The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm

IJPPM
53,8 IT enablement of supply chains:
modeling the enablers
Sanjay Jharkharia
700 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bundelkhand Institute of Engineering
and Technology Jhansi, Jhansi, India, and
Received February 2004 Ravi Shankar
Revised June 2004 Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
Accepted June 2004 New Delhi, India

Keywords Supply chain management, Communication technologies, Structural analysis,

Modelling
Abstract Some enablers support the information technology (IT) enablement of supply chains. The
aim of this paper is to understand mutual influences of these enablers and also to identify those
enablers which support other enablers (“driving enablers”) and those which are most influenced by
others (“dependent enablers”). A questionnaire-based survey has been conducted to rank these
enablers. The results of the survey and the interpretive structural modeling (ISM) methodology have
been used to evolve mutual relationships among these enablers. It is observed that two enablers,
namely “awareness about use of IT in supply chains” and “trust among supply chain partners”, have
high driving power and therefore deserve serious attention. The study concludes with a discussion and
managerial implications.

International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management
Vol. 53 No. 8, 2004
pp. 700-712
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/17410400410569116
Introduction
Information sharing among partners is a basic enabler for the effective management of
a supply chain. Information sharing is facilitated by recent advances in information
technology (IT) (Lee and Whang, 2000). Consequently, there is a global trend towards
IT enablement of supply chains. Many enablers support the integration and IT
enablement of supply chains. These enablers not only support the process of
IT enablement, but also influence one another. It is therefore important to understand
their mutual relationship so that those enablers which support other enablers (called
“driving enablers”) and those which are most influenced by others (called “driven
enablers”) are identified. As a result, top management may direct appropriate attention
to these enablers for effective management of the supply chain.
Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) is a well-established methodology for
identifying relationships among specific items which define a problem or an issue
(Sage, 1977). Therefore, in this research, supply chain enablers have been analyzed
using the ISM approach, which shows the interrelationships of the enablers, their
driving power, and dependencies.
In this study, ten enablers have been short-listed for analysis. This was done on the
basis of literature review and the opinions of experts from both industry and academia.
Through a nationwide questionnaire survey on Indian manufacturing industries, the
influence of these ten enablers on the IT enablement of supply chains has been
The authors would like to put on record their appreciation to the two anonymous referees for their
valuable suggestions, which have enhanced the quality of the paper over its earlier version.
identified. Another purpose of the survey was to facilitate experts in developing a IT enablement of
relationships matrix. Pearson correlations, as obtained from the questionnaire survey, supply chains
have been used in this regard. In accordance with the ISM methodology, the opinions of
experts were sought in developing the relationship matrix, which is later used in the
development of the ISM model.
The main objectives of this paper are:
.
to identify and rank the enablers in the IT enablement of supply chains; 701
.
to establish relationships among the identified enablers using ISM; and
.
to discuss the managerial implications of this research and suggest directions for
future research.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section discusses the
identification of enablers. This is followed by the relevant findings of the questionnaire
survey and the use of the ISM methodology. The results of this research are followed
by a discussion and conclusions.

Enablers in the IT enablement of a supply chain

As the use of IT in supply chains is a high priority, it is prudent for managers to
identify important enablers. Suitable strategies may then be developed to use these
enablers towards the IT enablement of supply chains.
Shaw (2000) has noted that security and access privilege are two important issues in
implementing internet and extranet technologies in supply chains. In this regard,
Warren and Hutchinson (2000) have stressed the need of trust and security aspects
when using IT in supply chains. To counter security problems, many researchers
(Bender, 2000; Kilpatrick and Factor, 2000; LaLonde, 2000) have stressed the need for a
reliable IT infrastructure in supply chains. Forge (1994) has stated that low-cost and
high-power computing techniques will catalyze new thinking about the core business
processes of the value chain.
However, such a reliable IT infrastructure is not achievable without funds being
available (Bender, 2000; Kilpatrick and Factor, 2000). Sometimes, for effective supply chain
management (SCM), the organizational hierarchy also needs to be changed (Hines et al.,
1998; Oleson, 1998; Marien, 2000). Under these situations, the role of top management
assumes significance (Andraski, 1998; Akkermans et al., 1999; Kilpatrick and Factor, 2000;
LaLonde, 2000).
As the IT enablement of a supply chain is a strategic and capital-intensive issue,
many researchers have highlighted the importance of mutual trust for long-term
relationships and the confidentiality of information among partners (Kilpatrick and
Factor, 2000; Agarwal and Shankar, 2003). Further, the implementation of a
cross-organizational information system in a supply chain is costly, time-consuming
and risky. Partners may not have a consensus on the specifications and adoption of a
technical system to be used in a supply chain (Lee and Whang, 2000).
In order to achieve the above-mentioned objective, there is a need for proper planning
and collaboration in the supply chain (Lummus et al., 1998; Cox, 1999; Bender, 2000).
Regarding collaborative planning in a supply chain, Cigolini et al. (2004) have stated that
integrated databases regarding sell-outs, forecasts, inventories and production orders are
a means to provide each firm in the chain with information originating in the other nodes
of the system. A supply chain-wide IT strategy (Anderson et al., 1997) with strategic
IJPPM vision (Fawcett and Smith, 1997; Bovet and Sheffi, 1998; Lummus et al., 1998; Bender,
53,8 2000) may help to sort out many supply chain-related problems. Profit-sharing among
partners due to supply chain integration is also an issue which has been referred to in the
literature (Poirier and Reiter, 1996; Tyndall et al., 1998; Kilpatrick and Factor, 2000).
Russell and Hoag (2004) have observed that the most significant challenges in
implementing IT are not technical in nature, but human. IT implementations have
702 faltered because of a lack of user awareness or because of a firm’s culture. Keeping these
considerations in mind, a summary of this literature review is presented in Table I.
Based on literature review and discussions with experts from both industry and
academia, ten enablers were short-listed and used in the questionnaire survey. These
ten enablers, along with the results of the survey, are presented in Table II.

Methodology
A questionnaire-based survey and ISM were used to achieve the research objectives.
These methodologies and their respective results are discussed in the next two sections.

Questionnaire survey
The main objective of the questionnaire survey in this study was to facilitate experts in
developing a relationships matrix as a first step towards developing an ISM-based model.
The questionnaire had a wide range of research objectives and involved many questions.
However, to remain within the scope and objectives of this paper, only one question
relating to the enablers of IT-enabled SCM was used and reported in this study.

S. no. Enablers References

1. Awareness about use of IT Russell and Hoag (2004)

in supply chain
2. Collaborative planning
3. Confidence and excellent professional skills
from the various supply network partners
4. Firm culture
5. Funds for IT enablement
6. High level of supply chain
integration
7. Low-cost, high-power computing
8. Profit-sharing due to IT enablement
9. Reliable IT infrastructure
10. Security of online information
11. Strategic vision
12. Suitable organizational hierarchy
13. Supply-chain wide IT strategy
14. Top management commitment
Table I. 15. Trust in SCM linkages
Enablers and references
Lummus et al. (1998), Cox (1999), Bender (2000),
Cigolini et al. (2004)
Auramo et al. (2002)
Russell and Hoag (2004)
Bender (2000), Kilpatrick and Factor (2000)
Cigolini et al. (2004), Russell and Hoag (2004)
Forge (1994)
Tyndall et al. (1998), Kilpatrick and Factor (2000),
Poirier and Reiter (1996)
Bender (2000), Kilpatrick and Factor (2000), LaLonde
(2000)
Shaw (2000), Warren and Hutchinson (2000)
Fawcett and Smith (1997), Bovet and Sheffi (1998),
Lummus et al. (1998), Bender (2000)
Hines et al. (1998), Oleson (1998), Marien (2000)
Anderson et al. (1997)
Andraski (1998), Akkermans et al. (1999), Kilpatrick
and Factor (2000), LaLonde (2000), Russell and Hoag
(2004)
Kilpatrick and Factor (2000), Agarwal and Shankar
(2003)
In this question, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of ten listed IT enablement of
enablers on a five-point Likert scale. On this scale, 1 and 5 correspond to “no supply chains
importance” and “very high importance”, respectively. Pearson correlations among the
enablers, as obtained from the survey, were used. The questionnaire was administered
on companies from Indian manufacturing industries. The sample was selected from the
2000 directory of ISO 9000 companies (Indian Product Promotion Centre, 2000) and
India’s 500 largest wealth creating companies (Gandhok et al., 2002). Of the 500 703
questionnaires sent, 108 usable responses were received, which resulted in a response
rate of 21.6 per cent. Cronbach’s coefficient (a) was calculated to test the reliability and
internal consistency of the responses. The value of a in this study was found to be 0.81.
The relevant descriptive statistics are shown in Table II. In Table II, enablers are
presented in decreasing order of their significance. Pearson’s bivariate two-tailed
correlation test was conducted to find correlations among the enablers on SPSS
(Version 10.00) software. The correlation coefficients are presented in Table III.

ISM methodology and model development

The ISM methodology helps to impose order and direction on the complex
relationships among elements of a system (Sage, 1977). For the complex problem under
consideration here, a number of enablers may be affecting the IT enablement of supply

S. no. Enablers Mean score Rank SD

1. Supply-chain wide IT strategy 3.64 1 1.03

2. Profit sharing due to IT enablement 3.29 2 1.16
3. High level of supply chain integration 3.05 3 1.32
4. Top management commitment 2.91 4 1.18
5. Security of online information 2.81 5 1.27
6. Trust in supply chain linkages 2.73 6 1.19 Table II.
7. Collaborative planning 2.71 7 1.26 Survey results related to
8. Reliable IT infrastructure 2.63 8 1.14 enablers in the IT
9. Funds for IT enablement 2.53 9 1.37 enablement of a supply
10. Awareness about use of IT in supply chains 2.47 10 1.24 chain

Enablers 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2

1. Supply-chain wide IT strategy 0.203 0.109 0.259 0.335 0.189 0.404 0.232 0.562 0.297
2. Profit sharing due to IT
enablement 0.107 0.316 0.224 0.192 0.402 0.234 0.324 0.293
3. High level of supply chain
integration 0.276 0.391 0.428 0.364 0.459 0.416 0.257
4. Top management commitment 0.360 0.290 0.331 0.452 0.394 0.297
5. Security of online information 0.359 0.123 0.229 0.301 0.372
6. Trust in supply chain linkages 0.130 0.255 0.094 0.628
7. Collaborative planning 0.320 0.587 0.395
8. Reliable IT infrastructure 0.362 0.269
9. Funds for IT enablement 0.312
10. Awareness about use of IT Table III.
in supply chains 1.00 Correlation coefficients
IJPPM chains. However, the direct and indirect relationships between the enablers describe
53,8 the situation far more accurately than the individual factors taken into isolation.
Therefore, ISM develops insights into collective understandings of these relationships.
The various steps involved in the ISM technique are:
(1) identification of elements which are relevant to the problem or issues – this
could be done by survey or any group problem-solving technique;
704 (2) establishing a contextual relationship between elements with respect to which
pairs of elements would be examined;
(3) developing a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) of elements which
indicates pair-wise relationship between elements of the system;
(4) developing a reachability matrix from the SSIM, and checking the matrix for
transitivity – transitivity of the contextual relation is a basic assumption in
ISM which states that if element A is related to B and B is related to C, then A is
necessarily related to C;
(5) partitioning of the reachability matrix into different levels;
(6) based on the relationships given above in the reachability matrix, drawing a
directed graph (digraph), and removing the transitive links;
(7) converting the resultant digraph into an ISM-based model by replacing element
nodes with the statements; and
(8) reviewing the model to check for conceptual inconsistency, and making the
necessary modifications.
The above steps, which lead to the development of ISM model, are illustrated below.
Formation of structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM). Two experts, one from
industry and one from academia, were consulted to identify the nature of contextual
relationships among enablers. Although the ISM methodology suggests the use of expert
opinions alone (based on management techniques such as brainstorming, the nominal
group technique, etc.) in developing the contextual relationship, the correlation
coefficients as obtained from the questionnaire survey were also used to facilitate the
experts in identifying the nature of these relationships. To analyze the enablers in
developing SSIM, the following four symbols were used to denote the direction of
relationship between enablers (i and j):
V – enabler i will help achieve enabler j;
A – enabler j will be achieved by enabler i;
X – enablers i and j will help achieve each other; and
O – enablers i and j are unrelated.
The following statements explain the use of symbols V, A, X and O in SSIM:
.
enablers 1 and 9 are unrelated (O);
.
enabler 1 helps achieve enabler 8 (V ); and
.
enabler 2 will be achieved by enabler 9 (A).
Based on these contextual relationships, the SSIM is developed (Table IV).
Enablers 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2
IT enablement of
supply chains
1. Supply-chain wide IT strategy A O V A A A A X V
2. Profit sharing due to IT enablement O A A A A A A A
3. High level of supply chain integration A A X A A A A
4. Top management commitment A V V V A V
5. Security of online information A O A A A 705
6. Trust in supply chain linkages O V O V
7. Collaborative planning A X V
8. Reliable IT infrastructure A A
9. Funds for IT enablement A Table IV.
10. Awareness about use of IT in supply chains Correlation coefficients

Reachability matrix. The SSIM has been converted into a binary matrix, called the
“initial reachability matrix” (Table V) by substituting V, A, X and O with 1 and 0 as per
the following rules:
(1) if the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 1 and the ( j, i) entry becomes 0;
(2) if the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 0 and the ( j, i) entry becomes 1;
(3) if the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 1 and the ( j, i) entry also becomes 1; and
(4) if the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is 0, the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix
becomes 0 and the ( j, i) entry also becomes 0.
After incorporating the transitivities as described in step (4) of the ISM methodology,
the final reachability matrix is shown in Table VI. In Table VI, the driving power and
the dependence of each enabler are also shown. The driving power for each enabler is
the total number of enablers (including itself), which it may help achieve. Dependence
is the total number of enablers (including itself), which may help achieving it. These
driving powers and dependencies are used in the classification of enablers into four
groups, i.e. autonomous, dependent, linkage, and driver enablers.
Level partitions. From the final reachability matrix, the reachability and antecedent
set (Warfield, 1974) for each enabler are found. The reachability set consists of the

Enablers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Supply-chain wide IT strategy 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

2. Profit sharing due to IT enablement 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3. High level of supply chain integration 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
4. Top management commitment 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0
5. Security of online information 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
6. Trust in supply chain linkages 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0
7. Collaborative planning 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
8. Reliable IT infrastructure 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
9. Funds for IT enablement 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Table V.
10. Awareness about use of IT in supply chains 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 Initial reachability matrix
IJPPM
Enablers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Driving power
53,8
1. Supply-chain wide IT strategy 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
2. Profit sharing due to IT enablement 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3. High level of supply chain integration 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
4. Top management commitment 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 8
706 5. Security of online information 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 5
6. Trust in supply chain linkages 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 9
7. Collaborative planning 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 7
Table VI. 8. Reliable IT infrastructure 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 5
Final reachability matrix 9. Funds for IT enablement 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 7
after incorporating 10. Awareness about use of IT in supply chains 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 9
transitivities Dependence 9 10 9 3 9 1 5 9 5 1

element itself and the other elements which it may help achieve, whereas the
antecedent set consists of the element itself and the other elements which may help in
achieving it. Thereafter, the intersection of these sets is derived for all the enablers. The
enablers for which the reachability and the intersection sets are the same occupy the
top level in the ISM hierarchy. The top-level element in the hierarchy would not help
achieve any other element above its own level. Once the top-level element is identified,
it is separated out from the other elements. Then, the same process is repeated to find
out the elements in the next level. This process is continued until the level of each
element is found (see Tables VII-XI). These levels help in building the digraph and the
final model.

Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
1. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 8, 9, 10 1, 3, 5, 8
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
2. 2 7, 8, 9, 10 2 I
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
3. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 8, 9, 10 1, 3, 5, 8
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,
4. 8, 9 4, 6, 10 4
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
5. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 8, 9, 10 1, 3, 5, 8
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
6. 7, 8, 9 6 6
1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8,
7. 9 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 7, 9
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 8, 9, 10 1, 3, 5, 8
1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8,
Table VII. 9. 9 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 7, 9
Partition of reachability 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,
matrix: first iteration 10. 8, 9, 10 10 10
Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
IT enablement of
supply chains
1. 1, 3, 5, 8 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1, 3, 5, 8 II
3. 1, 3, 5, 8 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1, 3, 5, 8 II
4. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 4, 6, 10 4
5. 1, 3, 5, 8 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1, 3, 5, 8 II
6. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 6 6 707
7. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 7, 9
8. 1, 3, 5, 8 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 1, 3, 5, 8 II Table VIII.
9. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 7, 9 Partition of reachability
10. 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 10 10 matrix: second iteration

Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

4. 4, 7, 9 4, 6, 10 4
6. 4, 6, 7, 9 6 6
7. 7, 9 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 7, 9 III Table IX.
9. 7, 9 4, 6, 7, 9, 10 7, 9 III Partition of reachability
10. 4, 7, 9, 10 10 10 matrix: third iteration

Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

4. 4 4, 6, 10 4 IV Table X.
6. 4, 6 6 6 Partition of reachability
10. 4, 10 10 10 matrix: fourth iteration

Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level

Table XI.
6. 6 6 6 V Partition of reachability
10. 10 10 10 V matrix: fifth iteration

In Table VII, enabler 2 (i.e. “Profit-sharing due to IT enablement”) is found at level

I. Thus, it will be positioned at the top of the ISM model. In Table VIII, four enablers
(i.e. 1, 3, 5 and 8) are jointly found at the second level in the ISM model.
Classification of enablers. Based on the driving power and the dependence, these
enablers have been classified into four categories:
(1) autonomous enablers;
(2) dependent enablers;
(3) linkage enablers; and
(4) independent enablers.
This classification is similar to that used by Mandal and Deshmukh (1994). The driver
power and dependence of each of these enablers are shown in Table VI. The driver
power-dependence diagram is shown in Figure 1. To illustrate Figure 1, it is observed
IJPPM
53,8

708

Figure 1.
Driving power and
dependence diagram for
enablers

from Table IV that enabler 1 has a driver power of 5 and a dependence of 9, and
therefore in Figure 1 it is positioned at a place which corresponds to a driver power of 5
and a dependency of 9. The objective behind this classification is to analyze the driver
power and dependency of the enablers.
In this classification, the first cluster includes “autonomous enablers” that have a
weak driver power and weak dependence. These enablers are relatively disconnected
from the system. In the present case, there is no autonomous enabler. The second
cluster consists of the dependent variables that have weak driver power but strong
dependence. In the present case, enablers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 are in the category of
dependent variables. The third cluster includes linkage variables that have strong
driver power and dependence. Any action on these variables will have an effect on the
others and also a feedback effect on themselves. In this case, there is no linkage
variable. The fourth cluster includes independent variables with strong driver power
and weak dependence. In this case, enablers 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are in the category of
driver enablers.
Formation of the ISM model. From the final reachability matrix (Table VI), the
structural model is generated. If there is a relationship between the enablers i and j, this
is shown by an arrow which points from i to j. This graph is called a directed graph, or
digraph. After removing the transitivities – see step (4) of the ISM methodology – the
digraph is finally converted into the ISM-based model (Figure 2).

Discussion and conclusion

The results of the survey indicate that “Supply chain wide IT strategy”, “Profit-sharing
due to IT enablement”, and “High level of supply chain integration” are the top three
enablers. These enablers also occupy high levels in the ISM-based model. The enabler
 IT enablement of
supply chains

709

Figure 2.
ISM-based model of the
enablers for the IT
enablement of supply
chains

“Awareness about use of IT in supply chains” is at the lowest level in both the survey
and the model. However, the ISM model suggests that it has very high driving power.
The enabler “Supply chain wide IT strategy”, which has emerged as the highest rated
enabler in the survey, is located at the second highest level in the hierarchy of the ISM
model. Awareness about the use of IT has the lowest rank in both the survey and the
model. This could be due to a perception on behalf of the respondents that they have
enough knowledge about the use of IT in SCM. However, it has a very high driving
power in the model, and therefore its importance cannot be taken lightly. Those
enablers which are at the bottom of the model with greater driving power are known as
“strategic enablers”. These enablers need greater attention from top management.
This study has other implications for practising managers. The enablers identified
need to be overcome by the management of the supply chain partner companies. The
driver power-dependence diagram gives some valuable insights about the relative
importance and interdependencies of the enablers. Other managerial implications
emerging from this study are discussed below:
.
The driver power dependence diagram (Figure 1) indicates that there are no
autonomous enablers in the process of IT enablement. Autonomous variables are
weak drivers and weak dependents and do not have much influence on the
system. The absence of any autonomous variables (enablers) in this study
indicates that all the considered enablers influence the process of IT enablement
IJPPM of a supply chain, and management should therefore pay attention to all the
53,8 enablers.
.
It can be observed from Figure 1 that five enablers, namely “Top management
commitment” (enabler 4), “Trust in supply chain linkages” (enabler 6),
“Collaborative planning” (enabler 7), “Funds for IT enablement” (enabler 9)
and “Awareness about use of IT in supply chains” (enabler 10), have strong
710 driver power and less dependency. Therefore, these are strong drivers and can be
treated as the key enablers. As these enablers relate to all the entities of a supply
chain, the major stakeholders in the supply chain (normally the original
equipment manufacturer (OEM)) should take the initiative to address these. Joint
meetings at regular intervals of all the entities of the supply chain may prove
useful in this regard.
. It is further observed from the mean values of the enablers (as obtained from the
survey) that the range mean values of the ten enablers on the five-point Likert
scale are 2.47-3.64. This implies that none of the enablers are accorded an
overwhelming importance by the respondents, although at the same time none of
the enablers is considered insignificant. Similar results are also obtained from
Figure 1. It can be observed from Figure 1 that none of the enablers could find a
place in the category of autonomous (least significant) and linkage (most
significant) enablers. These observations led us to conclude that all the ten
enablers are important (although in varying degrees) for the purpose of IT
enablement of a supply chain.
Finally, it is interesting to examine the scope of future research. In this research,
through ISM, a relationship model among enablers has been developed. This model has
been developed on the basis of input from experts, as suggested in the ISM technique.
However, this model has not been statistically validated. Structural equation modeling
(SEM), also commonly known as the linear structural relationship approach, has the
capability of testing the validity of such a hypothetical model. Therefore, testing the
validity of this model may be a topic for future research. It is to be noted here that
although SEM has the capability of statistically testing an already developed
theoretical model, it cannot develop an initial model for testing. On the other hand, ISM
has the capability to develop an initial model through managerial techniques such as
brainstorming, nominal group techniques (NGT), etc. Normally, management may not
have enough time to conduct a survey, and therefore the scope for a statistically
validated model is limited. ISM is a supportive analytic tool for this situation. However,
it may be that, due to the complementary nature of these techniques, future research
may be directed first towards developing an initial model using ISM, and then
validating it using SEM.

References
Agarwal, A. and Shankar, R. (2003), “Online trust building in e-enabled supply chain”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 324-34.
Akkermans, H., Bogerd, P. and Vos, B. (1999), “Virtuous and vicious cycles on the road towards
international supply chain management”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 5/6, pp. 565-81.
Anderson, D.L., Britt, F.E. and Favre, D.J. (1997), “The seven principles of supply chain IT enablement of
management”, Supply Chain Management Review, Spring, pp. 31-41.
supply chains
Andraski, J.C. (1998), “Leadership and the realization of supply chain collaboration”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 9-11.
Auramo, J., Aminoff, A. and Panakivi, M. (2002), “Research agenda for e-business logistics based
on professional opinions”, International Journal of Physical Distribution Management,
Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 513-31. 711
Bender, P.S. (2000), “Debunking five supply chain myths”, Supply Chain Management Review,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 52-8.
Bovet, D. and Sheffi, Y. (1998), “The brave new world of supply chain management”, Supply
Chain Management Review, Spring, pp. 14-23.
Cigolini, R., Cozzi, M. and Perona, M. (2004), “A new framework for supply chain management:
conceptual model and empirical tests”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7-41.
Cox, A. (1999), “Power, value and supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 167-75.
Fawcett, S.E. and Smith, S.R. (1997), “Developing a logistics capability to improve the
performance of international operations”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 101-28.
Forge, S. (1994), “High-power computing and the value chain: IT use in the packaged consumer
goods industry”, Futures, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 430-52.
Gandhok, T., Kulkarni, S. and Dwivedi, A. (2002), “India’s largest business creators”, Business
Today, 17 February, pp. 44-61.
Hines, P., Rich, N., Bicheno, J. and Brunt, D. (1998), “Value stream management”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 25-42.
Indian Product Promotion Centre (2000), Directory of ISO 9000/14000 and QS 9000 Certified
Companies in India, Indian Product Promotion Centre, New Delhi.
Kilpatrick, J. and Factor, R. (2000), “Logistics in Canada survey: tracking year 2000 supply chain
issues and trends”, Materials Management and Distribution, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 16-20.
LaLonde, B.J. (2000), “The gap creep”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 7-9.
Lee, H.L. and Whang, S. (2000), “Information sharing in a supply chain”, International Journal of
Technology Management, Vol. 20 No. 3/4, pp. 373-87.
Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J. and Alber, K.L. (1998), “Strategic supply chain planning”,
Production & Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 49-58.
Mandal, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1994), “Vendor selection using interpretive structural modeling
(ISM)”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 52-9.
Marien, E.J. (2000), “The four supply chain enablers”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 60-8.
Oleson, J.D. (1998), “Developing custom manufacturing supply chain capabilities”, National
Productivity Review, Spring, pp. 73-80.
Poirier, C.C. and Reiter, S.E. (1996), Supply Chain Optimization, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco,
CA.
Russell, D.M. and Hoag, A.M. (2004), “People and information technology in the supply chain:
social and organizational influences on adoption”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 102-22.
IJPPM Sage, A.P. (1977), Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large-scale Systems,
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, pp. 91-164.
53,8 Shaw, M.J. (2000), “Information based manufacturing with the web”, The International Journal of
Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 115-29.
Tyndall, G., Gopal, C., Partsch, W. and Kamauff, J. (1998), Supercharging Supply Chains, Wiley,
New York, NY.
712 Warfield, J.N. (1974), “Developing interconnection matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 81-7.
Warren, M. and Hutchinson, W. (2000), “Cyber attacks against supply chain management
systems: a short note”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 30 No. 7/8, pp. 710-16.