This document presents a framework examining the relationships between supply chain management (SCM) practices, competitive advantage, and organizational performance. The researchers developed five dimensions of SCM practices: strategic supplier partnership, customer relationship, level of information sharing, quality of information sharing, and postponement. They collected data from 196 organizations to test the relationships proposed in the framework using structural equation modeling. The results indicated that higher levels of SCM practice can lead to enhanced competitive advantage and improved organizational performance, and competitive advantage can also have a direct, positive impact on organizational performance.
Determinantsof Strategic Supply Chain Management in Enhancing Organization Pe...paperpublications3
Abstract: The purpose of the study was to investigate the determinantsof strategic supply chain management in enhancing organization performance, a case of Eldoret Water and Sanitation Company. The target population consisted of all the managers and employees at ELDOWAS. The study adopted a descriptive survey research design, in which both stratified and simple random sampling techniques were utilized in selecting the participants for the study. This study used a sample of 60 employees and management representatives. Questionnaire, interview schedule and document analysis were be used to collect data. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistical technique that included frequencies, percentages and means. Findings of the study found out that 53.3% of organisation performance was influenced by the four determinants studied in the research. Results on coefficient of variation showed that a unit change in supply chain infrastructure would affect organisation performance by (0.14β1), resource sharing (0.062β2), information flow (0.457β3) and organisation linkage (0.215β4). All the four determinants looked in this research were found to have positive influence; supply chain infrastructure (r=0.505), resource sharing (r=0.567), information flow (r=0.705) and organisation linkage (r=0.322) on organisation performance. The study recommends that ICT should be fully integrated and utilised in sharing information between the organisation and partner in the supply chain management, information systems and flow need to be enhanced to ensure that the suppliers and customers receive it on time.
Keywords: Determinants, Information flow, Infrastructure,Supply Chain Management & Resource sharing.
Effect of Supply Chain Management Competencies on Organization Performance a ...paperpublications3
Abstract: Supply chains as one of the governance aspect are complex systems with different structures and power proportions between partners. Managers would be in a better position to meet the challenges of global supply chain processes if they understand the implementation issues and their roles on supply chain effectiveness. The main purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of supply chain management competencies on organizational performance and specifically the effect of innovation Orientation on organizational performance. Explanatory research design was used. The population of study comprised 244 employees from selected Parastatals in Nairobi City County. Questionnaires were used to collect data and data was analyzed using descriptive statistics like means, frequencies, and percentages, and inferential statistics, Pearson correlation and multiple regressions. Results indicated that innovation orientation has significant and positive effect on organizational performance. This concludes that firms whose managers have innovation orientation improve performance. It is recommended that there should be further research and development on innovative and leading organizational practices in order to enhance performance and need for supply chain management policies and procedures that follow an appropriate sequence and structure.
Determinants of Supply Chain Performance of Indian Manufacturing OrganizationsWaqas Tariq
This paper aims at proposing various determinants of supply chain performance of Indian manufacturing organizations. The determinants are summarized based on extensive literature review of empirical research articles on supply chain management (SCM) and performance measurement approaches. This study is a part of a larger research project exploring SC related practices. A critical analysis is carried out so as to identify research gaps in context of performance measurement of supply chains, as well as to propose directions for future research. A conceptual model is also proposed. Critical investigation of selected articles led to an idea that there can be significant effect of selected variables on SC Performance. It is to be seen that how various parameters, taken from the literature review, affect SC performance and ultimately contributing to its competitiveness. The various parameters like supplier-buyer relations, external supply chain, environmental factors, human metrics, information sharing and performance measurement approaches are taken in a single study in the context of Indian manufacturing organizations. Based on a pilot study with sample size of 100, empirical tests resulted in reduction of items. Based on the obtained results, the organizations can enhance the SCM performance by improving the current practices/strategies through focusing on the determinants that significantly influence SCM performance. Further research can be carried out by using data of various supply chains of other sectors and industries of India to generalize the research.
The Influence of Supply Chain Integration on the Intrapreneurship in Supply C...IJERA Editor
These days, SMEs pay a lot of attention to concept of Supply Chain Management (SCM) in order to achieve
competitiveness. The logic behind such act is integrating the activities of value creation within any kind of
organizational context. Such integrity would collaborate with managers to accomplish the competitive edge that
they are aiming to achieve. The goal of current research is to identify scopes of a unique construct which is
known as Entrepreneurial Supply Chain Management competency. Therefore, the notions of SCM and
entrepreneurship are being aligned together for evaluating the organizational performance. The outcomes
demonstrate that SCM in fact is a critical issue that can alter the organizational performance, thus, through
consideration of SCM, we should focus on supply chain integration and its impacts on intrapreneurship and
innovation of an organization. In order to be successful in such competitive context, SMEs need to provide
novel competences which are not imitable and to increase their application in supply chain and also to improve
their total performance.
The Club War Case Study Report by Sachin mathews Sachin Mathews
The objective of this study is to analyse Sam’s club and their current inefficiencies and provide suggestions to Mr.Jim who heads the reengineering team that can help his team formulate appropriate supply chain strategies in order to achieve lowest possible cost and attain greater competitive advantage. The paper provides a background of the current situation faced by club where the current inefficiencies are discussed and possible recommendations are then suggested.
ROLE OF SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL PERFORM...muo charles
ROLE OF SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE INDUSTRY IN KENYA. A CASE OF SAFARICOM LIMITED KENYA
Determinantsof Strategic Supply Chain Management in Enhancing Organization Pe...paperpublications3
Abstract: The purpose of the study was to investigate the determinantsof strategic supply chain management in enhancing organization performance, a case of Eldoret Water and Sanitation Company. The target population consisted of all the managers and employees at ELDOWAS. The study adopted a descriptive survey research design, in which both stratified and simple random sampling techniques were utilized in selecting the participants for the study. This study used a sample of 60 employees and management representatives. Questionnaire, interview schedule and document analysis were be used to collect data. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistical technique that included frequencies, percentages and means. Findings of the study found out that 53.3% of organisation performance was influenced by the four determinants studied in the research. Results on coefficient of variation showed that a unit change in supply chain infrastructure would affect organisation performance by (0.14β1), resource sharing (0.062β2), information flow (0.457β3) and organisation linkage (0.215β4). All the four determinants looked in this research were found to have positive influence; supply chain infrastructure (r=0.505), resource sharing (r=0.567), information flow (r=0.705) and organisation linkage (r=0.322) on organisation performance. The study recommends that ICT should be fully integrated and utilised in sharing information between the organisation and partner in the supply chain management, information systems and flow need to be enhanced to ensure that the suppliers and customers receive it on time.
Keywords: Determinants, Information flow, Infrastructure,Supply Chain Management & Resource sharing.
Effect of Supply Chain Management Competencies on Organization Performance a ...paperpublications3
Abstract: Supply chains as one of the governance aspect are complex systems with different structures and power proportions between partners. Managers would be in a better position to meet the challenges of global supply chain processes if they understand the implementation issues and their roles on supply chain effectiveness. The main purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of supply chain management competencies on organizational performance and specifically the effect of innovation Orientation on organizational performance. Explanatory research design was used. The population of study comprised 244 employees from selected Parastatals in Nairobi City County. Questionnaires were used to collect data and data was analyzed using descriptive statistics like means, frequencies, and percentages, and inferential statistics, Pearson correlation and multiple regressions. Results indicated that innovation orientation has significant and positive effect on organizational performance. This concludes that firms whose managers have innovation orientation improve performance. It is recommended that there should be further research and development on innovative and leading organizational practices in order to enhance performance and need for supply chain management policies and procedures that follow an appropriate sequence and structure.
Determinants of Supply Chain Performance of Indian Manufacturing OrganizationsWaqas Tariq
This paper aims at proposing various determinants of supply chain performance of Indian manufacturing organizations. The determinants are summarized based on extensive literature review of empirical research articles on supply chain management (SCM) and performance measurement approaches. This study is a part of a larger research project exploring SC related practices. A critical analysis is carried out so as to identify research gaps in context of performance measurement of supply chains, as well as to propose directions for future research. A conceptual model is also proposed. Critical investigation of selected articles led to an idea that there can be significant effect of selected variables on SC Performance. It is to be seen that how various parameters, taken from the literature review, affect SC performance and ultimately contributing to its competitiveness. The various parameters like supplier-buyer relations, external supply chain, environmental factors, human metrics, information sharing and performance measurement approaches are taken in a single study in the context of Indian manufacturing organizations. Based on a pilot study with sample size of 100, empirical tests resulted in reduction of items. Based on the obtained results, the organizations can enhance the SCM performance by improving the current practices/strategies through focusing on the determinants that significantly influence SCM performance. Further research can be carried out by using data of various supply chains of other sectors and industries of India to generalize the research.
The Influence of Supply Chain Integration on the Intrapreneurship in Supply C...IJERA Editor
These days, SMEs pay a lot of attention to concept of Supply Chain Management (SCM) in order to achieve
competitiveness. The logic behind such act is integrating the activities of value creation within any kind of
organizational context. Such integrity would collaborate with managers to accomplish the competitive edge that
they are aiming to achieve. The goal of current research is to identify scopes of a unique construct which is
known as Entrepreneurial Supply Chain Management competency. Therefore, the notions of SCM and
entrepreneurship are being aligned together for evaluating the organizational performance. The outcomes
demonstrate that SCM in fact is a critical issue that can alter the organizational performance, thus, through
consideration of SCM, we should focus on supply chain integration and its impacts on intrapreneurship and
innovation of an organization. In order to be successful in such competitive context, SMEs need to provide
novel competences which are not imitable and to increase their application in supply chain and also to improve
their total performance.
The Club War Case Study Report by Sachin mathews Sachin Mathews
The objective of this study is to analyse Sam’s club and their current inefficiencies and provide suggestions to Mr.Jim who heads the reengineering team that can help his team formulate appropriate supply chain strategies in order to achieve lowest possible cost and attain greater competitive advantage. The paper provides a background of the current situation faced by club where the current inefficiencies are discussed and possible recommendations are then suggested.
ROLE OF SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL PERFORM...muo charles
ROLE OF SUPPLIER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN OPTIMIZATION OF OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE IN TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE INDUSTRY IN KENYA. A CASE OF SAFARICOM LIMITED KENYA
Drawing on and integrating the resource-based view (RBV) and competitive dynamics literature,
this study developed an interaction model to explore competitive contests by investigating how the interaction
between technologically heterogeneous resources and competitive actions affects performance in the nascent
market. The proposed model was examined using structured content analysis and data extracted from more than
3,200 news articles regarding the interfirm rivalry between Google and Apple in the table industry. The findings,
first, indicate that in nascent markets, aggressive competitive action can exert a negative effect on firm
performance. Second, this paper presents empirical evidence supporting the RBV through testing how the
technological resource heterogeneity of these firms contributed to their performance (in terms of technological
value and technological rarity). Finally, we found that technological resource heterogeneity mitigates the
potentially negative effects of aggressive competitive action on the performance of high-technology firms during
the nascent cycle.
THE INFLUENCE OF COLLABORATION IN PROCUREMENT RELATIONSHIPSijmvsc
Supply Chain Management often requires independent organizations to work together to achieve shared
objectives. This collaboration is necessary when coordinated actions benefit the group more than the
uncoordinated efforts of individual firms. Despite the commonly reported benefits that can be gained in
close relationships, recent research has indicated that collaboration attempts between purchasing firms
and their suppliers have not been as widespread as anticipated. Using a survey of procurement
professionals, this research investigates how the purchasing function utilizes collaboration in its supply
chain relationships. Structural equation modeling is used to identify how information sharing, decision
synchronization, incentive alignment, collaborative communication, and trust impact collaboration, as well
as how collaboration impacts performance. Results from 86 survey responses indicate that firms are still
not fully utilizing collaborative relationships
We employ Cameroonian data on 162 Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) to test fourth competing hypotheses about the impact of Supply Chain Management (SCM) on their performance. The first hypothesis states that there is a relationship between Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for implementation of SCM and SME performance in terms of customer service and satisfaction
which supply chain strategies can guarantee higher manufacturer’s operational...INFOGAIN PUBLICATION
Due to the fact that scientists and practitioners alike have interested on the leveraging manufacturing companies’ operational performance, this research examined which supply chain strategies promise manufacturers higher operational performance. Later on, we clarified whether suitable resources can play an important role in the mentioned causal relationshipsas a moderator and improve the impact of the strategies on operational performance. This study is a descriptive-exploratory research in which primary data was collected from 80 Malaysian manufacturing companies. Bivariate Correlation and Multiple Regression in SPSS was applied for analyzing data. Output showed that many suppliers, few suppliers, and keiretsu network strategies enable manufacturers to achieve satisfactory level of operational performance; but, vertical integration. More importantly, suitable resources can leverage the effect of just vertical integration strategy on operational performance.
This Slideshare presentation is a partial preview of the full business document. To view and download the full document, please go here:
http://flevy.com/browse/business-document/organizational-excellence-framework-suppliers-and-partners-1423
BENEFITS OF DOCUMENT
1. Use criteria to select suppliers and partners
2. Develop win-win relationships with suppliers and partners
3. Work with suppliers and partners to develop new products, services and standards
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
This is an introductory workshop on suppliers and partners. It focuses on defining and implementing good supplier and partner practices that are covered in the Organizational Excellence Framework (copyright 2010 Dawn Ringrose) publication that integrates global excellence models and provides implementation guidelines for the practitioner. These practices have been validated by over 20 years of research.
The supplier and partner practices include: Selecting suppliers and partners on the basis of criteria; ? Developing win-win partnering arrangements; Sharing information with suppliers and partners that links to strategic and business plans; Involving suppliers and partners in the development of new products and services; Involving suppliers and partners in the development of social and environmental standards.
Each practice includes a definition, implementation guidelines and practical examples and may include applicable research findings. The workshop is formatted so that participants learn about best management practices related to the topic and have an opportunity to self-assess against the practices and develop an improvement plan to address gaps.
This workshop is part of a consulting toolkit that includes: the Organizational Excellence Framework publication, scenario games, automated assessments, holistic workshops for micro to large size organizations and modular workshops for each key management area (governance, leadership, planning, customers, employees, work processes, suppliers and partners, resource management, continuous improvement & performance measurement).
EFFECTS OF SUPPLIER EFFECTIVENESS ON ORGANIZATION PERFORMANCE AT KENYA SEED C...paperpublications3
Abstract:Achieving competitive advantage in this competitive business environment is a challenge many managers face. Most organizations are faced with the delays in product delivery, ability of suppliers to concert their operating environment to create value. The supplier ineffectiveness, which affects organizational performance, which is as a result of reluctance to develop suppliers, build relations, and establish quality management and failure to use strategies which make suppliers a competitive advantage tool is a challenge. Even the process of developing suppliers, selection and retention has not helped either. The study was carried out to establish the effect of supplier effectiveness on organizational performance at Kenya Seed Company, Kitale. The main objectives which guided the research included: to establish the effects of Supplier agility on organizational performance; to investigate the process visibility on organizational performance; to find out the effect of supplier willingness on organizational performance and to determine effect of supplier capabilities on organizational performance. To explore these, a cross sectional study design was used. The target population was 360 from which 190 sample size was deduced for the study. Data was collected using focused group discussions and small groups discussions self-administered questionnaires, interview guides and content analysis to investigate the effect of supplier effectiveness on organizational performance. Findings showed that supplier effectiveness has significant positive and negative effects on performance. It was found that all the four components of supplier effectiveness influence the three dimensions of performance. The study also found out that where supplier effectiveness is high, the performance on organization is also higher, especially in areas that are affected by suppliers even though they may be internal to the buyer organization. It was therefore concluded that supplier effectiveness is an essential strategic tool for performance improvement. Hence organizations need to build relations that enhance supplier effectiveness so that performance of both the suppliers and buyer organizations can realize the benefits of this relationship in the supply chain network.
The relationship between generic strategies and organizational performance: A...AI Publications
The main purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between generic strategies and organizational performance in selected furniture companies in Kurdistan.The researcher used quantitative research method to analyze the relationship between generic strategies and organizational performance of furniture companies in Kurdistan. The researcher printed and distributed 100 questionnaires, but received only 76 questionnaires from participants. Accordingly the sample size of this study is 76 unitsThe findings of this study revealed that the three generic strategies (cost strategy, differentiation strategy and focus strategy) have positive relationship with organizational performance in selected furniture companies in Kurdistan. A research could be completed in different businesses to see if similar outcomes will be gotten. This research likewise recommends that an exploration study could be done to decide factors impacting successful execution of effective strategy in the business.
Drawing on and integrating the resource-based view (RBV) and competitive dynamics literature,
this study developed an interaction model to explore competitive contests by investigating how the interaction
between technologically heterogeneous resources and competitive actions affects performance in the nascent
market. The proposed model was examined using structured content analysis and data extracted from more than
3,200 news articles regarding the interfirm rivalry between Google and Apple in the table industry. The findings,
first, indicate that in nascent markets, aggressive competitive action can exert a negative effect on firm
performance. Second, this paper presents empirical evidence supporting the RBV through testing how the
technological resource heterogeneity of these firms contributed to their performance (in terms of technological
value and technological rarity). Finally, we found that technological resource heterogeneity mitigates the
potentially negative effects of aggressive competitive action on the performance of high-technology firms during
the nascent cycle.
THE INFLUENCE OF COLLABORATION IN PROCUREMENT RELATIONSHIPSijmvsc
Supply Chain Management often requires independent organizations to work together to achieve shared
objectives. This collaboration is necessary when coordinated actions benefit the group more than the
uncoordinated efforts of individual firms. Despite the commonly reported benefits that can be gained in
close relationships, recent research has indicated that collaboration attempts between purchasing firms
and their suppliers have not been as widespread as anticipated. Using a survey of procurement
professionals, this research investigates how the purchasing function utilizes collaboration in its supply
chain relationships. Structural equation modeling is used to identify how information sharing, decision
synchronization, incentive alignment, collaborative communication, and trust impact collaboration, as well
as how collaboration impacts performance. Results from 86 survey responses indicate that firms are still
not fully utilizing collaborative relationships
We employ Cameroonian data on 162 Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) to test fourth competing hypotheses about the impact of Supply Chain Management (SCM) on their performance. The first hypothesis states that there is a relationship between Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for implementation of SCM and SME performance in terms of customer service and satisfaction
which supply chain strategies can guarantee higher manufacturer’s operational...INFOGAIN PUBLICATION
Due to the fact that scientists and practitioners alike have interested on the leveraging manufacturing companies’ operational performance, this research examined which supply chain strategies promise manufacturers higher operational performance. Later on, we clarified whether suitable resources can play an important role in the mentioned causal relationshipsas a moderator and improve the impact of the strategies on operational performance. This study is a descriptive-exploratory research in which primary data was collected from 80 Malaysian manufacturing companies. Bivariate Correlation and Multiple Regression in SPSS was applied for analyzing data. Output showed that many suppliers, few suppliers, and keiretsu network strategies enable manufacturers to achieve satisfactory level of operational performance; but, vertical integration. More importantly, suitable resources can leverage the effect of just vertical integration strategy on operational performance.
This Slideshare presentation is a partial preview of the full business document. To view and download the full document, please go here:
http://flevy.com/browse/business-document/organizational-excellence-framework-suppliers-and-partners-1423
BENEFITS OF DOCUMENT
1. Use criteria to select suppliers and partners
2. Develop win-win relationships with suppliers and partners
3. Work with suppliers and partners to develop new products, services and standards
DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
This is an introductory workshop on suppliers and partners. It focuses on defining and implementing good supplier and partner practices that are covered in the Organizational Excellence Framework (copyright 2010 Dawn Ringrose) publication that integrates global excellence models and provides implementation guidelines for the practitioner. These practices have been validated by over 20 years of research.
The supplier and partner practices include: Selecting suppliers and partners on the basis of criteria; ? Developing win-win partnering arrangements; Sharing information with suppliers and partners that links to strategic and business plans; Involving suppliers and partners in the development of new products and services; Involving suppliers and partners in the development of social and environmental standards.
Each practice includes a definition, implementation guidelines and practical examples and may include applicable research findings. The workshop is formatted so that participants learn about best management practices related to the topic and have an opportunity to self-assess against the practices and develop an improvement plan to address gaps.
This workshop is part of a consulting toolkit that includes: the Organizational Excellence Framework publication, scenario games, automated assessments, holistic workshops for micro to large size organizations and modular workshops for each key management area (governance, leadership, planning, customers, employees, work processes, suppliers and partners, resource management, continuous improvement & performance measurement).
EFFECTS OF SUPPLIER EFFECTIVENESS ON ORGANIZATION PERFORMANCE AT KENYA SEED C...paperpublications3
Abstract:Achieving competitive advantage in this competitive business environment is a challenge many managers face. Most organizations are faced with the delays in product delivery, ability of suppliers to concert their operating environment to create value. The supplier ineffectiveness, which affects organizational performance, which is as a result of reluctance to develop suppliers, build relations, and establish quality management and failure to use strategies which make suppliers a competitive advantage tool is a challenge. Even the process of developing suppliers, selection and retention has not helped either. The study was carried out to establish the effect of supplier effectiveness on organizational performance at Kenya Seed Company, Kitale. The main objectives which guided the research included: to establish the effects of Supplier agility on organizational performance; to investigate the process visibility on organizational performance; to find out the effect of supplier willingness on organizational performance and to determine effect of supplier capabilities on organizational performance. To explore these, a cross sectional study design was used. The target population was 360 from which 190 sample size was deduced for the study. Data was collected using focused group discussions and small groups discussions self-administered questionnaires, interview guides and content analysis to investigate the effect of supplier effectiveness on organizational performance. Findings showed that supplier effectiveness has significant positive and negative effects on performance. It was found that all the four components of supplier effectiveness influence the three dimensions of performance. The study also found out that where supplier effectiveness is high, the performance on organization is also higher, especially in areas that are affected by suppliers even though they may be internal to the buyer organization. It was therefore concluded that supplier effectiveness is an essential strategic tool for performance improvement. Hence organizations need to build relations that enhance supplier effectiveness so that performance of both the suppliers and buyer organizations can realize the benefits of this relationship in the supply chain network.
The relationship between generic strategies and organizational performance: A...AI Publications
The main purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between generic strategies and organizational performance in selected furniture companies in Kurdistan.The researcher used quantitative research method to analyze the relationship between generic strategies and organizational performance of furniture companies in Kurdistan. The researcher printed and distributed 100 questionnaires, but received only 76 questionnaires from participants. Accordingly the sample size of this study is 76 unitsThe findings of this study revealed that the three generic strategies (cost strategy, differentiation strategy and focus strategy) have positive relationship with organizational performance in selected furniture companies in Kurdistan. A research could be completed in different businesses to see if similar outcomes will be gotten. This research likewise recommends that an exploration study could be done to decide factors impacting successful execution of effective strategy in the business.
Encouraging women entrepreneurs for jobs and development Women’s Entrepreneurship Development Today, more and more women entrepreneurs are starting businesses and they now account for a quarter to a third of all businesses in the formal economy worldwide. However, the great majority are very small or micro enterprises with little potential for growth. Otherwise, women entrepreneurs are under-represented in enterprises of all sizes, and the bigger the firm the less likely it is to be headed by a woman. Societal attitudes and social beliefs inhibit some women from even considering starting a business, while systemic barriers mean that many women entrepreneurs stay confined to very small businesses often operating in the informal economy. This not only limits their ability to earn an income for themselves and their families but restricts their full potential to contribute to socio-economic development and job creation. The World Bank’s World Development Report 2011 suggests that productivity could increase by as much as 25% in some countries if discriminatory barriers against women were removed. Removing these barriers, such as discriminatory property and inheritance laws, cultural practices, lack of access to formal financial institutions, and time constraints due to family and household responsibilities, will create greater opportunities for sustainable enterprises run by women. This in turn will contribute to women’s economic empowerment and gender equality as well as helping to generate sustainable growth and jobs. While removing barriers is essential, investment is equally vital. Investing in women is one of the most effective means of increasing equality and promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth. Investments in women-specific programmes can have significant knock-on effects for development, since women generally spend more of their income on the health, education and well-being of their families and communities than men do. While targeted measures can bridge the gap for women, it is also essential to remove discriminatory aspects of economic and social policies and programmes that may impede women’s full participation in the economy and society.
Review on Indicators of Sustainability for the Minerals Extraction IndustriesDr Lendy Spires
A review on indicators of sustainability for the minerals extraction industries economic development in rural areas, of plans to double energy output by 2020 using Turkey’s natural resources, and of the need to strengthen the contribution of non-agricultural sectors to the Turkish economy.
He placed his thoughts in the context of the need to embrace sustainable development principles. Each of the issues Dr. Demirbilek raised was discussed and elaborated over the course of the Workshop. The first technical speaker was Dr. Deborah Shields of the United States Forest Service. Her presentation, titled, “USA and UN Perspectives on Indicators of Sustainability for the Mineral Extraction Industry,” provided historical background on how sustainability principles have been extended to minerals, particularly in international fora.
She also described the open, collaborative, public/private process being used in the US to develop minerals indicators, i.e., the Sustainable Minerals Roundtable (SMR). She pointed out that while mining has sometimes created problems in the past, with mistakes being made and repeated, mining’s contributions to society are both vast and essential.
The US position is that managing mining within the principles of sustainability can help ensure that minerals’ contribution to society is a net positive. The mineral indicators being developed through the SMR are a tool to track progress toward sustainable resource management. Discussion centered on the challenges of ensuring and responding to public participation in complex processes.
Count Us In: Women's Entrepreneurship DevelopmentDr Lendy Spires
Through its standards and advocacy work, the International Labour Organ- ization (ILO) has long advocated equality of opportunity and treatment for persons with disabilities and their inclusion in programmes and services open to the general population, in particular through the ILO Convention concerning the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment of Disabled Persons, 1983 (No. 159). This ILO mandate has been given renewed impe- tus following the entry into force of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in May 2008. Effective and meaningful inclusion of people with disabilities in mainstream activities is now increasingly an expectation of national policies, programmes, services and activities targeting the general population, as well as in UN agency programmes and technical assistance projects. Until now, most programmes and projects have worked with people with disabilities in isolation, separately from the main thrust of activity. At the same time most mainstream initiatives have not considered the inclusion of people with disabilities in any meaningful way. With the greater emphasis now on including disabled people in general programmes and projects, managers, staff and partners of the ILO and other UN agencies are likely to need more information on how to mainstream effectively. The Count Us In! guidelines aim to meet that need. They are designed, in the first instance, for enterprise development specialists, as well as those involved in manage- ment and planning in this field, to enable them to include persons with disabilities in general entrepreneurship training and services on an equal basis with others. They also contain practical advice for disability specialists in their activities to promote entrepreneurship and improve livelihood. These guidelines, developed during a project funded by Irish Aid, are the first in a series of practical advice to be made available to ILO Employment Sector specialists and more broadly, with a view to making it possible for them to meet the goals of equal opportunity and treatment of disabled persons, to advance the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda and to contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.
Determinants of Strategic Supply Chain Management in Enhancing Organization P...paperpublications3
Abstract: The purpose of the study was to investigate the determinantsof strategic supply chain management in enhancing organization performance, a case of Eldoret Water and Sanitation Company. The target population consisted of all the managers and employees at ELDOWAS. The study adopted a descriptive survey research design, in which both stratified and simple random sampling techniques were utilized in selecting the participants for the study. This study used a sample of 60 employees and management representatives. Questionnaire, interview schedule and document analysis were be used to collect data. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistical technique that included frequencies, percentages and means. Findings of the study found out that 53.3% of organisation performance was influenced by the four determinants studied in the research. Results on coefficient of variation showed that a unit change in supply chain infrastructure would affect organisation performance by (0.14β1), resource sharing (0.062β2), information flow (0.457β3) and organisation linkage (0.215β4). All the four determinants looked in this research were found to have positive influence; supply chain infrastructure (r=0.505), resource sharing (r=0.567), information flow (r=0.705) and organisation linkage (r=0.322) on organisation performance. The study recommends that ICT should be fully integrated and utilised in sharing information between the organisation and partner in the supply chain management, information systems and flow need to be enhanced to ensure that the suppliers and customers receive it on time.
This study pursued to investigate the effects of supply chain management practices on organizational
performance in the food complex industries in Asella town. A cross-sectional survey research design was
employed in this study. The population of interest comprised of all suppliers, employees, customers, retailers
were involved and multistage sampling was employed and 158 sample
A new fuzzy dematel todim hybrid method for evaluation criteria of knowledge ...ijmvsc
Knowledge management (KM) adoption in the supply chain network needs a good investment as well as
few changes in the culture of the entire SC. Knowledge management is the process of creating,
distributing and transferring information. The goal of this study is to Rank KM criteria in supply chain
network in Iran which is important for firms these days. Criterion used in this paper were extracted from
the literature review and were confirmed by supply chain experts. The proposed approach for ranking and
finding out about these criterion is hybrid fuzzy DEMATEL-TODIM, with using fuzzy number as data for
our studies we could avoid uncertainty. The data was gathered from PhD. And Ms. Students in industrial
engineering of Kharrazmi university of Tehran and PhD. And Ms. Students of the management department
of Semnan university. A new hybrid approach was used for achieving the results of this study. This new
hybrid approach ranks data criteria respect to each other, then by using TODIM for ranking respect to
the best situation (gains), the rates of criterion were determined which is a very important advantage.
A study of total qualitymanagement and supply chainmanag.docxbartholomeocoombs
A study of total quality
management and supply chain
management practices
Faisal Talib
Mechanical Engineering Section, Faculty of Engineering and Technology,
University Polytechnic, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
Zillur Rahman
Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee,
Roorkee, India, and
M.N. Qureshi
Mechanical Engineering Department, Faculty of Technology and Engineering,
M.S. University of Baroda, Vadodara, India
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present a set of total quality management (TQM) and
supply chain management (SCM) practices through an extensive literature review and to identify the
relationships among them by comparing the identified TQM and SCM practices.
Design/methodology/approach – An extensive overview of the practices of TQM and SCM is
carried out using published research papers and some major TQM and SCM practices were extracted.
These identified practices are then compared to explore the relationship between them for better
understanding and application.
Findings – The results reveal six major TQM and SCM practices from as many as 50 TQM practices
and 40 SCM practices. The paper further compares these practices and found that management
support and commitment, customer focus, and supplier partnership are the most common practices
found in both TQM and SCM literature, and have the strongest impact in the integration of TQM and
SCM across organizations.
Research limitations/implications – This paper focuses only on the literature review of
previously published studies, further empirical study can be undertaken using these six identified
practices which may allow the validation and generalization of results.
Practical implications – The result of this paper will help in providing greater understanding of
identified TQM and SCM practices that will lead to successful implementation of TQM and SCM
strategies to improve customer service levels and, hence, business performance.
Originality/value – Much of the literature on TQM practices and SCM practices are available, but as
far as the authors know there is no study undertaken to integrate TQM and SCM practices. This is the
first kind of study that compares TQM and SCM practices taken together and can be thus, treated as
filling a gap in the extant literature.
Keywords Total quality management, Supply chain management, Working practice,
Organizational performance, Competitive advantage, Business performance
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
Total quality management (TQM) and supply chain management (SCM) have been
identified as the two most important strategies for manufacturing, services and
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
IJPPM
60,3
268
Received January 2010
Revised March 2010
Accepted March 2010
International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management
Vol. 60 No. 3, 2011
pp. 268-288
q Emerald Group Publ.
Implementation of Supply Chain Management and its Effectiveness on Marketing ...ijtsrd
Supply chain control has assumed a good sized role in firms performance and has attracted serious research interest over the last few years. A literature reviewreveals a massive spurt in studies in principle and exercise of SCM Combining and informing on capabilities of deliver control and distribution management. This integration hasresulted within the concept of prolonged. Employer and the supply chain is now appear as the collaborative deliver chain across intercompany borders to maximise the value throughout the complete deliver chain. A massive variety of research papers had been published in numerous journals in ultimate many years. On this paper an attempt is made to study the popularity of literature on supply Chain management. A literature classification scheme is proposed. a complete of 588 articles from thirteen refereed academic journals are categorised into articles in 5 methodologies i.e. Exploratory, Normative, methodology, Literature review and hypothesis testing. This literature evaluation reveals that exploratory kind of studies is normally favoured it is expected that with the maturity of SCM the hypothesis trying out approach will choose up. The articles are similarly categorised in fifteen categories on the basis of content analysis. Based on this assessment, some feasible studies issues are recognized. Prof. Rekha D. M | Sowmya A V ""Implementation of Supply Chain Management and its Effectiveness on Marketing of Business Organisations"" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-3 | Issue-4 , June 2019, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd23876.pdf
Paper URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/management/strategic-management/23876/implementation-of-supply-chain-management-and-its-effectiveness-on-marketing-of-business-organisations/prof-rekha-d-m
JOSCM | Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management - Volume 8 number 2 - July/December 2015
This issue of Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management counts with eight papers that focus on strategic, tactical and operational aspects of supply chain management.
The paper from Nyaoga, Magutu and Aduda (2015) explores the link between supply chain strategies and firm performance. Based on data from 627 companies, the authors show that supply chain strategies account for a significant share of firms´ performance; reinforcing that companies should investments in supply chain practices. Radanliev (2015), in its turn, develops a framework based on the supply chain architecture, design, and engineering literature that offers guidelines on how practitioners can decompose and build a green-field (new and non-existent) supply chain. We also have three papers on specific supply chain strategies. Pereira and Silva (2015) and Bradaschia and Pereira (2015), for instance, explore the concept of supply chain resilience and its antecedents. With the use of case studies, the former shows how the management of buyer and supplier interfaces, of risk, and of knowledge can enhance resilience in a supply chain while the latter adds that flexibility is also a vital enabler of supply chain resilience. Ferreira, Bertan and Pimenta (2015) then show the importance of inter-organizational integration to achieve the outcomes expected by companies.
This volume also counts with papers focused on logistic services, transportation, and inventory management - key decision areas in supply chain management. Liane Okdinawati, Simatupang and Sunitiyoso (2015) review the literature on collaborative transportation management and suggest areas for future research in the field and Yang (2015) provides an overview of the third-party logistics providers in the United States for investigating how the industry has evolved to meets customers' needs in an environment marked by global supply chains. Finally, this issue has a technical note on a stochastic two-echelon model to solve the petrol station replenishment problem. This model offers insights on how firms can devise a replenishment policy to minimize inventory costs, in the long run, given the demand pattern.
For more information on this issue, visit the FGV Library System: http://bit.ly/2livlzW
Simulation in the supply chain context a survey Sergio Terzia,.docxbudabrooks46239
Simulation in the supply chain context: a survey
Sergio Terzia,*, Sergio Cavalierib a Politecnico di Milano, Department of Economics, Industrial and Management Engineering, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy b Department of Industrial Engineering, Universita` di Bergamo, Viale Marconi 5, 24044 Dalmine, Italy Received 29 January 2003; accepted 13 June 2003
Abstract
The increased level of competitiveness in all industrial sectors, exacerbated in the last years by the globalisation of the economies and by the sharp fall of the final demands, are pushing enterprises to strive for a further optimisation of their organisational processes, and in particular to pursue new forms of collaboration and partnership with their direct logistics counterparts. As a result, at a company level there is a progressive shift towards an external perspective with the design and implementation of new management strategies, which are generally named with the term of supply chain management (SCM). However, despite the flourish of several IT solutions in this context, there are still evident hurdles to overcome, mainly due to the major complexity of the problems to be tackled in a logistics network and to the conflicts resulting from local objectives versus network strategies. Among the techniques supporting a multi-decisional context, as a supply chain (SC) is, simulation can undoubtedly play an important role, above all for its main property to provide what-if analysis and to evaluate quantitatively benefits and issues deriving from operating in a co-operative environment rather than playing a pure transaction role with the upstream/downstream tiers. The paper provides a comprehensive review made on more than 80 articles, with the main purpose of ascertaining which general objectives simulation is generally called to solve, which paradigms and simulation tools are more suitable, and deriving useful prescriptions both for practitioners and researchers on its applicability in decision-making processes within the supply chain context. # 2003 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Parallel and distributed simulation; Supply chain management; High level architecture; Survey 1. Introduction Modern industrial enterprises operate in a rapidly changing world, stressed by even more global competition, managing world-wide procurement and unforeseeable markets, supervising geographically distributed production plants, striving for the provision of outstanding products and high quality customer service. More than in the past, companies which are not able to revise periodically their strategies and, accordingly, to modify their organisational processes seriously risk to be pulled out from the competitive edge. In the 1990s, companies have made huge efforts for streamlining their internal business processes, identifying and enhancing the core activities pertaining to the product value chain, and invested massively in new intra-company information and communicat.
Relationships among Supplier Selection Criteria using Interpretive Structural...inventionjournals
International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of computer science and electronics. IJESI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Engineering Science and Technology, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
In recent years, management and, consequently, supply chain performance measurement, has attracted the attention of a large number of managers and researchers in the field of production and operations management. In parallel with the evolution of organizations from a single approach to a network and supply chain approach, performance measurement systems have also changed and moved towards network and supply chain performance measurement. Therefore, in order to face the storm of great change and transformation and not give in to the wave of competitive aggression, organizations have long had one thing in common, and that is to focus approaches and focus efforts towards achieving results. Results that lead to a competitive advantage and are more effective and decisive in the performance indicators of the organization, including earning more. In this study, in order to identify and prioritize the factors affecting the supply chain in manufacturing companies, using indicators such as cost, timely delivery and procurement time to evaluate the supply chain efficiency is considered. And performance evaluation was performed at the manufacturer level. Therefore, in order to evaluate the performance of the supply chain using the AHP integration approach and the DEA method approach in the fuzzy environment, the suppliers and suppliers of the manufacturing company were evaluated and ranked in terms of performance.
The Importance of Supply Network Development and Firm’s Capabilities in Build...YogeshIJTSRD
This paper discusses the advantages and importance of supply chain network development and firm’s capability to enhance competitive advantage. Supplier network supply network plays an importance role for the company so that they will be able to play a more active role and optimal in the management and operation of the network of suppliers that include product design, production, suppliers, marketing and distribution. In large companies, a strong distribution network is needed, as well as in small and medium scale companies. Companies are required distribution network that is robust in the entire territory of Indonesia. To succeed in this objective, Companies need a distribution strategy, which is an area of marketing strategy aimed primarily at increasing sales and the number of customers to support sustainable growth. Robertus Sigit Haribowo Lukito | Lena Ellitan "The Importance of Supply Network Development and Firm’s Capabilities in Building Business Performance: A Theoretical Review" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-5 | Issue-3 , April 2021, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd39903.pdf Paper URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/management/strategic-management/39903/the-importance-of-supply-network-development-and-firm’s-capabilities-in-building-business-performance-a-theoretical-review/robertus-sigit-haribowo-lukito
Supply chain managementtheory, practice and futurechall.docxpicklesvalery
Supply chain management:
theory, practice and future
challenges
John Storey and Caroline Emberson
The Open University Business School, Milton Keynes, UK, and
Janet Godsell and Alan Harrison
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically assess current developments in the theory and
practice of supply management and through such an assessment to identify barriers, possibilities and
key trends.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based on a three-year detailed study of six supply
chains which encompassed 72 companies in Europe. The focal firms in each instance were
sophisticated, blue-chip corporations operating on an international scale. Managers across at least four
echelons of the supply chain were interviewed and the supply chains were traced and observed.
Findings – The paper reveals that supply management is, at best, still emergent in terms of both theory
and practice. Few practitioners were able – or even seriously aspired – to extend their reach across the
supply chain in the manner prescribed in much modern theory. The paper identifies the range of key
barriers and enablers to supply management and it concludes with an assessment of the main trends.
Research limitations/implications – The research presents a number of challenges to existing
thinking about supply strategy and supply chain management. It reveals the substantial gaps between
theory and practice. A number of trends are identified which it is argued may work in favour of better
prospects for SCM in the future and for the future of supply management as a discipline.
Practical implications – A central challenge concerns who could or should manage the supply
chain. Barriers to effective supply management are identified and some practical steps to surmount
them are suggested.
Originality/value – The paper is original in the way in which it draws on an extensive systematic
study to critically assess current theory and current developments. The paper points the way for
theorists and practitioners to meet future challenges.
Keywords Supply chain management, Suppliers, Strategic management
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
“Supply management” can be viewed as both an emergent field of practice and an
emerging academic domain. Neither perspective is fully mature but each has
considerable promise. The future progress of each will be enhanced and indeed is
ultimately dependent upon the other. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to take stock
of developments in theory and practice to date and to identify barriers and possibilities.
Moreover, given the off-remarked acknowledgement of the crucial importance of the
behavioural and people dimension but the relative neglect of this in any substantive
form, we give special attention to this aspect. Supply (chain) management is ultimately
about influencing behaviour in particular directions and in particular ways. The
underlying logics, drivers, enablers an ...
Of our days, with the opening of borders, the companies compete very aggressive for the flow of their products in a market, where only the companies well organized can afford a good share of the market. The survival of such and such company necessarily passes through the improvement of performance and competitiveness of organizations in general, and small and medium-sized enterprises (SMES) in particular. It is in this perspective that the establishment of the platform of the supply chain management can provide considerable benefits to SMES on their competitors
Effect of Supply Chain Management Practices on Organizational Performance of ...AJHSSR Journal
ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of supply chain management practices on the
performance of Kenya’s state corporations. The study adopted a descriptive research design. A total of 142
parastatals were targeted from which 15 of them were selected to participate in the study. Purposive sampling
was used to select two senior managers from each of the 15 parastatals. These respondents were selected from
the finance and procurement departments. Questionnaires were used to collect primary data from the state
corporations. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used in the study. Inferential statistics conducted
were regression analyses. Results indicated that outsourcing practices (p=0.205>0.05) have a negative but
insignificant effect on organizational performance. On the other hand, inventory management practices
(p=0.006<0.05), lean practices (p=0.006<0.05), and strategic supplier relationship management practices
(p=0.001<0.05) all have a positive and significant effect on the performance of state corporations.
KEYWORDS:Outsourcing, Inventory Management Practices, Lean Supply Chain Management Practices,
Strategic Supplier Relationship Practices, Organizational Performance,
Operation Management Strategies 1
LITERATURE REVIEW 7
Literature Reviewin Operation Management Strategies
Qualitative cases in operation management
The study inspects the condition of subjective research endeavors in operation administration. Five fundamental operation administration diaries are incorporated for their effect on the field. The subjective detailed analyzes picked were distributed somewhere around 1993 and 2008. With an expanding pattern to utilizing more subjective research endeavors, there have been significant and huge commitments to the operation administration department, particularly in the territory of hypothesis building.
In a significant number of the subjective detailed analyzes they explored, sufficient points of interest in research outline, information accumulation, and information investigation were absent. For example, there are studies that don't offer examining rationale or a portrayal of the investigation through which research draws results. Further, researches conventions for doing inductive detailed analyze are much better created contrasted with the research conventions for doing deductive careful investigations. Thusly, there is an absence of reliability in how the case technique has been connected. As subjective researchers, they offer recommendations on how we can enhance what have been done and raise the level of thoroughness and consistency (Mei, 2011).
Buyer perceptions of supply disruption risk
Scott argues that as supply chains get to be more minds boggling, firms face expanding dangers of supply interruptions. The process through which purchasers settle on decisions notwithstanding these dangers, nonetheless, has not been investigated. In spite of research highlighting the criticalness of behavioral methodologies to risk, there is restricted research that applies these perspectives of danger in the supply chain writing. This paper addresses this crevice by drawing on behavioral danger hypothesis to examine the causal connections among circumstance, representations of danger, and choice making inside the buying area.
They investigate the relationship between greatness of supply disturbance, likelihood of supply interruption, and general supply disturbance risk. Furthermore, they attract on trade hypotheses to distinguish item and business sector figures that effect purchasers' impression of the likelihood and extent of supply interruption. At last, they take a gander at how representations of danger influence the choice to look for options wellsprings of supply. The model was tested utilizing information gathered from 223 obtaining administrators and purchasers of immediate materials. The results demonstrate that both the likelihood and the size of supply disturbance are paramount to purchasers' general view of supply interruption risk (Ellis, 2010).
Examining supply chain relationships
Gilbert finds out that firm.
A systematic review of existing supply chain management definition, framework
4
1. Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124
www.elsevier.com/locate/omega
The impact of supplychain management practices on competitive
advantage and organizational performance
Suhong Lia,∗, Bhanu Ragu-Nathanb, T.S. Ragu-Nathanb, S. Subba Raob
aComputer Information Systems Department, Bryant University, 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI 02917-1284, USA
bCollege of Business Administration, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH 43606, USA
Received 20 March 2004; accepted 16 August 2004
Available online 29 September 2004
Abstract
Effective supplychain management (SCM) has become a potentiallyv aluable wayof securing competitive advantage and
improving organizational performance since competition is no longer between organizations, but among supplychains. This
research conceptualizes and develops five dimensions of SCM practice (strategic supplier partnership, customer relationship,
level of information sharing, qualityof information sharing, and postponement) and tests the relationships between SCM
practices, competitive advantage, and organizational performance. Data for the studywere collected from 196 organizations
and the relationships proposed in the framework were tested using structural equation modeling. The results indicate that
higher levels of SCM practice can lead to enhanced competitive advantage and improved organizational performance. Also,
competitive advantage can have a direct, positive impact on organizational performance.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Supplychain management; Competitive advantage; Organizational performance; Structural equation modeling
1. Introduction
As competition in the 1990s intensified and markets be-came
global, so did the challenges associated with getting
a product and service to the right place at the right time
at the lowest cost. Organizations began to realize that it is
not enough to improve efficiencies within an organization,
but their whole supplychain has to be made competitive.
The understanding and practicing of supplychain manage-ment
(SCM) has become an essential prerequisite for staying
competitive in the global race and for enhancing profitably
[1–4].
Council of Logistics Management (CLM) [5] de-fines
SCM as the systemic, strategic coordination of the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-401-232-6503; fax: +1-401-
232-6435.
E-mail address: sli@bryant.edu (S. Li).
0305-0483/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.08.002
traditional business functions and tactics across these busi-nesses
functions within a particular organization and across
businesses within the supplychain for the purposes of im-proving
the long-term performance of the individual orga-nizations
and the supplychain as a whole. SCM has been
defined to explicitlyrecognize the strategic nature of coor-dination
between trading partners and to explain the dual
purpose of SCM: to improve the performance of an indi-vidual
organization, and to improve the performance of the
whole supplychain. The goal of SCM is to integrate both
information and material flows seamlesslyacross the supply
chain as an effective competitive weapon [1,6].
The concept of SCM has received increasing attention
from academicians, consultants, and business managers
alike [4,6–8]. Manyor ganizations have begun to recognize
that SCM is the keyto building sustainable competitive edge
for their products and/or services in an increasinglycro wded
marketplace [9]. The concept of SCM has been considered
2. 108 S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124
from different points of view in different bodies of literature
[7], such as purchasing and supplymanagement, logistics
and transportation, operations management, marketing, or-ganizational
theory, and management information systems.
Various theories have offered insights on specific aspects or
perspectives of SCM, such as industrial organization and
associated transaction cost analysis [10,11], resource-based
and resource-dependencytheory [12], competitive strategy
[13], and social–political perspective [14].
However, despite the increased attention paid to SCM,
the literature has not been able to offer much byw ayof
guidance to help the practice of SCM [15]. This has been
attributed to the interdisciplinaryorigin of SCM, the con-ceptual
confusion, and the evolutionarynature of SCM con-cept.
There is no generallyaccepted definition of SCM in
the literature [6]. The concept of SCM has been involved
from two separate paths: purchasing and supplymanage-ment,
and transportation and logistics management [16]. Ac-cording
to purchasing and supplymanagement perspective,
SCM is synonymous with the integration of supply base
that evolved from the traditional purchasing and materials
functions [17,18]. In the perspective of transportation and
logistics management, SCM is synonymous with integrated
logistics systems, and hence focus on inventory reduction
both within and across organizations in the supplychain
[8,19–22]. Eventually, these two perspectives evolved into
an integrated SCM that integrates all the activities along the
whole supplychain.
The evolutionarynature and the complexityof SCM are
also reflected in the SCM research. Much of the current the-oretical/
empirical research in SCM focuses on onlythe up-stream
or downstream side of the supplychain, or certain
aspects/perspectives of SCM [23]. Topics such as supplier
selection, supplier involvement, and manufacturing perfor-mance
[24,25], the influence of supplier alliances on the or-ganization
[26], success factors in strategic supplier alliances
[27,28], supplier management orientation and supplier/buyer
performance [29], the role of relationships with suppliers in
improving supplier responsiveness [30], and the antecedence
and consequences of buyer–supplier relationship [31] have
been researched on the supplier side. Studies such as those
byClark and Lee [32], and Alvarado and Kotzab [19], fo-cus
on the downstream linkages between manufacturers and
retailers. A few recent studies have considered both the up-stream
and downstream sides of the supplychain simulta-neously.
Tan et al. [16] explore the relationships between
supplier management practices, customer relations practices
and organizational performance; Frohlich and Westbrook
[33] investigate the effects of supplier–customer integra-tion
on organizational performance, Tan et al. [4] study
SCM and supplier evaluation practices and relate the con-structs
to firm performance, Min and Mentzer [34] develop
an instrument to measure the supplychain orientation and
SCM at conceptual levels. Cigolini et al. [15] develop a set
of supplychain techniques and tools for examining SCM
strategies. Extensive case studies about the implementation
of SCM have been conducted bythe IT service providers
(such as SAP, Peoplesoft, i2 and JDEdwards) and the re-search
firms (such as Forrester Research and AMR Re-search)
(http://www.supply-chain.org) and manycase histo-ries
of successful implementations of SCM have been re-ported
in the literature. Taken together, these studies are
representative of efforts to address various diverse but in-teresting
aspects of SCM practices. However, the absence
of an integrated framework, incorporating all the activities
both upstream and downstream sides of the supplychain
and linking such activities to both competitive advantage
and organizational performance, detracts from usefulness of
the implementation of previous results on SCM.
The purpose of this studyis therefore to empirically
test a framework identifying the relationships among SCM
practices, competitive advantage and organizational perfor-mance.
SCM practices are defined as the set of activities
undertaken byan organization to promote effective man-agement
of its supplychain. The practices of SCM are
proposed to be a multi-dimensional concept, including the
downstream and upstream sides of the supplychain. Opera-tional
measures for the constructs are developed and tested
empirically, using data collected from respondents to a sur-veyquestionnaire.
Structural equation modeling is used to
test the hypothesized relationships. It is expected that the
current research, byaddressing SCM practices simultane-ouslyfrom
both upstream and downstream sides of a supply
chain, will help researchers better understand the scope and
the activities associated with SCM and allow researchers to
test the antecedences and consequences of SCM practice.
Further, byof fering a validated instrument to measure SCM
practices, and bypro viding empirical evidence of the impact
of SCM practices on an organization’s competitive advan-tage
and its performance, it is expected that this research
will offer useful guidance for measuring and implementing
SCM practices in an organization and facilitate further re-search
in this area.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Sec-tion
2 presents the research framework, provides the defini-tions
and theoryunderly ing each dimension of SCM prac-tices,
discusses the concepts of competitive advantage and
organizational performance, and develops the hypothesized
relationships. The research methodologyand analysis of re-sults
are then presented, followed bythe implications of the
study.
2. Research framework
Fig. 1 presents the SCM framework developed in this re-search.
The framework proposes that SCM practices will
have an impact on organizational performance both directly
and also indirectlythrough competitive advantage. SCM
practice is conceptualized as a five-dimensional construct.
The five dimensions are strategic supplier partnership, cus-tomer
relationship, level of information sharing, qualityof
3. S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124 109
Organizational
Performance
Market performance
Financial performance
Competitive Advantage
Price/cost
Quality
Delivery Dependability
Product Innovation
Time to Market
SCM Practices
Strategic Supplier
Partnership
Customer Relationship
Level of Information Sharing
Quality of Information Sharing
Postponement
H1
H2
H3
Fig. 1. Research framework.
information sharing, and postponement. A detailed descrip-tion
of the development of the SCM practices construct is
provided in the following paragraphs. Competitive advan-tage
and organizational performance are concepts that have
been operationalized in the existing literature [35,36]. Using
literature support, the expected relationships among SCM
practices, competitive advantage, and organizational perfor-mance
are discussed, and hypotheses relating these variables
are developed.
2.1. SCM practices
SCM practices have been defined as a set of activities
undertaken in an organization to promote effective manage-ment
of its supplychain. Donlon [37] describes the latest
evolution of SCM practices, which include supplier part-nership,
outsourcing, cycle time compression, continuous
process flow, and information technologysharing. Tan et
al. [16] use purchasing, quality, and customer relations to
represent SCM practices, in their empirical study. Alvarado
and Kotzab [19] include in their list of SCM practices con-centration
on core competencies, use of inter-organizational
systems such as EDI, and elimination of excess inventory
levels bypostponing customization toward the end of the
supplychain. Tan et al. [4] identifysix aspects of SCM
practice through factor analysis: supply chain integration,
information sharing, supplychain characteristics, customer
service management, geographical proximityand JIT capa-bility.
Chen and Paulraj [31] use supplier base reduction,
long-term relationship, communication, cross-functional
teams and supplier involvement to measure buyer–supplier
relationships. Min and Mentzer [34] identifythe concept
SCM as including agreed vision and goals, information
sharing, risk and award sharing, cooperation, process in-tegration,
long-term relationship and agreed supplychain
leadership. Thus the literature portrays SCM practices
from a varietyof different perspectives with a common
goal of ultimatelyimpro ving organizational performance.
In reviewing and consolidating the literature, five distinc-tive
dimensions, including strategic supplier partnership,
customer relationship, level of information sharing, qual-ityof
information sharing and postponement, are selected
for measuring SCM practice. The five constructs cover
upstream (strategic supplier partnership) and downstream
(customer relationship) sides of a supplychain, information
flow across a supplychain (level of information sharing and
qualityof information sharing), and internal supplychain
process (postponement). It should be pointed out that even
though the above dimensions capture the major aspects of
SCM practice, theycannot be considered complete. Other
factors, such as geographical proximity, JIT/lean capabil-ity
[4], cross-functional teams, logistics integration [31],
agreed vision and goals, and agreed supplychain leader-ship
[34] are also identified in the literature. Though these
factors are of great interest, theyare not included due to
the concerns regarding the length of the surveyand the
parsimonyof measurement instruments.
The present study, therefore, proposes SCM practices as
a multi-dimensional concept. Table 1 lists these dimensions
along with their definitions and supporting literature.A more
detailed discussion of these dimensions is provided below.
Strategic supplier partnership: Is defined as the long-term
relationship between the organization and its suppli-ers.
It is designed to leverage the strategic and operational
capabilities of individual participating organizations to help
them achieve significant ongoing benefits [26,38,40,41,45].
A strategic partnership emphasizes direct, long-term associ-ation
and encourages mutual planning and problem solving
efforts [39]. Such strategic partnerships are entered into to
promote shared benefits among the parties and ongoing par-ticipation
in one or more keystrate gic areas such as technol-ogy,
products, and markets [70]. Strategic partnerships with
suppliers enable organizations to work more effectivelywith
a few important suppliers who are willing to share respon-sibilityfor
the success of the products. Suppliers participat-ing
earlyin the product-design process can offer more cost-effective
design choices, help select the best components
and technologies, and help in design assessment [4]. Strate-gicallyaligned
organizations can work closelytogether and
eliminate wasteful time and effort [38]. An effective sup-plier
partnership can be a critical component of a leading
edge supplychain [45].
Customer relationship: Comprises the entire arrayof
practices that are employed for the purpose of managing
customer complaints, building long-term relationships with
customers, and improving customer satisfaction [42,16].
Noble [45] and Tan et al. [16] consider customer rela-tionship
management as an important component of SCM
practices. As pointed out byDay [43], committed rela-tionships
are the most sustainable advantage because of
their inherent barriers to competition. The growth of mass
customization and personalized service is leading to an
era in which relationship management with customers is
becoming crucial for corporate survival [46]. Good relation-ships
with supplychain members, including customers, are
needed for successful implementation of SCM programs
4. 110 S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124
Table 1
List of sub-constructs for SCM practice
Sub-constructs Definitions Literature
Strategic supplier partnership The long-term relationship between the organization and its suppliers. It is
designed to leverage the strategic and operational capabilities of individ-ual
participating organizations to help them achieve significant ongoing
benefits.
[4,18,26,38–41]
Customer relationship The entire arrayof practices that are employed for the purpose of managing
customer complaints, building long-term relationships with customers, and
improving customer satisfaction.
[2,4,42–46]
Level of information sharing The extent to which critical and proprietaryinformation is communicated
to one’s supplychain partner.
[1,9,38,40,47–51]
Quality of information sharing Refers to the accuracy, timeliness, adequacy, and credibility of information
exchanged.
[2,6,40,52–59]
Postponement The practice of moving forward one or more operations or activities
(making, sourcing and delivering) to a much later point in the supplychain.
[8,60–69]
[2]. Close customer relationship allows an organization to
differentiate its product from competitors, sustain customer
loyalty, and dramatically extend the value it provides to its
customers [44].
Level of information sharing: Information sharing has two
aspects: quantityand quality. Both aspects are important for
the practices of SCM and have been treated as indepen-dent
constructs in the past SCM studies [2,40]. Level (quan-tityaspect)
of information sharing refers to the extent to
which critical and proprietaryinformation is communicated
to one’s supplychain partner [40]. Shared information can
varyfrom strategic to tactical in nature and from informa-tion
about logistics activities to general market and customer
information [48]. Manyresearchers have suggested that the
keyto the seamless supplychain is making available undis-torted
and up-to-date marketing data at everynode within
the supplychain [1,38,51,71]. Bytaking the data available
and sharing it with other parties within the supplychain,
information can be used as a source of competitive advan-tage
[9,49]. Lalonde [47] considers sharing of information
as one of five building blocks that characterize a solid sup-plychain
relationship. According to Stein and Sweat [50],
supplychain partners who exchange information regularly
are able to work as a single entity. Together, they can un-derstand
the needs of the end customer better and hence can
respond to market change quicker. Moreover, Tompkins and
Ang [72] consider the effective use of relevant and timely
information byall functional elements within the supply
chain as a keycompetiti ve and distinguishing factor. The
empirical findings of Childhouse and Towill [1] reveal that
simplified material flow, including streamlining and making
highlyvisible all information flow throughout the chain, is
the keyto an integrated and effective supplychain.
Quality of information sharing includes such aspects as
the accuracy, timeliness, adequacy, and credibility of infor-mation
exchanged [2,40]. While information sharing is im-portant,
the significance of its impact on SCM depends on
what information is shared, when and how it is shared, and
with whom [53,54].
Literature is replete with example of the dysfunctional
effects of inaccurate/delayed information, as information
moves along the supplychain [56–59]. Divergent interests
and opportunistic behavior of supplychain partners, and
informational asymmetries across supply chain affect the
qualityof information [6]. It has been suggested that orga-nizations
will deliberatelydistort information that can po-tentiallyreach
not onlytheir competitors, but also their own
suppliers and customers [57]. It appears that there is a built-in
reluctance within organizations to give awaymore than
minimal information [52] since information disclosure is
perceived as a loss of power. Given these predispositions,
ensuring the qualityof the shared information becomes a
critical aspect of effective SCM [6]. Organizations need to
view their information as a strategic asset and ensure that it
flows with minimum delayand distortion.
Postponement is defined as the practice of moving for-ward
one or more operations or activities (making, sourcing
and delivering) to a much later point in the supplychain
[8,60,64,66,68]. Two primaryconsiderations in developing a
postponement strategyare: (1) determining how manysteps
to postpone, and (2) determining which steps to postpone
[60]. Postponement allows an organization to be flexible in
developing different versions of the product in order to meet
changing customer needs, and to differentiate a product or
to modifya demand function [69]. Keeping materials undif-ferentiated
for as long as possible will increase an organi-zation’s
flexibilityin responding to changes in customer de-mand.
In addition, an organization can reduce supplychain
cost byk eeping undifferentiated inventories [65,68].
Postponement needs to match the type of products, market
demands of a company, and structure or constraints within
the manufacturing and logistics system [61–63,67]. In gen-eral,
the adoption of postponement maybe appropriate in
the following conditions: innovative products [61,62]; prod-
5. S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124 111
ucts with high monetarydensity , high specialization and
wide range; markets characterized bylong deliverytime,
low deliveryfrequenc yand high demand uncertainty; and
manufacturing or logistics systems with small economies of
scales and no need for special knowledge [67].
2.2. Competitive advantage
Competitive advantage is the extent to which an organi-zation
is able to create a defensible position over its com-petitors
[73,13]. It comprises capabilities that allow an or-ganization
to differentiate itself from its competitors and
is an outcome of critical management decisions [74]. The
empirical literature has been quite consistent in identifying
price/cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility as important com-petitive
capabilities [74–76]. In addition, recent studies have
included time-based competition as an important competi-tive
priority. Research by Stalk [77], Vesey [78], Handfield
and Pannesi [79], Kessler and Chakrabarti [80], Zhang [36]
identifies time as the next source of competitive advantage.
On the basis of prior literature, Koufteros et al. [35] describe
a research framework for competitive capabilities and de-fine
the following five dimensions: competitive pricing, pre-mium
pricing, value-to-customer quality, dependable deliv-ery,
and production innovation. These dimensions are also
described by [74,75,81–84]. Based on the above, the dimen-sions
of the competitive advantage constructs used in this
studyare price/cost, quality, deliverydependability , product
innovation, and time to market.
2.3. Organizational performance
Organizational performance refers to how well an orga-nization
achieves its market-oriented goals as well as its fi-nancial
goals [85]. The short-term objectives of SCM are
primarilyto increase productivityand reduce inventoryand
cycle time, while long-term objectives are to increase mar-ket
share and profits for all members of the supplychain
[16]. Financial metrics have served as a tool for compar-ing
organizations and evaluating an organization’s behavior
over time [54]. Anyor ganizational initiative, including sup-plychain
management, should ultimatelylead to enhanced
organizational performance.
A number of prior studies have measured organizational
performance using both financial and market criteria, includ-ing
return on investment (ROI), market share, profit mar-gin
on sales, the growth of ROI, the growth of sales, the
growth of market share, and overall competitive position
[84,86,36]. In line with the above literature, the same items
will be adopted to measure organizational performance in
this study.
2.4. Research hypotheses
The SCM framework developed in this studyproposes
that SCM practice has a direct impact on the overall fi-nancial
and marketing performance of an organization
[29,87]. SCM practice is expected to increase an organi-zation’s
market share, return on investment [29,87], and
improve overall competitive position [88,89]. For example,
strategic supplier partnership has been reported to yield
organization-specific benefits in terms of financial perfor-mance
[16,26,88–91]. Advanced design and logistic links
with suppliers are related to better-performing plants [92].
Customer relation practices have also been shown to lead
to significant improvement in organizational performance
[16]. The higher level of information sharing is associated
with the lower total cost, the higher-order fulfillment rate
and the shorter-order cycle time [93].
The bottom-line impacts of SCM practices have been con-firmed
byreal-w orld examples. A recent surveyfinds that
organizations that are best at SCM hold a 40% to 65% ad-vantage
in their cash-to-cash cycle time over average orga-nizations
and the top organizations carry50% to 85% less
inventorythan their competitors [41]. Based on the above it
is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 1. Firms with high levels of SCM practices
will have high levels of organizational performance.
SCM practices impact not onlyo verall organizational
performance, but also competitive advantage of an orga-nization.
Theyare expected to improve an organization’s
competitive advantage through price/cost, quality, deliv-erydependability
, time to market, and product innovation.
Prior studies have indicated that the various components
of SCM practices (such as strategic supplier partnership)
have an impact on various aspects of competitive advan-tage
(such as price/cost). For example, strategic supplier
partnership can improve supplier performance, reduce
time to market [94], and increase the level of customer
responsiveness and satisfaction [3]. Information sharing
leads to high levels of supplychain integration [55] by
enabling organizations to make dependable deliveryand
introduce products to the market quickly. Information
sharing and information qualitycontrib ute positivelyto
customer satisfaction [95] and partnership quality [96,97].
Postponement strategynot onlyincreases the flexibility
in the supplychain, but also balances global efficiency
and customer responsiveness [68]. The above arguments
lead to
Hypothesis 2. Firms with high levels of SCM practices
will have high levels of competitive advantage.
Having a competitive advantage generallysuggests that
an organization can have one or more of the following ca-pabilities
when compared to its competitors: lower prices,
higher quality, higher dependability, and shorter delivery
time. These capabilities will, in turn, enhance the organiza-tion’s
overall performance [48]. Competitive advantage can
lead to high levels of economic performance, customer sat-isfaction
and loyalty, and relationship effectiveness. Brands
with higher consumer loyalty face less competitive switch-ing
in their target segments therebyincreasing sales and
profitability [98].
6. 112 S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124
An organization offering high qualityproducts can charge
premium prices and thus increase its profit margin on sales
and return on investment. An organization having a short
time-to-market and rapid product innovation can be the first
in the market thus enjoying a higher market share and sales
volume. Therefore, a positive relationship between com-petitive
advantage and organizational performance can be
proposed.
Hypothesis 3. The higher the level of competitive advan-tage,
the higher the level of organizational performance.
The above three hypotheses, taken together, support the
SCM framework presented in Fig. 1.
3. Research methodology
Instrument development methods for SCM practices in-clude
four phases: (1) item generation, (2) pre-pilot study,
(3) pilot study, and (4) large-scale data analysis. Instruments
that measure competitive advantage and organizational per-formance
were adopted from Zhang [36]. The items for these
instruments are listed in Appendix A. In phase four, rigor-ous
statistical analysis was used to determine the validity
and reliabilityof the SCM practice, competitive advantage,
and organizational performance instruments. The research
framework in Fig. 1 and the associated hypotheses were then
tested using structural equation modeling.
3.1. Item generation, pre-pilot study, and pilot study
The basic requirement for a good measurement is content
validity, which means that the measurement items in an in-strument
cover the major content of a construct [99]. Content
validityis usuallyachie ved through a comprehensive litera-ture
review and interviews with practitioners and academi-cians.
The items for SCM practice were generated based on
previous SCM literature [16,25,26,29,40,42,96,97,100].
In the pre-pilot study, these items were reviewed by six
academicians and re-evaluated through structured interviews
with three practitioners who were asked to comment on
the appropriateness of the research constructs. Based on the
feedback from the academicians and practitioners, redundant
and ambiguous items were either modified or eliminated.
New items were added wherever deemed necessary.
In the pilot studystage, the Q-sort method was used to pre-assess
the convergent and discriminant validityof the scales.
Purchasing/production managers were requested to act as
judges and sort the items into the five dimensions of SCM
practice, based on similarities and differences among items.
To assess the reliabilityof the sorting conducted bythe
judges, three different measures were used: the inter-judge
raw agreement scores, Cohen’s Kappa, and item placement
ratios. Raw agreement scores were calculated bycounting
the number of items both judges placed in the same cate-gory.
Cohen’s Kappa [101] was used to evaluate the true
agreement score between two judges byeliminating chance
agreements. Item placement ratios were calculated bycount-ing
all the items that were correctlysorted into the target
categorybyeach of the judges and dividing them bytwice
the total number of items.
In the first round, the inter-judge raw agreement scores av-eraged
.89, the initial overall placement ratio of items within
the target constructs was .95, and the Cohen’s Kappa score
averaged .86. Following the guidelines of Landis and Koch
[102] for interpreting the Kappa coefficient, the value of
.86 was considered an excellent level of agreement (beyond
chance) for the judges in the first round. In order to improve
the Cohen’s Kappa measure of agreement, an examination
of the off-diagonal entries in the placement matrix was con-ducted.
Items classified in a construct different from their
target construct were identified and dropped or reworded.
Also, feedback from both judges was obtained on each item
and incorporated into the modification of the items.
The reworded items were then entered into a second sort-ing
round. In the second round, the inter-judge raw agree-ment
scores averaged .92, the initial overall placement ratio
of items within the target constructs was .97, and the Cohen’s
Kappa score averaged .90. Since the second round achieved
an excellent overall placement ratio of items within the tar-get
constructs (.97), it was decided to keep all the items for
the third sorting round.
The third sorting round was used to re-validate the con-structs.
The third round achieved the same agreement scores
as the second round, therebyindicating an excellent level of
agreement between the judges in the third round and con-sistencyof
results between the second and third rounds. At
this stage the statistics suggested an excellent level of inter-judge
agreement indicating a high level of reliabilityand
construct validity.
3.2. Large-scale methods
This studysought to choose respondents who can be ex-pected
to have the best knowledge about the operation and
management of the supplychain in his/her organization.
Based on literature and recommendations from practition-ers,
it was decided to choose managers who are at higher
managerial levels as respondents for the current study. The
respondents were asked to refer to their major suppliers or
customers for relevant questions.
Mailing lists were obtained from two sources: the Society
of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) in USA and the atten-dees
at the Council of Logistics Management (CLM) con-ference
in 2000, New Orleans, USA. Six SIC codes were
covered in the study: 25 “Furniture and Fixtures”, 30 “Rub-ber
and Plastics”, 34 “Fabricated Metal Products”, 35 “In-dustrial
and Commercial Machinery”, 36 “Electronic and
Other Electric Equipment”, 37 “Transportation Equipment”.
The final version of the questionnaire, measuring all the
items on a five point scale, was administrated to 3137 tar-get
respondents. The surveyw as sent in three waves. The
questionnaires with a cover letter indicating the purpose and
7. S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124 113
significance of the studywere mailed to the target respon-dents.
In the cover letter, a web-address of the online ver-sion
of the surveyw as also provided in case the respondents
wished to fill it in electronically. There were 196 complete
and usable responses, representing a response rate of ap-proximately6.3%
A significant problem with organizational-level research
is that senior and executive-level managers receive manyre-quests
to participate and have verylimited time. Because
this interdisciplinaryresearch collects information from sev-eral
functional areas, the size and scope of the research in-struments
must be large and time consuming to complete.
This further contributes to the low response rate. While
the response rate was less than desired, the makeup of re-spondent
pool was considered excellent (See Appendix B).
Among the respondents, almost 20% of the respondents are
CEO/President/Vice President/Director. About half of the
respondents are managers, some identified them as supply
chain manager, plant manager, logistics manager or IT man-ager
in the questionnaire. The areas of expertise were 30%
purchasing, 47% manufacturing production, and 30% distri-bution/
transportation/sales. It can be seen that respondents
have covered all the functions across a supplychain from
purchasing, to manufacturing, to distribution and transporta-tion,
and to sales. Moreover, about 30% of the respondents
are responsible for more than one job function, and they
are expected to have a broad view of SCM practice in their
organization.
This research did not investigate nonresponse bias directly
because the mailing list had onlyname and addresses of
the individuals and not anyor ganizational details. Hence,
a comparison was made between those subjects who re-sponded
after the initial mailing and those who responded to
the second/third wave [103,104]. Similar methodologyhas
been used in prior empirical studies [2,30,31,105–107]. Us-ing
the Chi-square statistic and P .05, it was found that
there were no significant differences between the two groups
in employment size, sales volume, and respondent’s job ti-tle.
An absence of non-response bias is therefore inferred.
4. Results for the measurement model
Instrument that measures SCM practices were developed
byLi et al. [108]. Instruments that measure competitive ad-vantage
and organizational performance were adopted from
Zhang [36]. Appendix A presents the multiple items repre-senting
each of the constructs. The following section will
discuss statistical analysis used to determine the validity and
reliabilityof each construct.
4.1. Convergent and discriminant validity
For SCM practices (SCMP), a factor analysis was con-ducted
using the 25 items that measure the five dimensions.
For simplicity, only loadings above .40 are displayed. All
items loaded on their respective factors with most loadings
above .70 as shown in Table 2a. The cumulative variance
explained bythe five factors is 63.27%.
The competitive advantage (CA) construct was initially
represented by5 dimensions and 16 items. An initial fac-tor
analysis indicated that CA/DD1 had a cross-loading of
.46 with CA/PI and CA/TM1 had a cross-loading of .51
with CA/DD. After removing these two items, the remain-ing
items were factor analyzed and the results are shown in
Table 2b. It can be seen that all items loaded on their re-spective
factors, with most of loadings greater than .80. The
cumulative variance explained bythe five factors is 77.61%.
When the organizational performance (OP) was factor
analyzed, two factors emerged with one significant cross-loading
(FP7 had loadings of .65 and .56 respectivelyon
each factor). FP7 was removed and factor analysis was per-formed
on the remaining items, and the results are shown in
Table 2c. After an examination of the descriptions of items,
the two factors were named as market performance made of
OP1, OP4, and OP7 (coded as OP/MP) and financial per-formance
made of OP2, OP5, and OP6 (coded as OP/FP).
4.2. Assessing reliability
The reliabilities of SCM practice, competitive advantage,
and organizational performance were assessed with Cron-bach’s
Alpha. Tables 3a–c report means, standard deviations,
correlations, and reliabilityv alues for each of constructs.
The reliabilityv alues for all constructs are all greater than
.70, which are considered acceptable [109].
4.3. Validation of second-order constructs
SCM practice was conceptualized as a second-order
model composed of five dimensions. Structural equation
modeling (using LISREL 8.30 byScientific Software Inter-national,
Inc.) was used to determine whether a higher-order
factor model is appropriate for SCM practice. The fit statis-tics
for the second-order model were GFI=.85, AGFI=.82,
and the RMSR =.05, representing a reasonable model-data
fit. The coefficients were all significant at P .01. The
target coefficient, which is the ratio of the chi-square value
for the first-order model to the chi-square value for the
higher-order model, was calculated [110]. It indicates the
percentage of variation in the first-order factors that can
be explained bythe second-order construct. In this case,
chi-square of the first model was 386.80 and of the second
model was 417.63. The target coefficient index is 92.6%,
which is strong evidence of existence of a higher-order
SCM practice construct.
For competitive advantage, the fit indexes for the second-order
model were GFI=.88, AGFI=.82, and RMSR=.06,
indicating a moderate model-data fit. The coefficients were
all significant at P .01. Chi-square of the first model was
161.34 and of the second model was 186.21. The target
9. S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124 115
Table 2 (continued)
Item F1-MP F2-FP
OP4 .80
OP2 .43 .81
OP5 .40 .82
OP6 .89
Eigenvalue 2.60 2.42
% of variance 43.28 40.32
Cumulative % of variance 43.28 83.60
Table 3
Means, standard deviations, correlations and reliabilityof (a) SCM practice, (b) competitive advantage and (c) organizational performance
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 Reliability
(a) SCM practice
1. Strategic supplier partnership 3.70 .73 — .86
2. Customer relationship 3.96 .69 .52** — .84
3. Level of information sharing 3.34 .64 .56** .39** — .86
4. Qualityof information sharing 3.33 .63 .39** .33** .59** — .86
5. Postponement 3.24 .88 .18* .12 .08 .15* — .73
(b) Competitive advantage
1. Price/cost 3.47 .78 — .73
2.Quality4.18 .68 .12 — .87
3. Deliverydependability 4.03 .83 .20** .05 — .93
4. Product innovation 4.48 .55 .07 .40** .28** — .80
5. Time to market 3.19 .74 .33** .28** .32** .30** — .76
Variables Mean SD 1 2 Reliability
(c) Organizational performance
1. Market performance 3.32 .75 — .90
2. Financial performance 3.35 .76 .63** — .89
∗Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).
∗∗Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).
coefficient index is 86.6%, indicating the existence of a
second-order competitive advantage construct.
5. Results for the structural model
The theoretical framework illustrated in Fig. 1 has three
hypothesized relationships among the variables SCM Prac-tices,
Competitive Advantage, and Organizational Perfor-mance.
Fig. 2 a displays the path diagram resulting from
the structural modeling analysis using LISREL. The results
exhibit that all the measurements have significant loadings
to their corresponding second-order construct. Overall, the
model has a satisfactoryfit with GFI = .90, AGFI = .84,
and CFI=.84. The RMSR is only.035, which is verygood.
It should be noted that even though all the t-values of
the measurements are significant at .05 level, their loadings
(-value) to the corresponding second-order construct are
different. Postponement has a low of .18, indicating that
postponement maynot be a strong indicator of SCM prac-tice
compared to the other four dimensions. This can be true.
As discussed in the previous sessions, the implementation
of postponement is dependent on a firm’s market character-istics
and the type of the products and therefore may not be
applicable in all the situations. The results also show that
the values of price/cost, product innovation, and delivery
dependabilityare not as high as those of qualityand time
to market. This mayindicate that qualityand time to mar-ket
are stronger indicators of competitive advantage than the
other three dimensions.
To determine whether the model in Fig. 2a has the best
fit, alternate models were evaluated bydropping one of the
links between the constructs at one time (see Fig. 2b–d).
In Fig. 2b, SCM practice and competitive advantage were
treated as independent constructs; the LISREL path coeffi-cients
for SCM practice on organizational performance and
competitive advantage on organizational performance are
both significant, indicating that SCM practice and compet-
10. 116 S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124
Strategic
Supplier
Partnership
Customer
Relationship
Level of
Information
Sharing
Quality of
Information
Sharing
Postponement
Supply Chain
Management
Practice
Organizational
Performance
Competitive
Advantage
Marketing
Performance
Financial
Performance
Price/cost
Quality
Delivery
Dependability
Product
Innovation
Time to
Market
0.44
0.63
0.44
0.59
0.97
0.75
0.61
0.75
0.64
0.18
0.24 t=2.21
0.55 t=3.33
0.48 t=2.80
0.82
0.81
0.33
0.64
0.39
0.41
0.59
0.33
0.35
0.89
0.59
0.85
0.83
0.66
RMSR=0.035, GFI=0.90, AGFI=0.84, CFI=0.84
Strategic
Supplier
Partnership
Customer
Relationship
Level of
Information
Sharing
Quality of
Information
Sharing
Postponement
Supply Chain
Management
Practice
Organizational
Performance
Competitive
Advantage
Marketing
Performance
Financial
Performance
Price/cost
Quality
Delivery
Dependability
Product
Innovation
Time to
Market
0.49
0.68
0.37
0.56
0.97
0.71
0.56
0.79
0.66
0.17
0.36 t=4.14
0.47 t=2.83
0.80
0.81
0.30
0.67
0.37
0.48
0.55
0.37
0.34
0.91
0.56
0.86
0.77
0.70
RMSR=0.063, GFI=0.88, AGFI=0.82, CFI=0.79
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. (a) Proposed and (b)–(d) alternative models of SCM practices, competitive advantage, and organizational performance.
itive advantage have independent affects on organizational
performance. In Fig. 2c, the direct link between SCM
practice and organizational performance was dropped. The
LISREL path coefficient between competitive advantage
and organizational performance became much stronger. In
Fig. 2d, the link between competitive advantage and or-ganizational
performance was removed, the LISREL path
coefficient for SCM practice on competitive advantage and
SCM practice on organizational performance are both sig-nificant,
indicating that SCMP has direct impact on both
competitive advantage and organizational performance. The
fit statistics for the models in Fig. 2b and d were not as
good as the fit statistics for the model in Fig. 2a and c.
Fig. 2a and c had almost the same fit indices.
To further test whether the proposed model in Fig. 2a
should be accepted compared to the three alternative mod-els,
sequential Chi-square difference tests (SCDTs) were
conducted bycalculating the difference between Chi-square
statistic values for the proposed model (Fig. 2a) and each
of the alternate models (Fig. 2b–d), with degrees of free-dom
equal to the difference in degrees of freedom for the
two selected models [111]. The results are presented in
Table 4. A significant result would indicate that the addi-tional
estimated link (parameter) in the proposed model in-crementallycontrib
ute to the explanation given bythe alter-native
model, the proposed model will be accepted. Other-wise,
the alternative model will be accepted with parsimony
preferred when given no difference in explanation of the
11. S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124 117
Strategic
Supplier
Partnership
Customer
Relationship
Level of
Information
Sharing
Quality of
Information
Sharing
Postponement
Supply Chain
Management
Practice
Organizational
Performance
Competitive
Advantage
Marketing
Performance
Financial
Performance
Price/cost
Quality
Delivery
Dependability
Product
Innovation
Time to
Market
0.44
0.63
0.44
0.60
0.97
0.75
0.61
0.75
0.64
0.18
0.61 t=3.56
0.67 t=3.56
0.84
0.79
0.33
0.61
0.38
0.37
0.59
0.30
0.37
0.89
0.63
0.86
0.86
0.65
RMSR=0.036, GFI=0.90, AGFI=0.84, CFI=0.84
Strategic
Supplier
Partnership
Customer
Relationship
Level of
Information
Sharing
Quality of
Information
Sharing
Postponement
Supply Chain
Management
Practice
Organizational
Performance
Competitive
Advantage
Marketing
Performance
Financial
Performance
Price/cost
Quality
Delivery
Dependability
Product
Innovation
Time to
Market
0.45
0.62
0.48
0.60
0.97
0.74
0.62
0.72
0.63
0.18
0.55 t=5.78
0.60 t=3.42
0.80
0.83
0.33
0.63
0.41
0.43
0.57
0.37
0.31
0.89
0.60
0.83
0.81
0.67
RMSR=0.040 GFI=0.89, AGFI=0.83, CFI=0.82
(c)
(d)
Fig. 2. (continued).
Table 4
Comparison of alternative models
Model Chi-square DF Chi-square difference DF difference SCDTs ( = .05)
Fig. 2a: Proposed model 134.04 51
Fig. 2b: Remove the link SCMP → CA 159.39 52 25.35 1 Significant
Fig. 2c: Remove the link SCMP → OP 138.26 52 4.22 1 Significant
Fig. 2d: Remove the link CA → OP 147.76 52 13.72 1 Significant
construct covariances. Table 4 shows that the proposed
model in Fig. 2a is accepted compared to the alternative
model in Fig. 2b–d at a significant level of .05.
The results of the proposed structural equation model
analysis are also presented in Table 5 indicating support for
all the hypotheses. The results support Hypothesis 1, which
states that organizations with high levels of SCM practice
have high levels of organizational performance. The stan-dardized
coefficient is .24 which is statisticallysignificant at
P .05 (t = 2.21). The statistical significance of Hypoth-
12. 118 S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124
Table 5
Results for proposed structural equation model
Hypothesis Relationship Total effects Direct effects Indirect effects Hypothesis
H1 SCMP → OP .50** (5.59) .24* (2.21) .26** (t = 3.17) Supported
H2 SCMP → CA .55** (3.33) .55** (3.33) Supported
H3 CA → OP .48** (2.80) .48** (2.80) Supported
GFI = .90 AGFI = .84 CFI = .84 RMSR = .035
Note: *Significant at .05,** significant at .01 (one-tailed test). t-values are in parentheses.
esis 1 confirms that SCM practice can have a bottom-line
influence on the organizational performance. The imple-mentation
of SCM maydirectlyimpro ve an organization’s
financial and marketing performances in the long run.
Hypothesis 2 is also supported which indicates that SCM
practice have a direct impact on competitive advantage. The
standardized coefficient is .55 which is statisticallysignif-icant
at P .01(t = 3.33). The implementation of various
SCM practices, such as strategic supplier partnership, cus-tomer
relationship building, and postponement, maypro vide
the organization a competitive advantage on cost, quality,
dependability, flexibility, and time-to-market dimensions.
The results also indicate that higher levels of compet-itive
advantage maylead to improved organizational per-formance,
thus confirming Hypothesis 3. The standardized
coefficient is .48 which is statisticallysignificant at P .01
(t = 2.80).
Based on the standardized coefficients of the three hy-potheses
displayed in Table 5, SCM practice mayha ve a
greater direct impact on competitive advantage ( = .55)
than on organizational performance ( = .24). This could
be true since organizational performance is usuallyin-fluenced
byman yf actors and it is hard to see whether
anyone factor, such as SCM practice, will dominantly
determine the overall performance of an organization.
The results also show that organizational performance
is more influenced bycompetiti ve advantage ( = .48)
than bySCM practice ( = .24). This indicates that SCM
practices produce competitive advantage to the organi-zation
in the first place, and competitive advantage will,
in turn, lead to improved organizational performance. In
literature, SCM practices, mostly, have been linked di-rectlyto
organizational performance. The findings of this
research indicate the presence of an intermediate mea-sure
of competitive advantage between SCM practice and
organizational performance.
The standardized coefficient of the indirect effect of SCM
practice on organizational performance is .26 (t = 3.17),
which is significant at .01 level. Our analysis from Table 5
thus shows that SCM practices can have a direct, positive
influence on organizational performance as well as an indi-rect
one through competitive advantage.
The studyfocuses on the causal relationships between
SCM practice, competitive advantage and organizational
performance and ignores the possible recursive relation-ships.
It is possible that enhanced competitive advantage and
increased organizational performance could have improved
the levels of SCM practice. The increased competitiveness
of a firm mayenable a firm to implement higher level of
SCM practice due to the need to outperform its competi-tors
constantlyand keep its competitive position in today’s
dynamic business world. On the other hand, enhanced or-ganizational
performance provides a firm increased capital
to implement various SCM practices. Likewise, enhanced
organizational performance could have increased the com-petitive
advantage of a firm. For example, a firm with good
financial capabilitycan afford to offer low price, which pro-vides
a cost advantage over its competitors.
6. Research implications and limitations
The present studyv alidates the SCM practice construct
that has generallybeen poorlydefined and about whose
meaning there has been a high degree of variabilityin peo-ple’s
understanding [27]. Although some organizations have
realized the importance of implementing SCM, theyoften
do not know exactlywhat to implement, due to a lack of
understanding of what constitutes a comprehensive set of
SCM practices. Byproposing, developing, and validating a
multi-dimensional, operational measure of the construct of
SCM practice, and bydemonstrating its efficacyin enhanc-ing
organizational performance and competitive advantage,
the present studypro vides SCM managers with a useful
tool for evaluating the comprehensiveness of their current
SCM practices. We have shown that SCM practice forms
a second-order construct composed of the first-order con-structs
of strategic supplier partnership, customer relation-ship,
level of information sharing, qualityof information
sharing, and postponement—the five major components of
SCM practice. Through the analysis of the relationship of
SCM practice construct with competitive advantage (Hy-pothesis
2), it was demonstrated that SCM practice maydi-rectlyimpact
competitive advantage. The findings of this
research thus point to the importance of SCM practices to
the organization.
As today’s competition is moving from “among
organizations” to “between supplychains”, more and more
organizations are increasinglyadopting SCM practice in
the hope of reducing supplychain costs and securing
13. S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124 119
competitive advantage. The findings of this research sup-port
the view that SCM practices can have discernible
impact on competitive advantage and organizational
performance.
It should be noted that the SCM practices maybe influ-enced
byconte xtual factors, such as the type of industry,
firm size, a firm’s position in the supplychain, supply
chain length, and the type of a supply chain. For example,
the level of customer relationship practice, measured by
customer satisfactions and expectations, maybe higher for
companylocated at the end of a supplychain (close to
the consumer). The larger organizations mayha ve higher
levels of SCM practices since theyusuallyha ve more com-plex
supplychain networks necessitating the need for more
effective management of supplychain. The level of infor-mation
qualitymaybe influenced negativelybythe length
of a supplychain. Information suffers from delayand
distortion as it travels along the supplychain, the shorter
the supplychain, the less chance it will get distorted.
Moreover, the higher level of postponement maybe asso-ciated
with make-to-order versus make-to-stock production
systems.
Because of the limited number of observations (196), the
revalidation of constructs was not carried out in this research.
Lack of systematic confirmatory research impedes general
agreement on the use of instrument. Future research should
revalidate measurement scales developed through this re-search.
As the concept of SCM is complex and involves a
network of companies in the effort of producing and deliv-ering
a final product, its entire domain cannot be covered
in just one study. Future research can expand the domain of
SCM practice byconsidering additional dimensions such as
geographical proximity, JIT/lean capability, cross-functional
coordination, logistics integration, and agreed supplychain
leadership, which have been ignored from this study. The
future studycan also test the relationships/dependencies
among five dimensions of SCM practices. For example, in-formation
sharing mayrequire the establishment of a strate-gic
supplier partnership. The data for the studyconsisted of
responses from single respondents in an organization which
maybe a cause for possible response bias. The results have
to be interpreted taking this limitation into account. The use
of single respondent maygenerate some measurement inac-curacy.
Future research should seek to utilize multiple re-spondents
from each participating organization to enhance
the research findings. It will also be of interest to use the
respondents from pairs of organizations at two ends of sup-plychains.
Bycomparing different view of SCM practices
from organizations across the supplychain, it is possible to
identifythe strength and weakness of the supplychain and
also the best common SCM practice across the supplychain.
Future research can studySCM issues at the supplychain
level. Taking a single supplychain as an example, it is of
interest to investigate the characteristics, policy, and mech-anism
governing this supplychain, the interactions among
all the participants within the supplychain (first-tier sup-pliers,
second-tier suppliers, manufacturers, carriers, cus-tomers,
etc.), and how the SCM practices differ across each
participating organization. Future studies can also examine
the proposed relationships bybringing some contextual vari-ables
into the model, such as organizational size and supply
chain structure. For example, it will be intriguing to inves-tigate
how SCM practice differs across organization size.
It will also be interesting to examine the impact of supply
chain structure (supplychain length, organization’s position
in the supplychain, channel structure, and so on) on SCM
practice and competitive advantage.
7. Conclusion
This paper provides empirical justification for a frame-work
that identifies five keydimensions of SCM practices
and describes the relationship among SCM practices, com-petitive
advantage, and organizational performance. It ex-amines
three research questions: (1) do organizations with
high levels of SCM practices have high levels of competi-tive
advantage; (2) do organizations with high level of SCM
practices have high levels of organizational performance;
(3) do organizations with high levels of competitive advan-tage
have a high level of organizational performance? For
the purpose of investigating these issues a comprehensive,
valid, and reliable instrument for assessing SCM practices
was developed. The instrument was tested using rigorous
statistical tests including convergent validity, discriminant
validity, reliability, and the validation of second-order con-structs.
This studypro vides empirical evidence to support
conceptual and prescriptive statements in the literature re-garding
the impact of SCM practices.
Appendix A. Instruments for supply chain management
practice, competitive advantage (CA) and organiza-tional
performance (OP)
With regard to SCM practice, please circle the number
that accuratelyreflects your firm’s present conditions.
Strategic supplier partnership (SSP)
SCMP/SSP1 We consider qualityas our number one
criterion in selecting suppliers.
SCMP/SSP2 We regularlysolv e problems jointly
with our suppliers.
SCMP/SSP3 We have helped our suppliers to im-prove
their product quality.
SCMP/SSP4 We have continuous improvement pro-grams
that include our keysuppliers.
SCMP/SSP5 We include our keysuppliers in our
planning and goal-setting activities.
14. 120 S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124
SCMP/SSP6 We activelyin volve our keysuppliers
in new product development processes.
Customer relationship (CR)
SCMP/CR1 We frequentlyinteract with customers
to set reliability, responsiveness, and
other standards for us.
SCMP/CR2 We frequentlymeasure and evaluate
customer satisfaction.
SCMP/CR3 We frequentlydetermine future cus-tomer
expectations.
SCMP/CR4 We facilitate customers’ abilityto seek
assistance from us.
SCMP/CR5 We periodicallye valuate the impor-tance
of our relationship with our
customers.
Level of information sharing (IS)
SCMP/IS1 We inform trading partners in advance
of changing needs.
SCMP/IS2 Our trading partners share proprietary
information with us.
SCMP/IS3 Our trading partners keep us fullyin-formed
about issues that affect our
business.
SCMP/IS4 Our trading partners share business
knowledge of core business processes
with us.
SCMP/IS5 We and our trading partners exchange
information that helps establishment of
business planning.
SCMP/IS6 We and our trading partners keep each
other informed about events or changes
that mayaf fect the other partners.
Level of information quality (IQ)
SCMP/IQ1 Information exchange between our
trading partners and us is timely.
SCMP/IQ2 Information exchange between our
trading partners and us is accurate.
SCMP/IQ3 Information exchange between our
trading partners and us is complete.
SCMP/IQ4 Information exchange between our
trading partners and us is adequate.
SCMP/IQ5 Information exchange between our
trading partners and us is reliable.
Postponement (POS)
SCMP/POS1 Our products are designed for modular
assembly.
SCMP/POS2 We delayfinal product assemblyacti vi-ties
until customer orders have actually
been received.
SCMP/POS3 We delayfinal product assemblyac-tivities
until the last possible position
(or nearest to customers) in the supply
chain.
With regard to competitive advantage of your firm,
please circle the appropriate number to indicate the ex-tent
to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
The item scales are five-point Likert type scales with
1 = stronglydisagree , 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 =
agree, 5 = stronglyagree , 6 = not applicable.
Note: Items marked byan asterisk were removed in the
final instruments.
Price/cost: an organization is capable of compet-ing
against major competitors based on
low price.
CA/PC1 We offer competitive prices.
CA/PC2 We are able to offer prices as low or
lower than our competitors.
Quality: an organization is capable of offering
product quality and performance that
creates higher value for customers.
CA/QL1 We are able to compete based on qual-ity.
CA/QL2 We offer products that are highlyreli-able.
CA/QL3 We offer products that are verydurable.
CA/QL4 We offer high qualityproducts to our
customer.
Delivery
dependability:
an organization is capable of providing
on time the type and volume of product
required by customer(s).
CA/DD1* We deliver the kind of products needed.
CA/DD2 We deliver customer order on time.
CA/DD3 We provide dependable delivery.
Product
innovation:
an organization is capable of introduc-ing
new products and features in the
market place.
CA/PI1 We provide customized products.
CA/PI2 We alter our product offerings to meet
client needs.
CA/PI3 We respond well to customer demand
for “new” features.
Time to
market:
an organization is capable of intro-ducing
new products faster than major
competitors.
CA/TM1* We deliver product to market quickly.
CA/TM2 We are first in the market in introducing
new products.
CA/TM3 We have time-to-market lower than in-dustrya
verage.
CA/TM4 We have fast product development.
Please circle appropriate number which best indicate
your firm’s overall performance. The item scales are
15. S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124 121
five-point Likert scales with 1 = significant decrease, 2 =
decrease, 3=same as before, 4=increase, 5=significant
increase, 6 = not applicable.
Organizational performance: how well an organization
achieves its market-oriented goals as well as its financial
goals.
OP1 Market share.
OP2 Return on investment.
OP3 The growth of market share.
OP4 The growth of sales.
OP5 Growth in return on investment.
OP6 Profit margin on sales.
OP7 Overall competitive position.
Appendix B. Demographic data for the respondents
(sample size 196)
Variables Total First-wave Second
responses and third
waves
FrequencyFrequenc y Frequency
(percent) (percent) (percent)
Number of employees (194)
100–250 74 (38.1%) 36 (38.7%) 38 (37.6%)
251–500 27 (13.9%) 12 (12.9%) 15 (14.6%)
501–1000 19 (9.8%) 7 (7.5%) 12 (11.9%)
Over 1000 74 (38.1%) 38 (40.9%) 36 (35.6%)
Sales volume in millions of $ (190)
Under 10 5 (2.6%) 4 (4.4%) 1 (1.0%)
10–25 37 (19.5%) 18 (20.0%) 19 (19.0%)
25–50 28 (14.7%) 9 (10.0%) 19 (19.0%)
50–100 26 (13.7%) 14 (15.6%) 12 (12.0%)
Over 100 94 (49.5%) 45 (50.0%) 49 (49.0%)
Job title (194)
CEO/President 14 (7.2%) 10 (10.6%) 4 (4.0%)
/Vice President
Director 35 (18.0%) 17 (18.3%) 18 (17.8%)
Manager 121 (63.4%) 54 (58.1%) 67 (66.3%)
Other 24 (12.4%) 12 (12.9%) 12 (11.9%)
Years stayed at the organization (194)
Under 2 years 15 (7.7%) 12 (12.9%) 3 (3.0%)
2–5 years 29 (14.9%) 12 (12.9%) 17 (16.8%)
6–10 years 32 (16.5%) 15 (16.1%) 17 (16.8%)
Over 10 years 118 (60.8%) 54 (58.1%) 64 (63.4%)
References
[1] Childhouse P, Towill DR. Simplified material flow holds the
keyto supplychain integration. OMEGA 2003;31(1):17–27.
[2] Moberg CR, Cutler BD, Gross A, Speh TW. Identifying
antecedents of information exchange within supplychains.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management 2002;32(9):755–70.
[3] Power DJ, Sohal A, Rahman SU. Critical success factors
in agile supplychain management: an empirical study.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management 2001;31(4):247–65.
[4] Tan KC, Lyman SB, Wisner JD. Supply chain management:
a strategic perspective. International Journal of Operations
and Production Management 2002;22(6):614–31.
[5] Council of Logistics Management. What it’s all about. Oak
Brook: CLM, 2000.
[6] Feldmann M, Müller S. An incentive scheme for
true information providing in supplychains. OMEGA
2003;31(2):63–73.
[7] Croom S, Romano P, Giannakis M. Supplychain
management: an analytical framework for critical literature
review. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management 2000;6(1):67–83.
[8] Van Hoek RI. Measuring the unmeasurable—measuring and
improving performance in the supplychain. SupplyChain
Management 1998;3(4):187–92.
[9] Jones C. Moving beyond ERP: making the missing link.
Logistics Focus 1998;6(7):2–7.
[10] Ellram LM. The supplier selection decision in strategic
partnerships. Journal of Purchasing and Materials and
Management 1990;Fall:8–14.
[11] Williamson O. Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust
implications. New York: The Free Press; 1975.
[12] Rungtusanatham M, Salvador F, Forza C, Choi TY. Supply
chain linkage and operational performance, a resource-based
view perspective. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 2003;23(9):1084–99.
[13] Porter ME. Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining
superior performance. New York: The Free Press; 1985.
[14] Stern L, Reve T. Distribution channels as political economies:
a framework for competitive analysis. Journal of Marketing
1980;44:52–64.
[15] Cigolini R, Cozzi M, Perona M. A new framework for
supplychain management: conceptual model and empirical
test. International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 2004;24(1):7–14.
[16] Tan KC, Kannan VR, Handfield RB. Supplychain
management: supplier performance and firm performance.
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials
Management 1998;34(3):2–9.
[17] Banfield E. Harnessing value in the supplychain. New York,
NY: Wiley; 1999.
[18] Lamming R. Beyond partnership: strategies for innovation
and lean supply. New York: Prentice-Hall; 1993.
[19] Alvarado UY, Kotzab H. Supplychain management: the
integration of logistics in marketing. Industrial Marketing
Management 2001;30(2):183–98.
[20] Bechtel C, Jayaram J. Supply chain management: a strategic
perspective. International Journal of Logistics Management
1997;8(1):15–34.
[21] Romano P, Vinelli A. Qualitymanagement in a supplychain
perspective: strategic and operative choices in a textile-apparel
network. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 2001;21(4):446–60.
16. 122 S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124
[22] Rudberg M, Olhager J. Manufacturing networks and
supplychains: an operations strategyperspecti ve. OMEGA
2003;31(1):29–39.
[23] Shah R, Goldstein SM, Ward PT. Aligning supply
chain management characteristics and interorganizational
information system types: an exploratory study. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management 2002;49(3):
282–92.
[24] Choi TY, HartleyJL. An exploration of supplier selection
practices across the supplychain. Journal of Operations
Management 1996;14(4):333–43.
[25] Vonderembse MA, TraceyM. The impact of supplier
selection criteria and supplier involvement on manufacturing
performance. Journal of SupplyChain Management
1999;35(3):33–9.
[26] Stuart FI. Supply-chain strategy: organizational influence
through supplier alliances. British Academyof Management
1997;8(3):223–36.
[27] Monczka RM, Morgan J. What’s wrong with supplychain
management?. Purchasing 1997;122(1):69–72.
[28] Narasimhan R, Jayaram J. Causal linkage in supply chain
management: an exploratorystudyof North American
manufacturing firms. Decision Science 1998;29(3):579–605.
[29] Shin H, Collier DA, Wilson DD. Supplymanagement
orientation and supplier/buyer performance. Journal of
Operations Management 2000;18(3):317–33.
[30] Handfield RB, Bechtel C. The role of trust and relationship
structure in improving supplychain responsiveness.
Industrial Marketing Management 2002;4(31):367–82.
[31] Chen IJ, Paulraj A. Towards a theoryof supplychain
management: the constructs and measurements. Journal of
Operations Management 2004;22(2):119–50.
[32] Clark TH, Lee HG. Performance, interdependence and
coordination in business-to-business electronic commerce
and supplychain management. Information Technologyand
Management 2000;1(1,2):85–105.
[33] Frohlich MT, Westbrook R. Arcs of integration: an
international studyof supplychain strategies. Journal of
Operations Management 2001;19(2):185–200.
[34] Min S, Mentzer JT. Developing and measuring supplychain
concepts. Journal of Business Logistics 2004;25(1):63–99.
[35] Koufteros XA, Vonderembse MA, Doll WJ. Competitive
capabilities: measurement and relationships. Proceedings
Decision Science Institute 1997;1067–68.
[36] Zhang, QY. Technologyinfusion enabled value chain
flexibility: a learning and capability-based perspective.
Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Toledo, Toledo, OH,
2001.
[37] Donlon JP. Maximizing value in the supplychain. Chief
Executive 1996;117:54–63.
[38] Balsmeier PW, Voisin W. Supplychain management: a time-based
strategy. Industrial Management 1996;38(5):24–7.
[39] Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E. Performance measures
and metrics in a supplychain environment. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management
2001;21(1/2):71–87.
[40] Monczka RM, Petersen KJ, Handfield RB, Ragatz
GL. Success factors in strategic supplier alliances: the
buying company perspective. Decision Science 1998;29(3):
5553–77.
[41] Sheridan JH. The supply-chain paradox. Industry Week
1998;247(3):20–9.
[42] Claycomb C, Droge C, Germain R. The effect of just-in-
time with customers on organizational design and
performance. International Journal of Logistics Management
1999;10(1):37–58.
[43] DayGS. Managing market relationships. Journal of the
Academyof Marketing Science 2000;28(1):24–30.
[44] Magretta J. The power of virtual integration: an interview
with Dell computers’ Michael Dell. Harvard Business Review
1998;76(2):72–84.
[45] Noble D. Purchasing and supplier management as a future
competitive edge. Logistics Focus 1997;5(5):23–7.
[46] Wines L. High order strategyfor manufacturing. The Journal
of Business Strategy1996;17(4):32 –3.
[47] Lalonde BJ. Building a supplychain relationship. Supply
Chain Management Review 1998;2(2):7–8.
[48] Mentzer JT, Min S, Zacharia ZG. The nature of inter-firm
partnering in supplychain management. Journal of Retailing
2000;76(4):549–68.
[49] Novack RA, LangleyJr CJ, Rinehart LM. Creating logistics
value: themes for the future. Oak Brook, IL: Council of
Logistics Management; 1995.
[50] Stein T, Sweat J. Killer supplychains. Informationweek
1998;708(9):36–46.
[51] Towill DR. The seamless chain—the predator’s strategic
advantage. International Journal of TechnologyManagement
1997;13(1):37–56.
[52] BerryD, Towill DR, WadsleyN. Supplychain management
in the electronics products industry. International Journal
of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management
1994;24(10):20–32.
[53] Chizzo SA. 1998. Supplychain strategies: solutions for the
customer-driven enterprise. Software magazine. Supplychain
management directions supplement January4–9, 1998.
[54] Holmberg S. A systems perspective on supply chain
measurements. International Journal of Physical Distribution
and Logistics Management 2000;30(10):847–68.
[55] Jarrell JL. Supplychain economics. World Trade 1998;
11(11):58–61.
[56] Lee HL, Padmanabhan V, Whang S. Information distortion
in a supplychain: the bullwhip effect. Management Science
1997;43(4):546–58.
[57] Mason-Jones R, Towill DR. Information enrichment:
designing the supplychain for competitive advantage. Supply
Chain Management 1997;2(4):137–48.
[58] McAdam R, McCormack D. Integrating business processes
for global alignment and supplychain management. Business
Process Management Journal 2001;7(2):113–30.
[59] Metters R. Quantifying the bullwhip effect in supply chains.
Journal of Operations Management 1997;15(2):89–100.
[60] Beamon BM. Supplychain design and analysis: models
and methods. International Journal of Production Economics
1998;55(3):281–94.
[61] Fisher ML. What is the right supplychain for your product?.
Harvard Business Review 1997;75(2):105–16.
[62] Fisher ML, Hammond JH, Obermeyer WR, Raman A.
Making supplymeet demand in an uncertain world. Harvard
Business Review 1994;72(3):83–93.
[63] Fuller JB, O’Conor J, Rawlinson R. Tailored logistics:
the next advantage. Harvard Business Review 1993;71(3):
87–98.
17. S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124 123
[64] Johnson ME, Davis T. Improving supplychain performance
byusing order fulfillment metrics. National Productivity
Review 1998;17(3):3–16.
[65] Lee HL, Billington C. The evolution of supplychain
management models and practices at Hewlett Packard.
Interface 1995;25(5):42–63.
[66] Naylor JB, Naim MM, Berry D. Legality: integrating
the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total
supplychain. International Journal of Production Economics
1999;62(1,2):107–18.
[67] Pagh JD, Cooper MC. Supplychain postponement and
speculation strategies: how to choose the right strategy.
Journal of Logistics Management 1998;19(2):13–33.
[68] Van Hoek RI, Voss RI, Commandeur HR. Restructuring
European supplychain byimplementing postponement
strategies. Long Range Planning 1999;32(5):505–18.
[69] Waller MA, Dabholkar PA, GentryJJ. Postponement,
product customization, and market-oriented supplychain
management. Journal of Business Logistics 2000;21(2):
133–59.
[70] Yoshino M, Rangan S. Strategic alliances: an entrepreneurial
approach to globalization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press; 1995.
[71] Turner JR. Integrated supplychain manage-ment:
what’s wrong with this picture. Industrial Engineering
1993;25(12):52–5.
[72] Tompkins J, Ang D. What are your greatest challenges related
to supplychain performance measurement?. IIE Solutions
1999;31(6):66.
[73] McGinnis MA, Vallopra RM. Purchasing and supplier
involvement in process improvement: a source of
competitive advantage. Journal of SupplyChain Management
1999;35(4):42–50.
[74] TraceyM, Vonderembse MA, Lim JS. Manufacturing
technologyand strategyformulation: keys to enhancing
competitiveness and improving performance. Journal of
Operations Management 1999;17(4):411–28.
[75] Roth A, Miller J. Manufacturing strategy, manufacturing
strength, managerial success, and economic outcomes. In:
Ettlie J, Burstein M, Fiegehaum A., editors. Manufacturing
strategy. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1990.
p. 97–108.
[76] Skinner W. The taming of the lions: how manufacturing
leadership involved, 1780–1984. In: Clark KB, Hayes R,
Lorenz C., editors. The uneasyalliance: managing the
productivity-technology dilemma. Boston, MA: The Harvard
Business School Press; 1985. p. 63–110.
[77] Stalk G. Time—the next source of competitive advantage.
Harvard Business Review 1988;66(4):41–51.
[78] VeseyJT . The new competitors: theythink in terms of speed-to-
market. Academyof Management Executive 1991;5(2):23
–33.
[79] Handfield RB, Pannesi RT. Antecedents of lead-time
competitiveness in make-to-order manufacturing firms.
International Journal of Production Research 1995;33(2):511
–37.
[80] Kessler E, Chakrabarti A. Innovation speed: a conceptual
mode of context, antecedents, and outcomes. The Academy
of Management Review 1996;21(4):1143–91.
[81] Cleveland G, Schroeder RG, Anderson JC. A theory
of production competence. Decision Science 1989;20(4):
655–68.
[82] Rondeau PJ, Vonderembse MA, Ragu-Nathan TS. Exploring
work system practices for time-based manufacturers: their
impact on competitive advantage. Journal of Operations
Management 2000;18(5):509–29.
[83] Safizadeh HM, Ritzman LP, Sharma D, Wood C. An
empirical analysis of the product-process mix. Management
Science 1996;42(11):1576–91.
[84] VickeryS, Calantone R, Droge C. Supplychain flexibility:
an empirical study. Journal of Supply Chain Management
1999;35(3):16–24.
[85] Yamin S, Gunasekruan A, Mavondo FT. Relationship
between generic strategy, competitive advantage and
firm performance: an empirical analysis. Technovation
1999;19(8):507–18.
[86] Stock GN, Greis NP, Kasarda JD. Enterprise logistics and
supplychain structure: the role of fit. Journal of Operations
Management 2000;18(5):531–47.
[87] Prasad S, Tata J. Information investment in supply
chain management. Logistics Information Management
2000;13(1):33–8.
[88] Carr AS, Person JN. Strategicallymanaged buyers–seller
relationships and performance outcomes. Journal of
Operations Management 1999;17(5):497–519.
[89] StanleyLL, Wisner JD. Service qualityalong the supply
chain: implications for purchasing. Journal of Operations
Management 2001;19(3):287–306.
[90] Lamming RC. Squaring lean supplywith supplychain
management. International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 1996;16(2):183–96.
[91] Stuart FI. Supplier partnerships: influencing factors and
strategic benefits. International Journal of Purchasing and
Materials Management 1993;29(4):22–8.
[92] De Toni A, Nassimbeni G. Just-in-time purchasing:
an empirical studyof operational practices, supplier
development and performance. OMEGA 2000;28(6):631–51.
[93] Lin F, Huang S, Lin S. Effects of information sharing
on supplychain performance in electronic commerce.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 2002;49(3):
258–68.
[94] Ragatz GL, Handfield RB, Scannell TV. Success factors for
integrating suppliers into new product development. Journal
of Product Innovation Management 1997;14(3):190–202.
[95] Spekman RE, Kamauff Jr JW, Myhr N. An empirical
investigation into supplychain management: a perspective
on partnerships. SupplyChain Management 1998;3(2):
53–67.
[96] Lee J, KimY. Effect of partnership qualityon IS outsourcing:
conceptual framework and empirical validation. Journal of
Management Information Systems 1999;15(4):26–61.
[97] Walton LW. Partnership satisfaction: using the underlying
dimensions of supplychain partnership to measure current
and expected levels of satisfaction. Journal of Business
Logistics 1996;17(2):57–75.
[98] Moran WT. Research on discrete consumption markets can
guide resource shifts, help increase profitability. Marketing
News 1981;14(23):4.
[99] Churchill GA. A paradigm for developing better measures
of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Studies
1979;16:12–27.
[100] Forker LB, Ruch WA, Hershauer JC. Examining supplier
improvement efforts from both sides. Journal of Supply
Chain Management 1999;35(3):40–50.
18. 124 S. Li et al. / Omega 34 (2006) 107 – 124
[101] Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement 1960;Spring:
37–46.
[102] Landis JR, Koch CG. The measure-ment
of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics
1977;33(March):159–74.
[103] Amstrong JS, Overton TS. Estimating non-response bias
in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 1977;14:
396–402.
[104] Lambert DM, Harrington TC. Measuring nonresponse bias
in mail surveys. Journal of Business Logistics 1990;11:5–25.
[105] Buvik A, GrZnhaug K. Inter-firm dependence, environmental
uncertaintyand vertical co-ordination in industrial
buyer–seller relationships. OMEGA 2000;28(4):445–54.
[106] Narasimhan R, Kim SO. Information system utilization
strategyfrom supplychain integration. Journal of Business
Logistics 2001;22(2):51–76.
[107] Tu Q, Vonderembse MA, Ragu-Nathan TS. The impact of
time-based manufacturing practices on mass customization
and value to customer. Journal of Operations Management
2001;19(2):201–17.
[108] Li S, Rao S, Ragu-Nathan TS, Ragu-Nathan B. An Empirical
Investigation of SupplyChain Management Practices.
Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting of the decision
science institute 2002, San Diego, CA, November 23–26,
2002.
[109] NunnallyJ. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1978.
[110] Doll WJ, Raghunathan T, Lim SJ, Gupta YP. A confirmatory
factor analysis of the user information satisfaction
instrument. Information Systems Research 1995;6(2):
177–88.
[111] Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in
practice: a review and recommendation two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin 1998;103(3):411–23.