Additional metrics listed by respondents in the social dimension: lost time, injuries (at work), sub-dimension:
potential incidents, hazardous product liquids health and safety

Median Mean Minimum Maximum SD Variance Valid n

Table AV.
Noise volume 3.00 2.75 1.00 5.00 1.14 1.30 12 Metrics in the
Time of noise emission 2.00 2.22 1.00 4.00 1.09 1.19 9 social dimension,
Noise emission in urban areas 2.50 2.40 1.00 5.00 1.26 1.60 10 sub-dimension: noise

Median Mean Minimum Maximum SD Variance Valid n

Employment increase 3.00 2.87 2.00 4.00 0.52 0.27 15

Employees skills 4.00 3.81 3.00 5.00 0.83 0.70 16
Employees satisfaction 3.50 3.56 2.00 5.00 0.96 0.93 16
Number of newly trained employees 2.00 2.54 1.00 4.00 0.97 0.94 13
Per cent of labour cost spent on
training 3.00 3.08 2.00 5.00 0.86 0.74 13
Staff retention 3.00 2.92 2.00 4.00 0.79 0.63 12 Table AVI.
Level of absence 3.00 3.00 1.00 5.00 0.97 0.93 16 Metrics in the
Level of absence due to sickness 3.00 2.94 1.00 4.00 0.93 0.86 16 social dimension,
Number of improvement suggestions sub-dimension:
from employees 3.00 2.93 1.00 5.00 1.14 1.30 14 employees
IJPPM
64,8

Median Mean Minimum Maximum SD Variance Valid n

1090
Level of CO2 emission 3.00 3.42 1.00 5.00 1.44 2.08 12
Level of CO2 emission from
Table AVII. transport processes 3.00 2.90 1.00 5.00 1.29 1.66 10
Metrics in the Level of CO2 emission from
environmental infrastructure 3.00 2.44 1.00 4.00 1.24 1.53 9
dimension, sub- Other gas pollutants emission 2.00 2.50 1.00 5.00 1.69 2.86 8
dimension: emissions Level of spillages 2.00 2.14 1.00 4.00 1.35 1.81 7

Median Mean Minimum Maximum SD Variance Valid n

Table AVIII.
Metrics in the Fossil fuel consumption 3.00 2.77 1.00 5.00 1.48 2.19 13
environmental Water consumption 3.00 3.08 2.00 5.00 0.90 0.81 12
dimension, sub- Energy use 3.00 3.36 2.00 5.00 0.84 0.71 14
dimension: natural Energy efficiency per tonne-kilometre 3.00 2.85 1.00 5.00 1.07 1.14 13
resources utilisation Energy consumption/revenue 3.00 2.92 1.00 5.00 1.04 1.08 13

Median Mean Minimum Maximum SD Variance Valid n

Table AIX.
Metrics in the Level of waste 3.00 3.06 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 18
environmental Level of landfill waste 3.00 2.54 1.00 4.00 0.97 0.94 13
dimension, Level of products recycled 3.00 2.86 1.00 4.00 0.66 0.44 14
sub-dimension: Level of products reused 3.00 2.60 1.00 4.00 0.74 0.54 15
waste and recycling Level of bio-degradable materials used 2.00 2.17 1.00 3.00 0.83 0.70 12

About the authors

Dr Wojciech Piotrowicz is a Member of the Faculty of Management, University of Oxford at the
Saїd Business School and Wolfson College. He has a PhD from the Brunel University, a Master
Degree in Economics from the University of Gdańsk and a Post-Graduate Diploma in Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education (University of Oxford). His research is related to supply chain
management, information systems, performance measurement and evaluation, with focus on
retail and emerging markets. At the Oxford University he is teaching Technology and Operations
Management and supervises EEM and MBA projects. Wojciech has considerable experience of
large international research projects within both the public and private sectors, working with
organisations such as Intel, BAE Systems, the European Commission and Polish government.
He is recipient of the Outstanding and Highly Commended paper awards from the Emerald
Literati Network for Excellence. Dr Wojciech Piotrowicz is the corresponding author and can be Performance
contacted at: Wojciech.Piotrowicz@sbs.ox.ac.uk
Dr Richard Cuthbertson is a Senior Research Fellow at the Saїd Business School, University
measurement
of Oxford, UK. He focuses on developing effective value chains through the strategic use of and metrics
information, performance measurement and benchmarking. He has worked with leading in SC
European and international companies. He was a Member of the Global Commerce Initiative
Scorecard committee, aimed at introducing standards in supply chain processes and
information exchange for the global consumer goods industry and works with other trade and 1091
government organisations.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com