1.context-Based Sales and

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322411108
Context-based sales and operations planning (S&OP) research: A literature

review and future agenda
Article in International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · January 2018

DOI: 10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2017-0352
CITATIONS READS
71 4,971
2 authors:
Jesper Kristensen Patrik Jonsson

Aalborg University Chalmers University of Technology
22 PUBLICATIONS 208 CITATIONS 96 PUBLICATIONS 3,184 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
RePlan (Resource efficient planning for production networks) View project
Design science research View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Patrik Jonsson on 16 April 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management
Context-based sales and operations planning (S&OP) research: A literature review
and future agenda
Jesper Kristensen, Patrik Jonsson,
Article information:
Downloaded by CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 06:23 22 February 2018 (PT)
To cite this document:

Jesper Kristensen, Patrik Jonsson, (2018) "Context-based sales and operations planning (S&OP)
research: A literature review and future agenda", International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 48 Issue: 1, pp.19-46, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2017-0352
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2017-0352
Downloaded on: 22 February 2018, At: 06:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 84 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 102 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2007),"Sales and operations planning: an exploratory study and framework", The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 Iss 3 pp. 322-346 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/09574090710835093">https://doi.org/10.1108/09574090710835093</a>
(2016),"Future of supply chain planning: closing the gaps between practice and promise",
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 46 Iss 1 pp. 62-81 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2015-0137">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2015-0137</
a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:115318 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm
Context-based
Context-based sales and S&OP research
operations planning
(S&OP) research
A literature review and future agenda 19
Jesper Kristensen Received 17 November 2017

Revised 3 December 2017

Department of Materials and Production, Aalborg University, Accepted 5 December 2017
Aalborg, Denmark, and
Patrik Jonsson
Department of Technology Management and Economics,
Division of Supply and Operations Management,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to describe and categorise how current literature contributes to sales
and operations planning (S&OP) research on how contextual variables affect S&OP design and to frame
future areas for context-based S&OP research.
Design/methodology/approach – The method used was a systematic literature review. Studies for review
were obtained through a keyword search of five relevant databases, manual searches of relevant journals and
snowballing of citations in relevant papers. In total, 571 papers published between 2000 and 2017 were
assessed, and 68 papers were included in the review.
Findings – The review found that S&OP design depends on industry, dynamic complexity, detail
complexity and organisational characteristics. The findings of the literature review suggest that future
research should study the roles of industry, complexity, system and process and organisational
characteristics in S&OP design.
Research limitations/implications – The findings revealed several gaps in the literature on context-
dependent S&OP design. To address these gaps, an agenda for future S&OP contingency research is developed.
Practical implications – The findings revealed which contextual areas and specific S&OP design issues
must be considered when designing and implementing S&OP.
Originality/value – This study focussed on identifying relevant research on S&OP design by analysing the
contribution of literature to a research framework inspired by contingency-based research of operations and
supply chain management.
Keywords Context, Systematic literature review, Supply chain planning, Contingency-based research,
Demand and supply integration (DSI), Integrated business planning (IBP),
Sales and operations planning (S&OP)
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Scholars and practitioners report that sales and operations planning (S&OP) practices lead
to improved vertical and horizontal alignment across hierarchies and functions in an
organisation. Moreover, S&OP practices improve an organisation’s alignment with its
suppliers and customers (Oliva and Watson, 2011). S&OP practices are linked to positive
effects on operational performance such as improved forecast accuracy (Wagner et al., 2014),
service level (Muzumdar and Fontanella, 2006), inventory level (Bower, 2006) and capacity
utilisation (Wagner et al., 2014). These operational improvements produce better financial International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics
and competitive performance by increasing the profit margin and revenue (Wagner et al., Management
2014) as well as the gross margin and customer retention (Muzumdar and Fontanella, 2006). Vol. 48 No. 1, 2018
pp. 19-46
Although S&OP practices are associated with positive effects, it is not clear how they are © Emerald Publishing Limited
0960-0035
used to achieve such benefits. DOI 10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2017-0352
IJPDLM It is acknowledged that the design of S&OP is affected by the specific maturity level of
48,1 the company (Grimson and Pyke, 2007), meaning that evolving between maturity levels
requires changing S&OP design (Danese et al., 2017). However, studies show that simply
following established S&OP maturity frameworks do not necessarily yield the intended
outcomes (Bower, 2005; Lapide, 2004a; Piechule, 2008). The “one-size-fits-all” design
descriptions of the S&OP maturity models are not adequate for all contexts (e.g. Grimson
20 and Pyke, 2007; Wagner et al., 2014). The internal company context (Ivert and Jonsson,
2014), external company context (Olhager and Selldin, 2007) and the specific industry
(Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska, Kaipia, Fredriksson, Dreyer, Johansson, Chabada, Damgaard
and Tuomikangas, 2015; Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska, Fredriksson, Dreyer and Kaipia, 2015)
generate unique S&OP problem contexts. For example, the need and difficulty of demand
and supply coordination differ between contexts. The aim and intended outcome of S&OP
practices may also differ between contexts. For instance, the need and ability to focus on
supply availability during product launches are larger in contexts with short production
and supply lead times (Kaipia et al., 2017). Consequently, to explain how S&OP generates
outcome, we need to study and understand specific S&OP designs from the perspective of
companies’ unique problem contexts.
Four systematic literature reviews on S&OP have described how the literature creates an
integrative view of the S&OP process (Thomé et al., 2012a), presents different performance
effects of S&OP practice (Thomé et al., 2012b), studies how coordination mechanisms enable
integration of vertical and horizontal plans through the S&OP process (Tuomikangas and
Kaipia, 2014) and compares S&OP practices between process and discrete manufacturing
(Noroozi and Wikner, 2017). These reviews give valuable insights into various aspects of
S&OP research and knowledge. However, with the exception of Noroozi and Wikner (2017),
who focus on a single context dimension, namely process industries, the other reviews do
not explicitly consider the context perspective and consequently do not review how the
S&OP literature contribute to the understanding of how S&OP is designed and generates
outcomes in different problem contexts. Moreover, the reviews do not provide a unified
agenda for future research on S&OP practices. Consequently, despite the quite extensive
literature reviews on S&OP, we do not have a clear picture of how the body of literature
contributes to the knowledge of how S&OP design is affected by context, and we do not
know important and relevant directions for future research on the topic. To remedy this gap,
two research questions have been formulated and studies:
RQ1. How does the S&OP literature contribute to our knowledge on how S&OP design
and performance is affected by context?
RQ2. What are future areas for context-based S&OP research?
A systematic literature review, using a contingency research framework to describe how
literature links context to S&OP design, was used to answer RQ1. Based on the findings and
gaps determined from this analysis, suggestions for future areas for context-based S&OP
research were developed (i.e. RQ2 was answered). The paper proceeds by presenting the
research framework and explaining how the literature review was conducted. Next, the
findings are reported and discussed, and concluding remarks are made.
Research framework
The contingency research framework
Sousa and Voss (2008) argued that most operations and supply chain management practices,
such as S&OP, are driven by best practices in early development, but as these practices mature
and become widely implemented, several instances of difficult and failed implementation occur.
Bower (2005), Lapide (2004a), Piechule (2008) and Ivert and Jonsson (2014) discussed such failed
S&OP implementations. Contingency theory is a theoretical lens to view how and why Context-based
implementations of these practices are successful, difficult or fail (Donaldson, 2001). S&OP research
Contingency theory claims that there is no single best way to design an organisation and
focusses on finding a “fit” between the organisation and the contingencies or contexts
(Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). The theory also suggests that difficult and failed implementation
efforts are the result of a mismatch between the design of the process and the context of
the organisation. 21
Contingency research focusses on the connection between three variables (Sousa and
Voss, 2008): contextual, response and performance variables. To give a hypothetical
example, then the response variables are the actions taken in response to the contextual
variable. One such problem could be how to conduct an S&OP balancing meeting without
the involvement of top management. In this scenario, “top management involvement” would
be the contextual variable. The response variables would be related to the S&OP design for
handling this, while the performance variables would be the intended and unintended
outcome of conducting the meeting with this specific design. In the following sections, we
define contextual, response and performance variables within an S&OP perspective.
Contextual variables
The basic S&OP design described in handbooks (e.g. Goddard and Ling, 1988; Wallace
and Stahl, 2008b) can be applicable in most organisational contexts. However, the detailed
design depends on the context because the specific problem that S&OP must solve may
differ between contexts, as different S&OP designs may be required to solve the same
type of problem in different contexts. The S&OP may, for example, be affected by
differences between industries, such as the process (Noroozi and Wikner, 2016), food
(Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska, Kaipia, Fredriksson, Dreyer, Johansson, Chabada, Damgaard
and Tuomikangas, 2015; Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska, Fredriksson, Dreyer and
Kaipia, 2015) and service industries (Sheldon, 2006). Supply chain complexity
(Bozarth et al., 2009), which consists of dynamic and detail complexity, is also a context
dimension that can potentially impact S&OP. Dynamic complexity, in terms of demand
and supply uncertainty, can affect the S&OP design by generating a need for risk and
scenario dimensions to moderate the S&OP outcome. Detail complexity, in terms of
multiple sales and market units, can generate a demand for a demand planning
sub-process with an interface between the distributors and their customers. Further
examples of contextual variables affecting S&OP design include the choice of
manufacturing strategies, impacting the product family choices, spreadsheet design
and usage thereof in S&OP (Wallace and Stahl, 2008a). The S&OP context should also
include the operations planning and control system, as the S&OP links tactical planning
with strategic planning and operational planning and execution in a hierarchical planning
framework (Stadtler and Kliger, 2008; Jacobs et al., 2011). As a result, S&OP cannot be
viewed as an isolated process. In addition, S&OP includes the organisational
characteristics, which involve the human, technological and organisational (HTO)
characteristics, which can ease or hinder the use of S&OP. The contextual variables
described above do not represent an exhaustive list of contextual areas that affect the
response and performance variables, but these variables are used to guide the initial
coding during the literature review.
Response variables: S&OP design

S&OP aims at balancing supply and demand, and aligning strategic and operational plans,
on a tactical planning horizon (typically 3-24 months). In practice, this is done through a
five-step process in which the first three steps are product planning, demand planning
and supply planning sub-processes, and the final two steps are a pre-S&OP meeting and an
IJPDLM executive-S&OP meeting, during which decisions are made on different hierarchical levels
48,1 regarding the balancing of supply and demand (Ling and Goddard, 1988; Grimson and
Pyke, 2007; Wallace and Stahl, 2008a). Based on previous S&OP configuration and design
frameworks, we define S&OP design to consist of a variety of response variables, which are
used to support the S&OP process. With inspiration from Thomé et al. (2012a) and Ivert,
Dukovska-Popovska, Kaipia, Fredriksson, Dreyer, Johansson, Chabada, Damgaard and
22 Tuomikangas (2015), we define four categories of S&OP response variables: meeting and
collaboration, organisation, information technology (IT) and planning parameters. The first
category (meeting and collaboration) refers to the specific design of the respective sub-process,
including the final balancing meetings and decision-making activities. The second category
(organisation) refers to the structural design of the S&OP organisation. The response variable
is, for example, who is involved in the S&OP process, the ownership of meetings and
organisational and individual skill levels. For the third category (IT), response variables refer to
the use of IT support in the entire S&OP process and its sub-processes. This ranges from
full-scale integrated IT systems to Excel-supported advanced planning and scheduling (APS)
modules that are used for scenario planning. The fourth category (planning parameters) serves
to make the details of the planning process explicit. Here, the length of the planning horizon
and the detail level of planning objects (amongst others) are examples of response variables.
Performance variables
We define S&OP performance outcome in accordance with Hulthén et al. (2016) as S&OP
efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency is related to how efficient the S&OP process is at
both creating quality plans and aligning plans, both horizontally and vertically. S&OP
efficiency is then expected to affect the organisation’s operational performance, which is
defined as S&OP effectiveness (Hulthén et al., 2016). Besides investigating the outcome of
S&OP in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, Jonsson and Holmström (2016) emphasised
the importance of differentiating intended from unintended outcomes. Intended outcomes
refer to the efficiency and effectiveness performances that S&OP is designed to achieve,
while unintended outcomes are the positive and negative effects of S&OP that are observed
and understood.
Figure 1 provides a summary of the three areas, here, the arrows indicate the order of
occurrence; the context is given (in most cases), the response will result in an intended or
unintended performance outcome. The framework will be used for coding and presenting
the findings.
Methods
We used a systematic literature review, which goal is defined as “integrating a number of
different works on the same topic, summarising the common elements, contrasting the
differences, and extending the work in some fashion” (Meredith, 1993, p. 8), here, the
purpose is to extend our knowledge of contexts’ effect on S&OP design. The review adopted
the five-step approach developed by Denyer and Tranfield (2009): formulating questions,
Contextual variables Response variables Performance variables
Industry, dynamic- and detail S&OP in general

S&OP efficiency and
complexity, firm size,
S&OP design effectiveness
manufacturing strategy,
hierarchical planning Meetings and collaboration,
Figure 1. framework and organisation, information Intended and unintended
S&OP contingency organisational characteristics technology (IT) and design outcome
parameters
research framework
locating studies, selecting and evaluating studies, analysing and synthesising, and Context-based
reporting and using the results. This approach was used throughout the review, with some S&OP research
adjustments for locating studies (step 2). The last step will not be reported in the method
section because it is the result of the analysis and discussion.
Prior to the systematic literature review, a research protocol that detailed how the review
should be conducted was developed (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). This protocol was
maintained throughout the review, in which findings from the articles could be coded in 23
relation to the research framework. The objective was to minimise bias by conducting an
extensive search of the literature.
Step 1: formulating questions

The first step of the systematic literature review was to formulate research questions to
guide the review. The research questions that were formulated for this study are repeated
here, and described in the introduction:
RQ1. How does the S&OP literature contribute to our knowledge of how S&OP design
and performance are affected by context?
RQ2. What are future areas for context-based S&OP research?
Step 2: locating studies

The objective of the second step was to conduct an exhaustive search of the field in question,
including a variety of sources with explicit and transparent choices on which studies to
include or exclude (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009).
Five databases were searched: Emerald, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Web-of-Science and
Scopus. The former three are often used in literature searches in most S&OP studies
(Tuomikangas and Kaipia, 2014; Thomé et al., 2012a, b). Web-of-Science and Scopus were
added as databases to ensure a wider coverage of the literature (the addition of these
databases yielded ten additional articles).
Compiling search words in the S&OP literature review produced terminological
problems because S&OP is primarily consultancy driven, and consultancies often invent
new terms for the same process to be able to market it as their own. The following list
provides examples of the terms that are used for the S&OP process:
• sales operations and inventory planning (SIOP);
• integrated business planning (IBP);
• profit, sales and operations planning;
• supply chain sales and operations planning;
• sales/production sales and operations planning;
• global sales and operations planning;
• executive sales and operations planning; and
• demand and supply integration (DSI).
In the end, the different terms refer to the same process but with minor adjustments. Some of
the terms include IBP, which may be described as S&OP with finance (a sign of mature
S&OP), and SIOP, which is S&OP with an explicit emphasis on inventory. For this study, we
chose the keywords (both full name and abbreviation) of S&OP (as this term encompasses
most of the other terms); SIOP; and IBP, as these seemed the most prevailing terms in our
previous experience with S&OP. It was later decided to include DSI in the search as well, as
IJPDLM reports regarding DSI build on the same principles as S&OP and thus have academic
48,1 relevance to S&OP (Esper et al., 2010; Tate et al., 2015). These keywords were searched in
the title, abstract and keywords of articles in the five databases, which reflect the iterative
process of the literature review, where the knowledge which was gained, was subsequently
used to strengthen the review.
Saenz and Koufteros (2015) argued in support of relying on experts in the field to
24 select databases, and by comparing our findings with those of similar authors in the field,
there appeared a gap between the articles in the databases and the articles found in
previous reviews (Thomé et al., 2012a, b; Tuomikangas and Kaipia, 2014). Therefore, the
references from the previous reviews were added, and the discrepancy was ascribed to
their search for practitioner journals. The references from Noroozi and Wikner (2017)
were not added, as their literature search included searches for “production planning”,
which would include literature from more operational planning levels; in addition,
Noroozi and Wikner (2017) specifically targeted process industries with a selection of
combination keywords.
In addition to the proposed method for locating studies (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009), a
manual review of the two practitioner journals, International Journal of Business Forecasting
(IBF) and Supply Chain Management Review (SCMR), was conducted from January 2014 to
May 2017, as the relevant citations in these journals before 2014 have been covered in
Tuomikangas and Kaipia (2014). Finally, a list of articles cited in the located literature, but
not found in the review, was recorded during the review process and was added in the last
step of the review.
All of these articles were summarised in the research protocol, and the articles were kept
in folders named after their origin (database, literature review, etc.).
Step 3: selecting and evaluating studies

The objective of the third step was to make explicit criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of
papers (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009). The exclusion criteria for articles in the review are
as follows:
(1) Related/Available: papers that could not be obtained were removed, and papers
whose abstracts did not relate to the S&OP construct were removed (i.e. to exclude
papers from other fields).
(2) Duplicates: papers that were found in more than one database (i.e. duplicates)
were removed.
(3) Relevance: the papers were fully reviewed to remove papers that were not relevant
to the research topic (i.e. designing S&OP in different contexts).
Figure 2 summarises the literature review process. In total, 435 papers were found in the five
databases, of which 150 were not related to S&OP, while 91 papers could not be found or
accessed. The majority (75 per cent) of the papers that could not be found or accessed were
dated before 2000. The two most common exclusion criteria for why papers were unrelated
to S&OP were either that they focussed on another field of research, or they were
exclusively sales materials for a variety of analytical tools.
Of the remaining 194 papers, it was found that 82 were duplicates that could be located
in more than one database. This left 108 papers to be reviewed. The review of the
articles from Tuomikangas and Kaipia (2014) and Thomé et al. (2012a, b) identified 92
papers that were not found in the database search. These papers were mainly articles
used in the motivation of their papers (therefore not due to differences in database
searches) or in practitioner journals that did not appear in any of the databases. The two
practitioner-oriented journals, IBF and SCMR, were searched from January 2014 to
Number of papers: Context-based
S&OP research
Database search
Databases: Ebscohost, Emerald, ScienceDirect, Web-of-Science
and Scopus Ebscohost: 120
Emerald: 29
Keywords: “Sales and Operations Planning”, “S&OP”, “Sales,
Inventory and Operations Planning”, “SIOP”, “Sales, Operations ScienceDirect: 45
and Inventory Planning”, “SIOP”, “Integrated Business Web-of-science: 80 25
Planning”, “IBP”, “Demand and Supply Integration” and “DSI” Scopus: 161
Searched in: Title, abstract and keywords
435
Related:
Removal of 241
Removal of papers that could not be obtained and
papers
Selection papers that did not relate to the S&OP construct
criteria 194
(Abstract)
Duplicates:
Removal of 82 papers
Removal of dublicates found in multiple databases
112
Add from existing literature reviews

Articles: Tuomikangas and Kaipia (2014), Thome et al. (2012a, b) Addition of 92 papers
204
Add from practicioner journals (2014-)

Journals: International Journal of Business Forecasting and Addition of 28 papers
Supply Chain Management Review
232
Selction Relevance:
Removal of 171
criteria Removal of papers that are not relevant to the
papers
(Full paper) research area, i.e. design of S&OP
61
Snowballing:
Review full paper of cited articles of interest: 15 articles of Addition of 7 papers
interest, but only seven articles added after relevance review
68
Final number:
Academic: 36 papers Figure 2.
Practitioner: 32 papers Data collection
and selection
May 2017, as this was the search gap between what was included in Tuomikangas and
Kaipia (2014) and the current review; from these, 28 papers were added. This resulted in a
total of 232 papers to be reviewed.
Of the 232 papers which were reviewed, 171 were not relevant to the review, as they
either only superficially mentioned S&OP, or they were not relevant to S&OP design.
During the review of the remaining 61 papers, a list of relevant citations was maintained,
leading to an additional review of 15 papers, of which seven were considered relevant and
included in the review, thus totalling 68 papers.
IJPDLM In this review, 32 practitioner journal articles were selected. In most cases, these papers
48,1 do not provide a methods section, and they are difficult (if not impossible) to replicate, as
they are in most cases conceptual papers based on the authors’ experiences. However, the
findings of these reports were included in the current study (with caution), as practitioner
articles have, in the field of S&OP, historically been included in academic literature.
For instance, Larry Lapide is among the most cited authors within the field of S&OP
26 (according to Google Scholar) despite only having published practitioner-oriented papers.
Step 4: analysing and synthesising

The findings were grouped using an inductive approach and based on the initial variables
outlined in Figure 1. The coding keys can be found in Table I. The respective S&OP paper
was reviewed, and for the contextual variable, a specific area was noted, such as retail or
service. Afterwards, these were grouped into general areas, such as industry types. For the
response variable, the respective paper was classified according to the affected area of the
S&OP design if any specific area was mentioned or if the study focussed on the effect on
S&OP in general. For the performance variable, it was noted whether the paper explicitly
assessed performance or not. Further, the contributions were mapped according to their
outlet type and the method used for the study.
Of the final 68 papers, 36 are from academic sources, and 32 were from practitioner
journals. By looking at the 239 papers assessed, according to the “year of publication”
in Figure 3, it appears that research related to the design of S&OP is a newly researched
area, as 76 per cent of the articles were published after 2010. In addition, the proportion of
context-related S&OP publications has increased since 2010.
Literature review findings

This section answers RQ1 by presenting the literature review’s findings concerning the
effects of context on S&OP design. Table II presents the results of this context-based paper
coding, followed by a summary of the main findings by general context area.
Coding key Options
Contextual variable See Table II (Specific and general area)

Response variable See Table II (Specific and general area)
Table I. Performance variable Effectiveness, efficiency, intended and/or unintended outcome, or none
Coding keys for Outlet type Practitioner or academic
literature review Type/Method Case study, conceptual, modelling, literature review, survey or mixed method
30 80
Publications per year
Acumulated context
elated publications
25
60
20
15 40
10
20
5
Figure 3.
0 0
Analysis of papers
according to year of
.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
0..
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
0
publication, context
20
relation and Academic Practitioner Not context related Total context related
outlet type
Note: n = 239
Contextual variables Response variables Performance variables Contribution types

General area Specific area General area Specific area Measure Method Outlet type Author(s)
Industry types Retail industry S&OP in general S&OP fit None Conceptual Practitioner Harwell (2006)
Healthcare industry IT Planning horizon and Efficiency Case study Academic Alvekrans et al. (2016)
IT system
Process industries S&OP in general S&OP design in None Conceptual Academic Noroozi and Wikner
general (2016)
Process industries S&OP in general S&OP design in None Literature Academic Noroozi and Wikner
general review (2017)
Blood industry S&OP in general S&OP fit None Conceptual Practitioner Keal and Hebert (2010)
Pharmaceutical S&OP in general S&OP fit None Conceptual Practitioner Schmitz (2016)
industry
Talent management S&OP in general S&OP fit None Conceptual Practitioner Rice and Stanton (2012)
Various service S&OP in general S&OP fit None Conceptual Practitioner Iyengar and Gupta (2013)
industries
Various service S&OP in general S&OP fit None Conceptual Practitioner Bower (2015)
industries
Service operations Meeting and Capacity and planning None Case study Academic Olhager and Johansson
collaboration strategies (2012)
Food manufacturers Planning parameter Aggregation level and Intended outcome Case study Academic Ivert, Dukovska-
input Popovska, Kaipia,
Fredriksson, Dreyer,
Johansson, Chabada,
Damgaard and
Tuomikangas (2015)
Food manufacturers Planning parameter Aggregation level and Intended and Case study Academic Ivert, Dukovska-
input unintended outcome Popovska, Fredriksson,
Dreyer and Kaipia (2015)
Dynamic Demand and supply Meeting and Scenario planning and None Conceptual Practitioner Singh and Lee (2013)
complexity uncertainty collaboration/IT risk management
Demand uncertainty Meeting and Scenario planning None Conceptual Practitioner Schmitz (2016)
collaboration/IT
Demand and supply Meeting and Scenario planning and None Conceptual Practitioner Schlegel and Murray
uncertainty collaboration/IT risk management (2010)
(continued )
S&OP research
27
Context-based
Literature review
Table II.
findings
28
48,1
Table II.
IJPDLM
Demand uncertainty Meeting and Scenario planning None Conceptual Practitioner Stahl (2010)
collaboration/IT
Demand uncertainty Meeting and Scenario planning None Conceptual Practitioner Gallucci (2008)
collaboration/IT
Demand uncertainty Meeting and Scenario planning Effectiveness Mixed Academic Wagner et al. (2014)
collaboration/IT method
Market uncertainty Meeting and Capacity and planning Effectiveness Survey Academic Olhager and Selldin
collaboration/IT strategies (2007)
Product variety Planning parameter Planning level Intended and Case study Academic Ivert, Dukovska-
unintended outcome Popovska, Fredriksson,
Supply uncertainty Planning parameter Supply forecast Intended and Case study Academic Ivert, Dukovska-
unintended outcome Popovska, Fredriksson,
Demand pattern and Meeting and Customer integration Effectiveness, intended Case study Academic Kaipia et al. (2017)
lead times collaboration/IT (sharing of PoS data) and unintended outcome
Detail Company complexity Meeting and Parsing of S&OP Efficiency Case study Academic Ivert and Jonsson (2014)
complexity collaboration/ processes
Organisation
Company complexity Meeting and Parsing of S&OP None Conceptual Practitioner Lapide (2011, 2012)
collaboration/ processes
Organisation
Company complexity Meeting and Parsing of S&OP None Case study Academic Pedroso et al. (2016)
collaboration/ processes
Organisation
Company complexity Meeting and Parsing of S&OP Efficiency and Case study Academic Oliva and Watson (2011)
collaboration/ processes effectiveness
Organisation
Company complexity Organisation S&OP and forecasting None Conceptual Practitioner Lapide (2014a, b)
organisations
Company complexity Organisation S&OP and forecasting None Conceptual Practitioner Marthins (2015)
organisations
(continued )

Company complexity Organisation Matrix organisation None Case study Academic Pedroso et al. (2016)
Company complexity Organisation Matrix organisation Efficiency and Case study Academic Oliva and Watson (2011)
effectiveness
Company complexity IT IT system None Conceptual Academic Chae and Olson, 2013)
Company complexity IT IT system Efficiency Conceptual Practitioner Wells (2015)
Company complexity IT IT system Efficiency Case study Academic Ivert and Jonsson (2014)
Product characteristics Planning parameter Planning level Intended outcome Case study Academic Ivert, Dukovska-
Popovska, Kaipia,
Fredriksson, Dreyer,
Johansson, Chabada,
Damgaard and
Tuomikangas (2015)
Process and product Planning parameter Effect on S&OP Effectiveness Survey Academic Thomé et al. (2014b)
complexity outcome
Firm size S&OP in small- and S&OP in general S&OP fit None Case study Academic Adamczak et al. (2013)
medium-sized
enterprises
Size S&OP in general Advanced use Efficiency Case study Academic Grimson and Pyke (2007)
Size S&OP in general Operational Effectiveness and Survey Academic Thomé et al. (2014a)
performance efficiency
Manufacturing MTO and MTS Planning parameter Capacity and planning None Conceptual Academic Olhager et al. (2001)
strategy strategies
Planning hierarchy Meeting and Decision area None Conceptual Academic Olhager and Rudberg
collaboration (2002)
Make-to-order Meeting and Flexibility agreement Effectiveness Modelling Academic Lim et al. (2014a, b)
collaboration
Mix strategy S&OP in general S&OP design in None Conceptual Academic Noroozi and Wikner
general (2016)
(continued )
S&OP research
29
Context-based
Table II.
30
48,1
Table II.
IJPDLM
Hierarchical Linking tactical and Meeting and Vertical alignment Intended and Cast study Academic Ivert, Dukovska-
planning operational plans collaboration unintended outcome Popovska, Fredriksson,
framework Dreyer and Kaipia (2015)
Linking tactical and Meeting and Vertical alignment None Conceptual Practitioner Lapide (2017)
operational plans collaboration
Organisational HTO characteristics Organisation/IT IT systems Efficiency Case study Academic Ivert and Jonsson (2014)
characteristics
Top management Organisation Organisational None Conceptual Practitioner Boyer (2009)
support support
Top management Organisation Organisational None Conceptual Practitioner McLeod (2012)
support support
Top management Organisation Organisational None Conceptual Practitioner Milliken (2008)
support support
Top management Organisation Organisational None Case study Practitioner Piechule (2008)
support support
Top management Organisation Organisational None Case study Academic Pedroso et al. (2016)
support support
Top management Organisation Organisational Efficiency and Survey Academic Swaim et al. (2016)
support support effectiveness
Company orientations Organisation Supporting None Conceptual Academic Qi and Ellinger (2017)
environment
Internal integration Meeting and External integration Effectiveness Survey Academic Flynn et al. (2010)
collaboration/
Organisation
Internal integration Meeting and External integration Effectiveness Survey Academic Gimenez and Ventura
collaboration/ (2003)
Organisation
Internal integration Meeting and External integration Effectiveness and Survey Academic Nakano (2009)
collaboration/ efficiency
Organisation
(continued )

External integration Meeting and CFPR None Conceptual Practitioner Baumann and Andraski
collaboration/ (2010)
Organisation
External integration Meeting and CFPR None Conceptual Practitioner Sagar (2010)
collaboration/
Organisation
External integration Meeting and CFPR None Conceptual Practitioner Smith et al. (2010)
collaboration/
Organisation
National culture S&OP in general S&OP fit None Case study Academic Pedroso et al. (2016)
(Brazilian)
National culture S&OP in general S&OP fit Effectiveness Case study Academic Goh and Eldridge (2015)
(Singaporean/Asian)
National culture S&OP in general S&OP fit Effectiveness Case study Academic Sehgal et al. (2006)
(Indian)
Developing/mature S&OP in general S&OP fit Effectiveness Survey Academic Thomé et al. (2014b)
countries
S&OP research
31
Context-based
Table II.
IJPDLM Industry types
48,1 In this contextual area, six papers were conceptual and published in practitioner journals.
These papers assessed how S&OP fits into different industry types: retail (Harwell, 2006),
blood (Keal and Hebert, 2010), HR (Rice and Stanton, 2012), pharmaceutical (Iyengar and
Gupta, 2013; Schmitz, 2016), consulting, software, correctional facility, school system,
healthcare and mortgage industries (Bower, 2015). Here, there was no assessment of which
32 parts of the S&OP design were affected by industry type; however, in general, these
papers discussed how S&OP should generate positive intended outcomes in these
industries. For industries with low S&OP adoption levels, the literature suggests that
the adoption of more structured S&OP-type approaches should conceptually generate
positive performance outcomes.

The remaining six papers were academic and used a variety of methods. Olhager and
Johansson (2012) used a case study to translate the tactical decision areas of capacity and
planning strategies from a manufacturing to a service operations context. They found that
the capacity and planning strategies of S&OP should match the characteristics of
manufacturing and service operations separately and that these do not necessarily correlate.
Using a conceptualisation study and a literature review, Noroozi and Wikner (2016, 2017)
investigated how to design S&OP for the process industry and found that all four
integration mechanisms ( from Tuomikangas and Kaipia, 2014) are important for working
with both horizontal alignment (i.e. across functions and partners) and vertical alignment
(i.e. across planning levels), as well as financial alignment and risk/scenario management.
Alvekrans et al. (2016) applied an S&OP planning method in healthcare to effectively
allocate resources using an S&OP design with a 3-12-month planning horizon and Excel
support tools. They found that while S&OP shows potential for improving operations in
the healthcare industry by increasing the efficiency of the decision-making process, resource
allocation decisions cannot take place at the department level; rather, top management
involvement is required to determine trade-offs. Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska, Kaipia,
Fredriksson, Dreyer, Johansson, Chabada, Damgaard and Tuomikangas (2015) studied four
food manufacturers to assess how S&OP is designed and what aspects of context drive
opportunities to use S&OP for industrial food producers and investigate what plans are
outcomes of their S&OP processes. Here, they found that the investigated S&OP processes
are immature, that product- and market-related variables influence S&OP design and that
S&OP must be adapted to fit industrial food producers’ planning environments. In a similar
study of eight food manufacturers, Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska, Fredriksson, Dreyer and
Kaipia (2015) found that food manufacturers share some specific planning environment
characteristics that drive the need for an altered S&OP process design. However, the
detailed findings were attributed to dynamic and detailed complexity, a contextual area that
will be discussed in a later sub-section of this report.
Consequently, though no study provides insights regarding how S&OP performance is
generated, the literature has found that S&OP must be designed according to industry.
Dynamic complexity
Dynamic complexity was the focus of nine of the examined papers. Of these, five were
published in practitioner outlets, four were focussed on conceptual contributions and one
presented a case study. The remaining four papers were from academic outlets and used a
multitude of methods: two were case studies, one was a mixed method study and one was a
literature review.
The literature related to dynamic complexity has focussed on the effects of demand
and supply uncertainties on S&OP design. Predominant portions of the practitioner
literature focus on using scenario planning as a response variable to demand and supply
uncertainty and to manage risk and achieve consensus. Singh and Lee (2013) proposed the
use of scenario planning for risk management to prepare companies for disruptions. Context-based
Several authors have conceptually explained how scenario planning is used to prepare S&OP research
companies for demand uncertainty (Schmitz, 2016; Schlegel and Murray, 2010;
Stahl, 2010), while Gallucci (2008) recommended operationalising scenarios using
trigger points (i.e. if demand reaches a certain point, it triggers a new action or plan).
These findings could contradict the literature on S&OP maturity models (Lapide, 2005;
Grimson and Pyke, 2007; Wagner et al., 2014), as they suggest using scenario planning for 33
mature S&OP, regardless of the context.
Through a survey study, Olhager and Selldin (2007) found that tactical planning
processes, such as S&OP and master production scheduling, have a positive mediating
effect on operational performance in companies experiencing high market uncertainty.

In addition, the two case studies from the food industry by Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska,
Kaipia, Fredriksson, Dreyer, Johansson, Chabada, Damgaard and Tuomikangas (2015),
Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska, Fredriksson, Dreyer and Kaipia (2015) revealed that food
manufacturers design, their S&OP process to match a range of uncertainty variables. Hence,
the researchers proposed that food manufacturers respond to a mix of demand uncertainty
and supply uncertainty in terms of volume and quality by conducting tactical planning on a
stock-keeping-unit level. In addition, they proposed that food manufacturers respond to
push-material supply and the related supply uncertainty by forecasting supply availability
as an input to the S&OP process.
Kaipia et al. (2017) found that the sharing of customers’ point-of-sales (PoS) data yields
operational benefits relating to coordinating demand uncertainty during product launches.
They also found that sharing PoS data during weekly S&OP meetings increases the number
of corrective actions, improves product availability and enhances the accuracy of forecasts
sent to suppliers. Using a dual case study, the researchers found that the sharing of PoS
data offered no value for coordinating promotions if either the PoS data were inadequate to
represent the full product demand or the supply and production lead time was too long for
corrective action to be taken.
Together, these studies suggest that S&OP process design is affected by dynamic
complexity and, further, that performance is affected by dynamic complexity. However,
they offer no information on the reasons behind these correlations.
Detail complexity
Regarding research on detail complexity as a contextual variable, six papers from a
practitioner outlet and nine papers from academic outlets were identified. All of the
practitioner papers were conceptual papers, while seven of the academic papers used case
studies. The remaining two academic papers were a conceptual paper and a survey study.
Thomé et al.’s (2014b) survey investigated how process complexity (number of steps in
production) and product complexity (number of levels in the bill of material) affect
S&OP outcomes. They found that S&OP practices, such as meetings and organisation,
measurements, technology integration and plan integration, have generally positive
impacts on quality, flexibility and lead time. They further found that the companies
in their survey with high process complexity experienced even higher performance
gains on all three parameters than the other companies in the survey, while companies
with high product complexity experienced a larger positive impact on quality.
They concluded that all manufacturing companies should pursue S&OP implementation,
but that companies with high manufacturing complexity should place a higher priority
this objective.
Regarding research on detail complexity as a contextual variable, several authors have
reported that large companies handle complexity using parsing (i.e. multiple divided
S&OP processes). Through a survey study, Cecere (2012) found that 63 per cent of
IJPDLM companies have more than one S&OP process. Lapide (2011, 2012) outlined three ways to
48,1 conceptually parse an S&OP process with multiple entities: first, in cases with one
source of supply, one S&OP process is enough. Second, in cases with multiple sources in
which each source clearly supplies a particular set of sales regions, then each source
should have its own S&OP process. Third, if there are dedicated regional sources,
then each sales region should have its own S&OP. However, Lapide (2011) offered few
34 details concerning how to parse a process when multiple sales regions share multiple
sources. Similarly, but without additional emphasis on parsing, Pedroso et al. (2016)
described a case in which S&OP is managed per product line in a global manufacturing
network in which the same product is manufactured in several plants. Oliva and Watson
(2011) presented a case of a global S&OP process in which the sub-process for demand had
been parsed into five different demand reviews. These examples of parsing were not
recognised by Lapide (2011), who argued that the logic behind parsing is to create S&OP
processes that resemble profit and loss statements. In addition, several authors have
recommended creating an independent S&OP organisation and forecasting department
(Lapide, 2014a, b; Marthins, 2015) to address organisational complexity. Empirical
examples positioning the S&OP organisation as a matrix organisation with links to all
dispersed departments can be found in the works of Oliva and Watson (2011) and
Pedroso et al. (2016).
High detail complexity in the business and supply chain has been found to drive a need for
IT support systems at the outset of S&OP implementation (Chae and Olson, 2013; Wells, 2015).
These findings contradict the view that IT support systems are enablers that are not critically
needed in lower S&OP maturity phases (Lapide, 2004b, 2014a, c; Pedroso et al., 2016).
In addition, Ivert and Jonsson (2014) proposed that high supply chain complexity may result in
high complexity in the optimisation models used in advanced S&OP, which, in turn, may
lengthen the computing time for the tools that support scenario planning. Hence, there are
contradictory findings regarding the role of IT systems for supporting S&OP in companies
with high detail complexity.
In sum, it has been found that performance gains are larger for companies with high
detail complexity. In addition, S&OP design has been found to be affected by detail
complexity (e.g. in relation to process parsing).
Firm size
The search for research regarding firm size identified three papers from academic outlets.
Of these, two were case studies and one was a survey. Adamczak et al. (2013) studied ten
small- and medium-sized companies and found that small companies expect smaller
integration effects following S&OP than larger companies, as their small sizes lead to the
expectation that they are already more internally integrated. This finding was expanded by
Thomé et al.’s (2014b) survey, which found that large companies obtain larger advantages
from S&OP than smaller companies in terms of flexibility and delivery. Similarly, Grimson
and Pyke (2007) investigated the relationship between company size and S&OP maturity in
15 cases and found that larger companies are slightly more advanced than smaller
companies in their use of S&OP.
In addition, none of these three studies found a link between firm size and S&OP design.
However, they did indicate that S&OP may be more commonly used, advanced and
rewarding for large companies than for small companies. Adamczak et al. (2013) suggested
that this is because smaller companies tend to be more aligned than larger companies prior
to S&OP implementation.
In sum, it has been found that smaller companies do not seem to be rewarded with the
same performance gains enjoyed by larger companies. Furthermore, no extant study has
indicated whether firm size affects S&OP design.
Manufacturing strategy Context-based
Like firm size, manufacturing strategy has only been researched in academic outlets. S&OP research
The search for research focussing on manufacturing strategy as a contextual variable
identified three conceptual papers and two modelling papers.
The influence of manufacturing strategy on S&OP design has conceptually been
researched from the make-to-stock, make-to-order and mix perspectives. Olhager et al. (2001)
and Olhager and Rudberg (2002) linked make-to-stock to a level scheduling strategy and a 35
lag capacity strategy and linked make-to-order to a chase scheduling strategy and a lead
capacity strategy. Noroozi and Wikner (2016) combined these manufacturing strategies
using decoupling points. None of these papers found any significant changes to the
S&OP design; instead, they focussed on the impact on the final plan (i.e. the chase or level
production plan).
Consequently, no studies have determined whether manufacturing strategy affects
S&OP design or performance.
Hierarchical planning framework

Regarding the contextual variable of hierarchical planning framework, only two
contributions were found: one case study from an academic outlet and one conceptual
study from a practitioner outlet. Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska, Fredriksson, Dreyer and Kaipia
(2015) found that their case companies struggled to match tactical and lower-level plans
(master production scheduling and operational plans); hence, they recommended ensuring
that S&OP designs clearly define planning process interfaces to achieve S&OP outcomes
through vertical alignment. Lapide’s (2017) conceptual paper focussed on the connection
between tactical planning (S&OP and master production scheduling) and operational plans
and emphasised the links among material requirements planning, inventory management,
distribution planning, order management, warehouse management and logistics
management. These links are considered critical for successfully utilising tactical plans.
In summary, no study has yet examined how hierarchical planning affects the
performance or design of S&OP.
Organisational characteristics
The search for studies regarding organisational characteristics identified ten academic and
eight practitioner contributions. Of the academic contributions, five were surveys, four were
case studies and one was a conceptual study. Of the eight practitioner contributions, seven
were conceptual studies and one was a case study. Based on a longitudinal case study,
Ivert and Jonsson (2014) proposed that the successful use of APS systems in S&OP depend
on the interplay among HTO characteristics. The research on a supportive organisational
environment focusses mostly on the effect of top management support; here, a range of
conceptual studies have argued that top management support is tightly linked to
organisational support (Boyer, 2009; McLeod, 2012; Milliken, 2008; Pedroso et al., 2016;
Swaim et al., 2016). Finally, one study demonstrated how S&OP implementation without top
management support is challenging and can even fail (Piechule, 2008).
Goh and Eldridge (2015) investigated two cases in the Asia-Pacific and found no evidence
that it is harder to fit S&OP to companies in the Asia-Pacific than companies elsewhere.
The lack of a country-culture effect on S&OP fit was also a result of Sehgal et al.’s (2006)
conceptual study concerning S&OP’s relevance for Indian companies. On the contrary,
Pedroso et al. (2016) investigated S&OP implementation in Brazil and noted that despite its
positive outcomes, certain cultural aspects, such as Brazil’s hierarchical culture, posed
obstacles to S&OP implementation, as the hierarchy influenced the ability of cross-functional
teams to collaborate. Qi and Ellinger (2017) proposed that an organisation’s orientation
influences S&OP performance. They outlined four company orientations and proposed that
IJPDLM companies that are service- instead of cost-oriented, relational- instead of transactional-
48,1 oriented and process- instead of function-oriented and that have financial managers acting as
business advocates may have higher S&OP commitment and performance.
In a survey study investigating the performance outcomes of S&OP, Thomé et al. (2014b)
found that companies in developing countries experience larger quality and flexibility
improvements due to S&OP implementation than their counterparts in mature countries.
36 However, the researchers ascribed this discrepancy to these companies’ emphasis on
improving quality (e.g. in China) and not necessarily to S&OP outcomes. In addition, several
survey studies investigated how an organisation’s internal integration influences its
external integration with customers and suppliers in tactical planning. Internal integration
(i.e. alignment) has been found to be a prerequisite for efficient and effective external
integration (Flynn et al., 2010; Gimenez and Ventura, 2003; Nakano, 2009). The literature on
S&OP maturity models supports these findings, as companies with high S&OP maturity
levels seek external integration (Grimson and Pyke, 2007; Lapide, 2005; Wagner et al., 2014).
Conceptually, several authors have recommended that S&OP could be designed to integrate
with external partners through a type of collaborative planning, forecasting and
replenishment process (Baumann and Andraski, 2010; Sagar, 2010; Smith et al., 2010).
In sum, it has been found that organisational characteristics affect S&OP design.
Furthermore, S&OP design has been found to affect the performance of the S&OP process,
since top management support is critical to the success of this process.
Discussion
The effects of context on S&OP design
Based on the findings of the literature review, Table III summarises the problem in context
and presents the effects of context on S&OP design and performance (RQ1). The literature
contributes findings concerning how S&OP design is affected by industry, dynamic
complexity, detail complexity and organisational characteristics. However, due to a lack of
research, the review offers no insight or conclusions regarding the effects of firm size,
manufacturing strategy and hierarchical planning. The literature findings also link S&OP
performance to dynamic complexity, detail complexity, firm size and organisational
characteristics. No studies have yet been conducted to determine how the contextual
variables of industry, manufacturing strategy and hierarchical planning framework affect
S&OP performance.
Future research areas for context-based S&OP research

This section focusses on future research directions. In so doing, it answers RQ2. Table III
summarises the problem of S&OP in relation to the context and identifies gaps in the
current S&OP literature that we consider important for future research.
Researching contextual, response and performance variables as integrated generates
knowledge that can be used to develop an S&OP contingency framework. S&OP research
that simultaneously considered these variables accounted for 28 per cent (19 articles) of the
articles in the review, but very few of these articles really studied the variables as integrated.
This gap calls for future S&OP research with an integrated approach. However, the
operationalisation of the S&OP performance variable is highly diverse, making integrated
analysis difficult. There are several dimensions of S&OP efficiency and effectiveness
(Hulthén et al., 2016), and the literature identifies several different intended outcomes to
potentially define and measure, such as plan integration (Grimson and Pyke, 2007), plan
quality (Ivert and Jonsson, 2014), vertical and horizontal alignment (Noroozi and Wikner,
2017) and cross-functional alignment (Oliva and Watson, 2011). Hence, the literature is clear
regarding the intended outcomes of S&OP. Thus, the problem is not the conceptual
definition (Wacker, 2004) of S&OP performance, but rather, operationally defining and
Literature Literature If yes: how is performance affected

identifies If yes: how is design affected (as identifies an (as studied in the literature)? If no
Papers an effect shown in the literature)? If no effect on (i.e. no studies): is it important to
(academic/ on S&OP studies: is it important to research S&OP research (i.e. does a literature gap
Context practitioner) Problem in context design (i.e. does a literature gap exist)? performance exist)?
Industry 12 (6/6) S&OP is designed (e.g. activity Yes In general, S&OP is found to be No studies While S&OP is recommended
structures, planning object details applicable across industries; across industries, the literature
and planning horizons) and however, its detailed design (e.g. does not explain whether or how
adopted across industries to naming, time horizons, software S&OP provides better or different
varying degrees. However, the tools, planning parameters, etc.) performance for some industries
S&OP literature does not explain must be fitted to the planning than others
how S&OP should be designed in environment of a given industry.
order to generate performance The literature lacks cross-sectional
benefits for different industries studies on the differences across
industries in terms of adoption,
maturity and design
Dynamic 9 (4/5) Needs for cross-functional and Yes Studies show that higher levels of Yes While studies find that S&OP
complexity horizontal coordination increase dynamic complexity may require conducted under high dynamic
with dynamic complexity. Thus, S&OP to incorporate scenario complexity has a positive effect on
despite the view that scenario planning and interact with risk operating performance, it is not
planning is for mature S&OP management processes in order to fully understood how this positive
processes, dynamic complexity cope with uncertainties. In addition, performance is generated. A
requires scenario planning S&OP design needs to match question that remains is also
regardless of maturity level specific uncertainty variables (e.g. whether/when dynamic complexity
by forecasting supply input in the may be too high for S&OP or too
event of supply uncertainty). The low for S&OP to generate a
literature on this topic remains very significant effect
limited
Detail 15 (9/6) S&OP parsing is suggested and Yes The S&OP process is parsed into Yes Companies that experience high
complexity practised at high levels of detail multiple processes to overcome detail complexity also experience
complexity. One study claims that high detail supply chain higher operational benefits from the
more than half of the companies complexity. However, the literature use of S&OP. However, the reasons
using S&OP have more than one provides limited explanations for underlying this finding are unclear
S&OP process. However, no
(continued )
S&OP research
37
Context-based
design and/or S&OP

affecting S&OP
performance
Table III.
Contextual variables
38
48,1
Table III.
IJPDLM
framework or research study has how to parse S&OP to overcome and should be developed in future
yet analysed how to parse S&OP detail complexity research
design
Firm size 3 (3/0) The need for cross-functional No studies It has been proposed that smaller Yes The few studies linking firm size
coordination is expected to increase companies are naturally more and S&OP performance form a
with firm size. Therefore, the aligned than larger companies, unified picture: that S&OP is more
potential value of S&OP may also meaning that the degree of need for commonly used, advanced and
increase with firm size. However, coordination depends on firm size. rewarding for larger companies.
detail complexity is further However, no study analyses the However, no studies have explicitly
dependent on firm size and may specific design of S&OP in small explored the reasons underlying
increase difficulties related to firms compared to large firms these findings
utilising S&OP
Manufacturing 3 (3/0) Balancing supply and demand at No studies There is no evidence that the No studies Studies show that S&OP is suitable
strategy either end of the manufacturing outcome of S&OP (i.e. as either a across manufacturing strategies.
strategy continuum calls for level or a chase production plan) There is no indication that
different planning levers for has any impact on S&OP design manufacturing strategy should
matching supply and demand affect performance
using either inventory or capacity
Hierarchical 2 (1/1) S&OP is a tactical-level process in No studies S&OP design is linked to its role No studies The outcome of S&OP can be
planning an integrated hierarchical planning and linkages within the hierarchical expected to depend on S&OP’s role
framework framework. Therefore, S&OP planning framework (e.g. with and interfaces in the larger
design and outcomes can be longer-term business planning and hierarchical planning framework.
expected to be affected by S&OP’s shorter-term master production For example, a focus on long-term
role in the larger planning scheduling). Therefore, the content decisions is difficult to achieve if a
framework. However, no studies of these interfacing processes can company has no shorter-term
have explicitly analysed S&OP as be expected to affect S&OP design. planning process for handling
part of such a larger framework This needs to be investigated in shorter-term balancing issues.
future research Thus, the hierarchical planning
(continued )

framework can be expected to

affect S&OP performance
Organisational 18 (10/8) Organisational characteristics, such Yes The literature finds that Yes Several aspects of organisational
characteristics as orientation, culture and organisational characteristics characteristics (e.g. top
involvement, are important for impact the ability to utilise management support and
S&OP outcomes and how S&OP advanced IT systems, as well as the organisational orientation) have
activities are carried out and ability to create external been proposed to affect S&OP
managed. Consequently, these integration. Still, the literature has performance; however, there is
characteristics either facilitate or failed to study or clearly limited empirical evidence to
hinder the coordinating role of understand several aspects of how support these connections
S&OP organisational characteristics affect
S&OP design
S&OP research
39
Context-based
Table III.
IJPDLM measuring S&OP performance in empirical case or survey studies. This gap calls for future
48,1 studies that develop operational measures and measurement approaches to operationally
assess S&OP performance.
There are also gaps in our knowledge relating to designing S&OP in specific contexts, as
the current literature either completely or mostly overlooks several contexts. Closing these gaps
will contribute knowledge useful for developing an S&OP contingency understanding and
40 framework. Therefore, we propose that future studies focus on four areas of how contextual
variables affect response and performance variables. The first area (industry studies)
concerns industry-specific effects, and the second area focusses on organisational-specific
effects (organisational studies). Coordination mechanisms play an important role in S&OP
(Tuomikangas and Kaipia, 2014), and needs for S&OP coordination vary depending on the
level of supply chain complexity. Complexity also relates to firm size, as size is a driver of detail
complexity. This points to complexity (complexity studies) as the third area for future study.
Finally, S&OP is a process that interfaces with several other processes. Therefore, the
fourth proposed contextual area for future S&OP research (system and process studies) is
analysing S&OP as part of a larger system or with consideration for its interfaces with other
planning processes.
Though the literature relating to the area of industry studies finds that S&OP is relevant
across industries, research comparing S&OP across industries is lacking. Furthermore,
while S&OP-like processes are considered applicable across industries, the terminology
(e.g. the terms sales, operations, demand, supply and inventory) does not resonate as well in
non-manufacturing businesses (Bower, 2015). This discrepancy may undermine established
S&OP frameworks in these areas. Together, these gaps motivate future research on how
S&OP adoption level, maturity and response variables (e.g. activity structures, planning
object details and planning horizon) differ across industries. Ivert, Dukovska-Popovska,
Fredriksson, Dreyer and Kaipia (2015), for example, found that certain planning parameters
forced companies in the food processing industry to divert from the “standard” S&OP
process and, thereby, tailor the S&OP process to their specific needs.
The area of organisational studies is important for future research because
organisational characteristics are fundamental in S&OP when, for example, integrating
personnel across organisational functions and hierarchies in order to generate sound
decisions for sales and operations. The literature suggests that culture may serve as an
obstacle to S&OP implementation (Pedroso et al., 2016). Similarly, internal characteristics
such as top management support (Swaim et al., 2016) and organisational orientation (Qi and
Ellinger, 2017) could be either drivers of or barriers to (depending on the situation) the
transformation of S&OP into higher maturity levels. Therefore, future research should
study how S&OP response variables are designed, facilitated and performed across
different organisational characteristics, such as culture, organisational orientation and
degree of top management support.
For complexity studies, it has been found that supply chain complexity can have both
positive and negative effects on S&OP. On the one hand, the higher an organisation’s
complexity is, the higher its need for coordination (Adamczak et al., 2013) and the higher the
expected S&OP performance will be. On the other hand, as complexity increases, so, too,
does the sophistication (e.g. in terms of sophisticated IT) of the S&OP process – and,
consequently, its costs. This finding motivates future research on the trade-off between
S&OP performance and S&OP cost in the presence of increasing complexity. In addition,
detail complexity is a driver for parsing S&OP processes, such that higher complexity
means a greater number of processes to be managed (Lapide, 2011, 2012). Thus, future
research on S&OP parsing in different types of complexity scenarios is needed. S&OP also
seeks to manage dynamic complexity using, for example, scenario planning, which is
a key S&OP capability at higher S&OP maturity levels (e.g. Grimson and Pyke, 2007).
This motivating future research on the role of S&OP for supply chains responding to Context-based
dynamic supply chain complexity (e.g. variations and uncertainties). S&OP research
The system and process studies area of research focusses on how the S&OP process is
part of an integrated planning system in which S&OP is one step in a hierarchy that
transforms strategic planning into operational plans. Hence, the absence of studies explicitly
considering S&OP as a process belonging to such a planning system is both alarming and
surprising. According to numerous textbooks (e.g. Jacobs et al., 2011; Wallace and 41
Stahl, 2008b) and literature dating back to the introduction of hierarchical planning
(Anthony, 1965; Hax and Meal, 1975), decisions made on a tactical level (such as S&OP) are
linked to decisions made on both higher and lower levels. A well-performing S&OP process
may not generate operational performance benefits if lower levels (e.g. the master
production schedule) are ill-performing, and S&OP may not be able to perform well if the
lower level is failing to handle issues related to operational balancing. Likewise, S&OP has
been suggested to drive strategy through the organisation, serving as the link between
strategy/business planning and operational planning. However, studies exploring these
links to higher and lower planning levels are absent in current S&OP research. Furthermore,
the interface and integration of S&OP with risk management is another area for S&OP
studies on systems and processes. Consequently, future S&OP research should view S&OP
as a part of a system and research how S&OP design affects and is affected by interfaces
with both strategic and operational planning.
Concluding remarks
This paper outlines the literature findings and areas for future research on how
context affects the design of S&OP response and performance variables. The paper
shows that S&OP response variables are, in addition to being dependent on S&OP
maturity, a product of S&OP contextual variables. Despite this, all of the literature on
S&OP suggests that S&OP-like processes are applicable across contexts, though this
claim has not been empirically explored or tested. Consequently, future S&OP research
must account for the effects of context on S&OP response and performance variables in
order to generate a deeper understanding of effect and support the development of an
S&OP contingency framework.
Implications for research include the need for an integrative view of contextual, response
and performance variables. The literature included in this review presents only an
awareness of context. Most studies lack a full integrative view, partly because of the
difficulties inherent in operationalising performance variables in a structured way.
Implications for practice include the literature’s synthesised context-based findings, which
emphasise the need to consider context when designing, implementing and maturing S&OP.
The future research areas outlined in this paper call for future descriptive, explanatory
and design science studies. Current S&OP research fails to explore the level of S&OP
adoption and the performance of S&OP across industries, contexts and maturity levels;
therefore, each of these areas are ripe for future descriptive studies on S&OP adoption.
The literature, however, does indicate that S&OP is immaturely practised, especially in
certain contexts (e.g. service and retail operations). Consequently, several future case and
survey studies are needed to explore and explain the various effects of context variables on
S&OP response variables (design) and performance outcomes. In addition, the generally low
adoption of S&OP at higher maturity levels and the lack of S&OP implementations in
certain industries and contexts motivate design science studies that prescribe and test
context-fitted S&OP designs.
A limitation of the literature review is the lack of assessments of S&OP design dictated
by S&OP maturity models. S&OP maturity frameworks clearly explain that S&OP design
differs depending on maturity level; however, some design elements may not follow the
IJPDLM designs dictated by maturity models and context. In addition, the objective of S&OP may
48,1 differ irrespective of maturity level, ranging, for example, from one of reducing inventories
or lead times to one of ensuring product availability during product launches. Therefore, a
necessary strand of future S&OP research with no explicit context focus should examine
how the variety of purposes and maturities of S&OP impact S&OP design. Another
limitation of this study is that it does not review or discuss how established theories relate to
42 the S&OP research agenda. For example, the resource-based view may be used as
theoretical lens to identify how S&OP can be a resource for generating sustainable
competitive advantages. Finally, while this structured literature review was designed to
minimise the risk of missing relevant papers, there is no guarantee that no such papers have
been missed, as relevant keywords or databases may have been overlooked and books that
could have provided additional insights may have been excluded.
References
Adamczak, M., Domanski, R. and Cyplik, P. (2013), “Use of sales and operations planning in small and
medium-sized enterprises”, Scientific Journal of Logistics, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 11-19.
Alvekrans, A.L., Lantz, B., Rosén, P., Siljemyr, L. and Snygg, J. (2016), “From knowledge to decision – a
case study of sales and operations planning in health care”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 1019-1026.
Anthony, R.N. (1965), Management Planning and Control Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Baumann, F. and Andraski, J. (2010), “Collaborate, externally and internally: in CPFR and S&OP,
two planning vehicles are better than one”, Industrial Engineer, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 37-41.
Bower, P. (2005), “12 most common threats to sales and operations planning process”, The Journal of
Business Forecasting, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 4-14.
Bower, P. (2006), “How the S&OP process creates value in the supply chain”, The Journal of Business
Forecasting, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 20-32.
Bower, P. (2015), “S&OP in the service industry”, The Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 4-18.
Boyer, J.E. (2009), “10 proven steps to successful S&OP”, The Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 4-10.
Bozarth, C.C., Warsing, D.P., Flynn, B.B. and Flynn, E.J. (2009), “The impact of supply chain complexity
on manufacturing plant performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 78-93.
Cecere, L. (2012), “Market-drivenS&OP”, available at: http://supplychaininsights.com/wp-content/
uploads/2012/07/Market-driven_SOP_Report_16_JULY_2012.pdf (accessed 16 October 2017).
Chae, B.K. and Olson, D.L. (2013), “Business analytics for supply chain: a dynamic-capabilities
framework”, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 9-26.
Danese, P., Molinaro, M. and Romano, P. (2017), “Managing evolutionary paths in sales and operations
planning: key dimensions and sequences of implementation”, International Journal of
Production Research, doi:10.1080/00207543.2017.1355119.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D.A. and
Bryman, A. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 671-689.
Donaldson, L. (2001), The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Sage, London.
Esper, T.L., Ellinger, A.E., Stank, T.P., Flint, D.J. and Moon, M. (2010), “Demand and supply integration:
a conceptual framework of value creation through knowledge management”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B. and Zhao, X. (2010), “The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a Context-based
contingency and configuration approach”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, S&OP research
pp. 58-71.
Gallucci, J.A. (2008), “How to mitigate risk and drive alignment with S&OP”, The Journal of Business
Gimenez, C. and Ventura, E. (2003), “Supply chain management as a competitive advantage in the
Spanish grocery sector”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, 43
pp. 77-88.
Goh, S.H. and Eldridge, S. (2015), “New product introduction and supplier integration in sales and
operations planning: evidence from the Asia Pacific region”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 45 Nos 9/10, pp. 861-886.

Grimson, J.A. and Pyke, D.F. (2007), “Sales and operations planning: an exploratory study and
framework”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 322-346.
Harwell, J. (2006), “Sales & operations planning in the retail industry”, The Journal of Business
Hax, A.C. and Meal, H.C. (1975), Hierarchical Integration of Production Planning and Scheduling.
North-Holland/TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, North-Holland, Amsterdam.
Hulthén, H., Näslund, D. and Norrman, A. (2016), “Framework for measuring performance of the sales
and operations planning process”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 46 No. 9, pp. 809-835.
Ivert, L.K. and Jonsson, P. (2014), “When should advanced planning and scheduling systems be used in
sales and operations planning?”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 34 No. 10, pp. 1338-1362.
Ivert, L.K., Dukovska-Popovska, I., Fredriksson, A., Dreyer, H.C. and Kaipia, R. (2015), “Contingency
between S&OP design and planning environment”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 747-773.
Ivert, L.K., Dukovska-Popovska, I., Kaipia, R., Fredriksson, A., Dreyer, H.C., Johansson, M.I.,
Chabada, L., Damgaard, C.M. and Tuomikangas, N. (2015), “Sales and operations planning:
responding to the needs of industrial food producers”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 280-295.
Iyengar, C. and Gupta, S. (2013), “Building blocks for successful S&OP”, Supply Chain Management
Review, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 11-17.
Jacobs, F.R., Berry, W.L., Whyback, D.C. and Vollmann, T.E. (2011), Manufacturing Planning and
Control for Supply Chain Management, McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY.
Jonsson, P. and Holmström, J. (2016), “Future of supply chain planning: closing the gaps between
practice and promise”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 62-81.
Kaipia, R., Holmström, J., Småros, J. and Rajala, R. (2017), “Information sharing for sales and operations
planning: contextualized solutions and mechanisms”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 15-29.
Keal, D.A. and Hebert, P. (2010), “Benefits to blood banks of a sales and operations planning process”,
Transfusion, Vol. 50 No. 12, pp. 2785-2787.
Lapide, L. (2004a), “Sales and operations planning part I: the process”, The Journal of Business
Lapide, L. (2004b), “Sales and operations planning part II: enabling technology”, The Journal of
Lapide, L. (2005), “An S&OP maturity model”, The Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 15-38.
Lapide, L. (2011), “Global S&OP: parsing the process”, The Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 30
No. 4, pp. 15-18.
IJPDLM Lapide, L. (2012), “Parsing holds key to better S&OP”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2,
48,1 pp. 4-5.
Lapide, L. (2014a), “Planning and forecasting working hand in hand”, The Journal of Business
Lapide, L. (2014b), “Navigating a course with planning and forecasting”, Supply Chain Management
Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 4-5.
44 Lapide, L. (2014c), “The S&OP process revisited”, Journal of Business Forecasting,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 12-16.
Lapide, L. (2017), “Executing the S&OP plan”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 4-5.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), “Differentiation and integration in complex organizations”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-47.
Lim, L.L., Alpan, G. and Penz, B. (2014a), “Reconciling sales and operations management with distant
suppliers in the automotive industry: a simulation approach”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 151 No. 1, pp. 20-36.
Lim, L.L., Alpan, G. and Penz, B. (2014b), “A simulation-optimization approach for managing the sales
and operations planning in the automotive industry”, Les Cahiers Leibniz, Vol. 212, pp. 1-26.
Ling, R.C. and Goddard, W.E. (1988), Orchestrating Success: Improve Control of the Business With Sales
and Operations Planning, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
McLeod, D. (2012), “S&OP: is your president engaged?”, The Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 21-23.
Marthins, J. (2015), “Integrated business plans: Tastykake’s journey”, The Journal of Business
Meredith, J. (1993), “Theory building through conceptual methods”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 3-11.
Milliken, A.L. (2008), “Sales & operations planning: building the foundation”, The Journal of Business
Muzumdar, M. and Fontanella, J. (2006), “The secrets to S&OP success”, Supply Chain Management
Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 34-41.
Nakano, M. (2009), “Collaborative forecasting and planning in supply chains: the impact on
performance in Japanese manufacturers”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 84-105.
Noroozi, S. and Wikner, J. (2016), “A modularized framework for sales and operations planning with
focus on process industries”, Production & Manufacturing Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 65-89.
Noroozi, S. and Wikner, J. (2017), “Sales and operations planning in the process industry: a literature
review”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 188 No. 1, pp. 139-155.
Olhager, J. and Johansson, P. (2012), “Linking long-term capacity management for manufacturing and
service operations”, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 22-33.
Olhager, J. and Rudberg, M. (2002), “Linking manufacturing strategy decisions on process choice with
manufacturing planning and control systems”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 2335-2351.
Olhager, J. and Selldin, E. (2007), “Manufacturing planning and control approaches: market alignment
and performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 1469-1484.
Olhager, J., Rudberg, M. and Wikner, J. (2001), “Long-term capacity management: linking the
perspectives from manufacturing strategy and sales and operations planning”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 215-225.
Oliva, R. and Watson, N. (2011), “Cross-functional alignment in supply chain planning: a case study of
sales and operations planning”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 434-448.
Pedroso, C.B., da Silva, A.L. and Tate, W.L. (2016), “Sales and operations planning (S&OP): insights Context-based
from a multi-case study of Brazilian organizations”, International Journal of Production S&OP research
Economics, Vol. 182 No. 1, pp. 213-229.
Piechule, J. (2008), “Implementing a sales and operations planning process at Sartomer company:
a grass-roots approach”, The Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 13-18.
Qi, J. and Ellinger, A.E. (2017), “A conceptual framework of organizational orientation antecedents of
sales and operations planning”, in Stieler, M. (Ed.), Creating Marketing Magic and Innovative 45
Future Marketing Trends, Springer, Cham, pp. 1319-1330.
Rice, J. and Stanton, D. (2012), “Is talent management the next frontier for S&OP?”, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 8-9.
Saenz, M.J. and Koufteros, X. (2015), “Special issue on literature reviews in supply chain management
and logistics”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 45
Nos 1/2, pp. 2-15.
Sagar, N. (2010), “Delivering the plan: the CPFR and S&OP continuum”, The Journal of Business
Schlegel, G.L. and Murray, P. (2010), “Next generation of S&OP: scenario planning with predictive
analytics & digital modelling”, The Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 20-30.
Schmitz, M. (2016), “Dealing with pharmaceutical supply-chain complexities”, Pharmaceutical
Technology Outsourcing Resources Supplement, Vol. 2016, No. 2, pp. 28-29, 56.
Sehgal, S., Sahay, B.S. and Goyal, S.K. (2006), “Reengineering the supply chain in a paint company”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 No. 8,
pp. 655-670.
Sheldon, D.H. (2006), World Class Sales & Operations Planning: A Guide to Successful Implementation
and Robust Execution, J. Ross Publishing, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Singh, S.K. and Lee, J.B. (2013), “How to use what-if analysis in sales and operations planning”, The
Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 4-14.
Smith, L., Andraski, J.C. and Fawcett, S.E. (2010), “Integrated business planning: a roadmap to linking
S&OP and CPFR”, The Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 4-13.
Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2008), “Contingency research in operations management practices”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 697-713.
Stadtler, H. and Kliger, C. (2008), Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning: Concepts, Models,
Software, and Case Studies, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New Delhi.
Stahl, R.A. (2010), “Executive S&OP: managing to achieve consensus”, Foresight, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 34-38.
Swaim, J.A., Maloni, M., Bower, P. and Mello, J. (2016), “Antecedents to effective sales and operations
planning”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 6, pp. 1279-1294.
Tate, W.L., Mollenkopf, D., Stank, T. and Da Silva, A.L. (2015), “Integrating supply and demand”,
MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 16-18.
Thomé, A.M.T., Sousa, R.S. and Scavarda, L.F. (2014a), “The impact of sales and operations planning
practices on manufacturing operational performance”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 2108-2121.
Thomé, A.M.T., Sousa, R.S. and Scavarda, L.F. (2014b), “Complexity as contingency in sales and
operations planning”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114 No. 5, pp. 678-695.
Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Fernandez, N.S. and Scavarda, A.J. (2012a), “Sales and operations
planning: a research synthesis”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 138 No. 1,
pp. 1-13.
Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Fernandez, N.S. and Scavarda, A.J. (2012b), “Sales and operations
planning and the firm performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 359-381.
IJPDLM Tuomikangas, N. and Kaipia, R. (2014), “A coordination framework for sales and operations planning
48,1 (S&OP): synthesis from the literature”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 154
No. 1, pp. 243-262.
Wacker, J.G. (2004), “A theory of formal conceptual definitions: developing theory-building
measurement instruments”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 629-650.
Wagner, S.M., Ullrich, K.K. and Transchel, S. (2014), “The game plan for aligning the organization”,
Business Horizons, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 189-201.
46
Wallace, T. and Stahl, B. (2008a), “The demand planning process in executive S&OP”, The Journal of
Wallace, T. and Stahl, B. (2008b), Sales and Operations Planning: The How-To Handbook,
T.F. Wallace & Company.

Wells, B. (2015), “S&OP: organic valley’s journey”, The Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 34 No. 2,
pp. 26-28.
Corresponding author
Jesper Kristensen can be contacted at: jk@business.aau.dk
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
View publication stats

1.context-Based Sales and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.context-Based Sales and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Context-based sales and operations planning (S&OP) research: A literature

Article in International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management · January 2018

Jesper Kristensen Patrik Jonsson

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

RePlan (Resource efficient planning for production networks) View project

Design science research View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

To cite this document:

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

Jesper Kristensen Received 17 November 2017

Revised 3 December 2017

Response variables: S&OP design

Contextual variables Response variables Performance variables

Industry, dynamic- and detail S&OP in general

Step 1: formulating questions

Step 2: locating studies

Step 3: selecting and evaluating studies

Add from existing literature reviews

Add from practicioner journals (2014-)

Step 4: analysing and synthesising

Literature review findings

Coding key Options

Contextual variable See Table II (Specific and general area)

Contextual variables Response variables Performance variables Contribution types

Contextual variables Response variables Performance variables Contribution types

Contextual variables Response variables Performance variables Contribution types

positive performance outcomes.

effect on operational performance in companies experiencing high market uncertainty.

Hierarchical planning framework

Future research areas for context-based S&OP research

Literature Literature If yes: how is performance affected

design and/or S&OP

Literature Literature If yes: how is performance affected

framework can be expected to

Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 45 Nos 9/10, pp. 861-886.

T.F. Wallace & Company.

View publication stats

You might also like