|
英国开放大学留学供应链管理论文定制,Supply chain management: theory, practice and future
challenges
John Storey and Caroline Emberson
The Open University of uk 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 supplychains 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 fourechelons 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 theoryand practice. Few practitioners were able – or even seriously aspired – to extend their reach across thesupply chain in the manner prescribed in much modern theory. The paper identifies the range of keybarriers 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 existingthinking 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 betterprospects 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 supplychain. Barriers to effective supply management are identified and some practical steps to surmountthem are suggested.
Originality/value – The paper is original in the way in which it draws on an extensive systematicstudy to critically assess current theory and current developments. The paper points the way fortheorists 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 anemerging academic domain. Neither perspective is fully mature but each hasconsiderable promise. The future progress of each will be enhanced and indeed isultimately dependent upon the other. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to take stockof developments in theory and practice to date and to identify barriers and possibilities.Moreover, given the off-remarked acknowledgement of the crucial importance of thebehavioural and people dimension but the relative neglect of this in any substantiveform, we give special attention to this aspect. Supply (chain) management is ultimatelyabout influencing behaviour in particular directions and in particular ways. Theunderlying logics, drivers, enablers and barriers merit and require close attention.The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at#p#分页标题#e#
International Journal of Operations &Production Management
Vol. 26 No. 7, 2006
pp. 754-774
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0144-3577
DOI 10.1108/01443570610672220
A number of analysts have already sought to comprehend and substantially redrawthe boundaries of, and the essential nature of, this domain of theorising and practice. Forexample, in one of the more coherent and developed attempts at a reconceptualisation,Harland et al. (1999) present the case for a new expanded body of knowledge and field ofpractice which they suggest should be labelled “supply strategy”. The rationale behindthis is the intent to improve upon the more limited concepts of “operations management”and “operations strategy”. They suggest that supply strategy can embrace logistics,operations management, purchasing and supply management, industrial relationshipmarketing and service management. But, they suggest it is not just an aggregation ofthese: the underpinning idea is to exploit “relational strategies” in a holistic way.When approached in such a way the field merges imperceptibly into the strategicmanagement literature concerned with strategic partnerships (Storey, 2002). Strategicpartnerships can be formed “horizontally” and “vertically” – the latter being expressionsof supply or channel relationships. Closer bonds are:. . . what separates partnerships from a more transaction based set of exchanges which arelimited in scope and purpose (Mohr and Spekman, 1994, p. 140).
The essential point is to identify and describe a domain of theory and practice wherethere is potential for some additional gain by reconceptualising it in a particular way.
The important idea captured at least in part by “supply strategy” (or “strategic supplymanagement”) is that a mode of thinking and action which encompasses, and seeks to
exploit, interlocking relationships could potentially be used as a powerful lever for
competitive advantage (Ketchen and Giunipero, 2004).
Drawing upon an extensive three year research project which involved a number ofsupply chains encompassing a total of 72 companies in Europe, we seek in this paper toshed new light on the theory and practice of strategic supply management. We willargue that while there is an emerging body of theory which ostensibly offers a relativelycoherent and compelling prescriptive narrative, predominant practice is at considerableodds with this conceptualisation.We will also reveal the substantial reasons why such a
discrepancy exists and why it is likely to persist in most value chains for some time tocome. It is certainly possible to find transient instances of impressive practice; but wemaintain and show that these are vulnerable to erosion. Thus, while the field of supply(chain) management has promise in terms of its idealist allure, in practice it will remain
under-developed unless new modes of skilful intervention are developed.If supply chain management is to mature as a discipline there needs to be further#p#分页标题#e#
progress in clarifying its domain, its central problems, its core components, its theoriesand its theoretical map (Tranfield and Starkey, 1998; Croom and Romano, 2000; Storeyet al., 2005). In addition, we need to attend to how this work in theory-building can beassisted by drawing on the study of practice. Under this latter heading we include mostcentrally how managers’ own cognitive maps, expectations and goals are constitutedand what barriers stand in the way of the realisation of the idealistic notions such as“seamless end-to-end pipeline management” (Storey et al., 2005). Thus, a further
refinement of the objectives of this paper can be stated thus to:. identify and clarify the core conceptual building blocks of the emergentdiscipline;
. examine these conceptual building blocks in relation to empirical data in order todevelop a view on the fit between theory and practice; and
Theory, practice
and challenges
755
. identify the future challenges that these revealed outcomes pose for supply chain management as both a practice and a discipline.
The paper is structured in four parts. The first summarises the key elements in supplychain management theory; the second explains the methods by which we investigatedsupply chains in practice; the third identifies some of the crucial features of supplychain management practice; and the fourth discusses the implications of thecomparisons between theory and practice. In particular, this final section identifies keyissues meriting special attention in the future.
The theory of supply managementIt is apparent that much of the focus in the increasingly voluminous literature on
supply strategy, operations strategy and supply chain management is directed at
meaning making. Often this comprises assertions about what it essentially “is”. The
precepts of SCM as currently portrayed are a mixture of three elements: description,
prescription and the identification of alleged trends.
Description
Debates here relate to scope and focus. Some academics openly declare that they use
the terms supply chain management and purchasing “synonymously” (Stuart, 1997).
Pragmatically there may be much to commend this but the identification with onefunction and one process seems to miss much of the idea of supply chain or network
management. Others evidently have a more expanded notion in mind, for example, thelean supply approach focused on the “purchasing activities of vehicle assemblers andthe supply activities of the component (and component system) manufacturers”(Lamming, 1996, p. 183). Accordingly, Lamming argues, for the merits of the broader
concept of “supply management”. Some purchasing specialists see SCM as aboutdeveloping relations with suppliers (Giunipero and Brand, 1996), while others say that#p#分页标题#e#
good supplier management is not enough; there is an additional requirement for awider, more integrated, all-encompassing perspective embracing all processes from
sourcing through make and transportation and on to merchandising to final customers(Davis, 1993).
In the battle over definitions and descriptions, part of the agenda is undoubtedly anattempt to re-position functions and quasi-professions such as operations management
and logistics. We return to this point later. Rather than try here to determine the preciseconstruct, we acknowledge the value of adopting a constructivist approach – that is
exploring how actors themselves engage in meaning-making. Through this latterapproach we have the opportunity to explore how relevant actors construe their prime
objectives, the scope of their activities, the allocation of responsibilities, the barriers todesired practice and the enablers. Accepting the value of this approach does not deny
the contribution of theory and model-building of the kind more conventionally foundwithin supply management.
Prescription
Problems arise when the shift from description to prescription is relatively covert.
Beneficial attributes are often attributed to certain features. For example, one definition
suggests that:
IJOPM
26,7
756
. . . any chain or network connected through electronic means can be considered virtual if it
facilitates efficient and effective flows of physical goods and information in a seamless
fashion (Chandrashekar and Schary, 1999, p. 27).
Some prescriptions stem from observed superior practice in particular domains.
The IMVP prescription deriving from Toyota and its suppliers leading to the lean
production formula is arguably of this type. Another example might be the prescription
for mass customisation and agility (Pine, 1993; Goldman et al., 1995; Meier and
Humphreys, 1998).
Prescription can be valuable, but for the discipline to advance there needs to be also
rigorous testing – and serious exploration of the causes of failure.
Trends identification
The literature on supply chain management tends to move rather imperceptibly between
description, prescription and trend identification. Key trends which have been identified
include, most notably, “cooperation” rather than competition, a shift from the
“antagonistic” model to a collaborative model (Matthyssens and Van den Bulte, 1994;
Carr, 1999), the increasing use of supplier-evaluation tools (Carr, 1999), a trend towards
supplier management, and so on.While the alleged trends may be similar, different kinds
of assessments are sometimes made. Some authors suggest an irresistible trend while
others note the relatively limited take up to date (Skjoett-Larsen, 1999; Kemppainen and
Vepsalainen, 2003).
Another facet of the trends dimension is the concern with the “impacts” of SCM on#p#分页标题#e#
various functions such as purchasing (Andersen and Rask, 2003;Wisner and Tan, 2000),
the impacts on suppliers required by retailers to replenish stock based on actual sales
(Abernathy et al. 2000), and the increasing use of tools and techniques such as “Quick
Response” (QR) and “Efficient Consumer Response” (ECR). A trend, possibly mainly
restricted to the auto industry, is towards a pattern of differentiation in the supply chain
with, for example, a few “systemintegrators” at first tier supply level (Senter and Flynn,
1999).
While most trend analysis implies progress – for example, Hines et al. (2004) –
Fisher (1997) claims that despite all the technology and the new techniques, supply
chain performance in many instances has “never been worse”. The reason, he suggests,
is that managers lack a framework for determining which methods are appropriate.
This implies the need for managers to adopt far more of a contingent rather than a
“best practice” approach. It further suggests a need to fit supply chain characteristics
to product strategy. Similarly, partnership may not always be the right approach in
every circumstance (Lambert et al. 1996).
The underlying claimed “trend” is that supply management consciousness is
accelerating up the corporate agenda and there does appear to be some evidence for
this. For example, many companies have appointed supply chain directors and there
has been talk of competition between supply chains rather than simply competition
between individual firms (Christopher, 1998). Perhaps even more prevalent has been
the trend towards the conscious examination and rationalisation of supplier networks
and the development of “collaborative” or “partnership” relationships between buyers
and suppliers (Balakrishan, 2004). Such initiatives have come to be seen as of strategic
significance by general managers rather than simply tactical gains by functional
specialists (Storey, 2002).
Theory, practice
and challenges
757
But these examples point to a problem for supply management as a potential
discipline. There is already a reasonably well-developed field concerned with
buyer-supplier behaviour (or purchasing) and this has its own set of core concerns.
Many of these concerns relate to the choice of supplier, managing relationships with
suppliers and so on (Monczka and Petersen, 1998). But this sub-field rarely attends to the
wider vision of the supply chain management concept with its notions of end-to-end
pipeline management and the seamless, efficient, flow of information and
materials/products through the whole network or chain – from source, through make,
and on to delivery to the end customer. Thus, while there are certainly overlaps between#p#分页标题#e#
the dyadic buyer-supplier behaviour domain and the supply chain (or network) concept
there are also some substantial points of difference.
So, in the light of the discussion so far, where does the emergent discipline of supply
(chain) management stand today? Academic disciplines normally have core sets of
concerns or problems, but the variability and uncertainty within supply management
of its core concerns is one of the problems it faces (Ho, 2002).
Our review of the literature on supply chain management suggests that the field is
characterised by idealism and fragmentation. It uses overlapping terminology which is
in turn drawn from multiple-disciplinary bases. Croom and Romano (2000) show how
11 different subject literatures – including, for example, purchasing, logistics,
marketing and organisational behaviour – have contributed to the supply chain
domain. Despite recent attempts to map the terrain (Chen and Paulraj, 2004; Giannakis
and Croom, 2004; Mills et al., 2004), the field remains disparate. None the less, when
comparisons are made across the literatures there are some basic shared “visions”
which help form an underpinning “big idea” – or a number of interlocking big ideas
which help constitute and describe supply chain management. In Table I, we draw
upon a wide literature in order to enumerate and categorise these core ideas.
This dichotomous representation suggests of course a rather stark set of
alternatives. It nonetheless represents widely held assumptions about the “paradigm
shift” to partnering, strategies of co-operation, and SCM.
The unit of analysis itself – the supply “chain” – is itself a matter of some
contention. Sometimes the internal supply chain is seen as a suitable arena;
alternatively the dyadic relation between buyer-supplier is the unit of analysis, or a
chain or a wider network. Then, within the confines of any of these, intervention may
be directed at efficiency improvements of existing processes, the redesign of interfaces,
or (more rarely one assumes) radical restructuring of the supply chain components
(De Treville et al., 2004). Critiques of the discipline of supply chain management
suggest that it is atheoretical and relies too much on prescription and description
(Cox, 1999; Croom and Romano, 2000).
As Table I suggests, there are a number of interlocking ideas and propositions
which constitute the theory and prescription of supply management. The central
underpinning ideas relate to alignment and integration. Whether sub-components or
services are made or bought, the prescription is that the interface between each
value-add phase should be subject to careful planning and management. Other
important related concepts include core competences, supplier segmentation, strategic#p#分页标题#e#
purchasing and supplier integration (alignment; supply-base management, and
reduced supplier base). Other fundamental ideas include win-win relations between
partners in the chain, goal congruence, avoidance of opportunistic behaviour, supplier
IJOPM
26,7
758
Dimension Conventional management Supply chain management
Unit of analysis, focal point of allegiance Function, department, or firm as main unit of
analysis
Supply pipeline as unit of analysis (materials flow
planning; echelons; structures; value chain; network)
Use of information and knowledge Information denial; lack of transparency Information & knowledge sharing; transparency
Beneficiaries One-sided benefit; win-lose Mutual benefit; win-win
Targets Optimisation; cost reduction; price central Maximisation: Wider set of issues: value creation:
quality, service, safety, etc.
Time horizons Short-term wins; periodic negotiation Long-term gains; life cycle (total value) costing
Relationship episode Transactional Longer term, deeper, multi-faceted relations
Range of “partners” Multiple competitive sourcing Single or reduced sourcing
Scope of task Fragmented tasks; impermeable rigid boundaries;
discrete activities
Interdependency; Co-makership; permeable flexible
boundaries; overlapping activities
Connectivity Independent logistics Integrated logistics
Reactive vs proactive Reactive buyers Proactive buyers
Process of supplier selection Competitive tendering Total screening
Scope of attention Role specific behaviour and knowledge Expansive knowledgeable and behaviour
Replenishment device Inventory Information
Table I.
Core concepts
Theory, practice
and challenges
759
development, strategic alliances, variants of vendor managed inventory (VMI), and the
sharing of risks and rewards. Beyond these core concepts, there are some points of
difference depending on the particular approach to supply chain management that is
proselytised.
Make or buy is a crucial preconditioning decision which determines the need for the
amount of external relationship management. How much difference it really makes
whether the supply chain extends across different ownership structures rather than a
single vertically integrated organisation is a moot point and is yet to be subject to
sufficient systematic empirical investigation. It would be fair to contend that the
question of where to locate the decoupling points in order to address issues of
replenishment exists relatively independently of the ownership make/buy decision. The
whole issue of relationship development across partners is however highly connected
with the nature of the independent units. But again, the precise nature of the practical
managerial challenge to forging win-win collaborative partnerships across the supply#p#分页标题#e#
chain irrespective of whether the partners are officially internal or external to the focal
organisation is itself also relatively under-explored. Some analysts focus entirely on
internal tensions, for example, between the marketing and logistics functions (Ellinger,
2000), while others ignore this and focus only on the external (Cox, 1999).
Much of the theory in supply management is based on idealised schemas of optimal
routes and quantities for demand fulfilment when considered from a whole-network or
chain perspective. These idealised schemas may vary in detail when advanced by
various proponents but there are a number of relatively common elements. These
common elements are constituted by a number of technical possibilities. Table II
summarises the characteristics underpinning the ideally managed supply chain.
Nestled beneath the dominant big idea of supply chain management as a whole
(i.e. the notion of an aligned and possibly integrated network of processes from end
customer to source and design of product and service) are a number of sub-theories.
These include for example lean (Womack et al., 1990), agile (Goldman et al. 1995) and
market segmentation (Gattorna, 1998). The latter leads to the concept of a
differentiated approach to supply chain provision (Fisher, 1997). These ideas have
fuelled recent development (Cigolini et al., 2004; Lee, 2002; Randall et al., 2003) and
critique (David et al., 2002).
Usually remaining implicit in the core component ideas shown in Tables I and II
and in the sub-theories are a number of issues and activities. These can be understood
1 Seamless flow from initial source(s) to final customer
2 Demand-led supply chain (only produce what is pulled through)
3 Shared information across the whole chain (end to end pipeline visibility)
4 Collaboration and partnership (mutual gains and added value for all; win-win; joint learning
and joint design and development)
5 IT enabled
6 All products direct to shelf
7 Batch/ pack size configured to rate of sale
8 Customer responsive
9 Agile and lean
10 Mass customisation
11 Market segmentation
Table II.
Idealised supply
management
characteristics
IJOPM
26,7
760
as a series of mainly unanswered and yet crucial questions: who is responsible for
“managing” these activities? Just because supply chains may exist it does not
necessarily follow that they are actually managed. Even if they are managed in parts, it
does not necessarily mean that they are managed across the whole spectrum. How do
the actors reach-through the various echelons in order to achieve the desired aligned
goals? What levers do they pull? What barriers do they encounter and how do they
seek to overcome these? These particular questions are especially pertinent given that,#p#分页标题#e#
as has already been noted, most definitions of the field are based on metaphors
(pipelines, chains, networks) rather than “objective entities” (Saunders, 1994).
Managing objective entities is difficult enough, but how do managers cope with and
engage with the metaphorical forms? These, and similar questions, which have so far
been massively neglected in the literature to date, formed the heart of our empirical
research project.
Researching current supply practice
As we said at the outset, one of our central objectives was to examine the theory and
practice of supply chain management. Hence, to complement the summary of supply
chain theory in the previous section we set out to compare that with contemporary
practice. In order to map current practice we designed a large study which explored a
range of supply chains across multiple echelons. Notably, in the core part of the
study we delved into the supply chain management practices of six “blue chip” firms
(and their suppliers and customers), which we will refer to as Pharmaco,
Householdproductsco, 4PLDrinks, TelevisionCo, ElectronicsCo and 4PL Electronics.
These cases were selected on the basis that, according to information in the public
domain, these players were likely to exhibit leading-edge sector practice. A summary
of the six case environments is shown in Table III.
Pharmaco is a large manufacturer and retailer of pharmaceuticals and related
healthcare products; HouseholdproductsCo is a manufacturer of a range of skincare
and beauty products; 4PL Drinks is a division of a global logistics corporation which
specialises in third and fourth party logistics in partnership with a number of alcoholic
and non-alcoholic drinks manufacturers; TelevisionCo designs and makes a whole
range of domestic electrical goods including televisions of both high and low
specification; ElectronicsCo designs and supplies sophisticated telecommunications
network equipment; and 4PL Electronics is a joint venture between a major logistics
provider and a computer equipment manufacturer. As the sales figures in the third
column of Table III reveal, these were all substantial businesses. The companies listed
in the fourth column indicate the number of supply chain partners that were also
researched. The final column shows the number of interviews conducted in each case.
Company Sector Sales Companies Interviews
Pharmaco Process £4.3 bn 4 29
HouseholdproductsCo Process £115 m 6 48
4PL Drinks Transport £30 m 6 31
TelevisionCo Electronics $2.4 bn 8 27
ElectronicsCo Electronics $4.1 bn 2 40
4PL Electronics Transport $1.7 bn 6 19
Table III.
Summary of the six case
environments
Theory, practice
and challenges
761
Interviewees were selected according to the key supply chain processes they managed#p#分页标题#e#
in each of the firms. We were primarily interested in the evidence provided by directors
and middle managers covering all supply processes (plan, source, make and deliver).
Interviews were conducted in the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy.
The duration of each interview was usually between one and a half hours to two hours.
All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Some key informants were interviewed
on multiple occasions. We undertook extensive site tours and collected large amounts
of documentary materials relevant to SCM. The project commenced in 2001 and
continued into 2004. The scope of the six supply chains that we studied was plotted,
based on an adapted version of the New and Payne (1995) supply chain taxonomy.
This is shown in Figure 1.
From this body of research we have started to compile a picture of current supply chain
practice, and have identified a number of organisational and behavioural barriers to the
realisation of the more idealistic depictions of the “seamless, end to end” chain that should be
responding to customer demand. Despite the considerable interest among practitioners in
the idea of supply chain management – and this interestwas certainly found among many
of our respondents – its practice usually differs markedly from the idealised prescriptions
identified in the previous section. The research into practice also helped us identify the
nature of the more significant (real-life) trends in supply chain management today.
We interrogated supply chain practice through a series of four fundamental questions:
(1) Who was “managing the supply chain” in practice? (That is, which individuals
or groups are actually engaged in such practice?)
(2) What type of “supply chain” activities were they managing?
(3) What were the key enablers and inhibitors to this process?
(4) What external factors were driving the strategic imperative of supply chain
management?
Figure 1.
Scope of the six supply
chains studied
Miners/raw
material extractors
Raw material
manufacturers
Component
manufacturers
Final product
manufacturers
Consolidators Retailers
Physical distribution
& warehousing
Recycling
Final consumer
ElectronicsCo
supply chain
HouseholdproductsCo supply chain
4PL drinks supply chain
4PL electronics supply chain
TelevisionC supply chain PharmaCo supply chain
IJOPM
26,7
762
This kind of dual theoretical and empirical approach is in tune with the point made by
Croom and Romano (2000, p. 75) that:
. . . the inductive-deductive dichotomy is best addressed through the constant reflection of
empirical against theoretical studies.
Results: supply chain practice(s)
The description of results is structured into four-sections, each one capturing the#p#分页标题#e#
findings from one of the fundamental questions used for exploring the supply chain.
Who is “Managing” the supply chain?
The holistic concept of “seamless, end to end” supply management – as distinct from a
series of units or functions engaging in sub-optimal behaviour – is clearly laudable.
However, it implies some considerable effort to reach through the supply chain: upstream
beyond the first tier suppliers, and downstream beyond a focal firm’s customers – the
so-called “arcs of integration” (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001). Alternatively, it would
require an unusual degree of co-ordination between tiers. Rarely asked by the proponents
of such “integrated” supply chains is who precisely is meant to be doing this “managing”?
In practice we found very few instances where any such active agent could be identified.
The modal pattern was a number of practitioners who sought to manage parts of the
supply chain. These partswere normally circumscribed by legacy practice and also by the
expectations of other senior colleagues who defended “their” functional areas of
responsibility. As the results in Table IV demonstrate, itwas still more common to have a
logistics director than a supply chain director – usuallywith a focus on outbound logistics.
With the shift to outsourcing there had been a significant reduction in the scale and
scope of in-house manufacturing facilities. Where these remained, the procurement of
parts was predominantly a procurement and/or purchasing function responsibility, the
exception being TelevisionCo, where supplier base management had been recently
integrated into their already cross-functional, market-orientated supply teams.
Manufacturing and assembly operations were managed by separate manufacturing
functions. Normally, even people with the title “Supply Chain Director” did not actually
manage the whole chain nor did they usually expect, or seek, to do so. They were
confined to inward or outward logistics. In manufacturing their writ rarely extended to
production planning and in retail they were usually not able to interfere too strongly in
the affairs of the trading directors.
Supply chain theory would suggest that the supply chain should be managed from
end-to-end. Our research found very fewexamples of this but it did illuminate the barriers
to its achievement in practice.There were one or two instanceswhere very senior directors
carrying multiple responsibilities were able to transgress these norms but these were
exceptional. Even where 3PL or 4PL companies were hired to take charge of supply chain
management they tended to restrict their activities – or have them restricted – to limited
segments of the chain. Even the tightly-coupled logistical operations between 4PLCo#p#分页标题#e#
Electronics and their customer did not include the provision of information about products
in the process of manufacture – the first alert was given when a product was ready to be
shipped from the factory gate. Management of the supply chain was analogous to a relay
race, with responsibility being passed from one company of actors to another, as
illustrated by the array of management mechanisms found.
Theory, practice
and challenges
763
Company SC director Logistics director
Shared understanding
of who managed the SC? Mechanisms for managing the SC
Pharmaco Y Y (reports to SC director) Dependent on category Category specific supply chains managed by a category team
and a supply team supported by the logistics function
Cross-functional teams highly effective at “managing” the
seasonal supply chain
Householdproductsco N Y N Functional hierarchy, with demand fulfillment responsibilities
split between logistics and manufacturing. Project-based
initiatives to integrate management activities across internal
functions. Unsuccessful attempt to introduce boundary
spanning, customer-service logistic personnel
4PL Drinks 1 (of 4) 3 (of 4) Y Cross-competitor consortium of independent competitors
facilitated by 4PL. Category-specific retail supply teams
supported influential buyers. Standardised on-shelf
merchandising practices institutionalised through select
training Stores. Key supplier collaboration through retail
in-plants conducting data analysis and peak merchandising
activities
TelevisionCo Y Y Y Matrix organisation. Process-orientated, hierarchical SCM
structures supported by functional infrastructure. Internally
integrated, market-orientated supply teams which planned and
co-ordinated demand fulfilment operations. Pilot projects
linking forecasting activities, collaborative planning and
loyalty improvement programmes with key customers.
Cross-competitor supply agreements to facilitate channel
postponement
ElectronicsCo N Y Y Project managers – act as a link between the customer and the
supply chain
Use of a 4PL to manage outbound supply chain and they were
seen to have clear accountability
4PLCo Electronics N Y Y The 4PL had clear accountability for managing a
regionally-specific, outbound logistics SC. This had been
assigned by the customer
Table IV.
Supply chain
“management”
mechanisms
IJOPM
26,7
764
Scope of managed supply chain activities
Reaching out across the supply chain and “interfering” in suppliers’ operations was
still relatively unusual. Exceptions related to major third party or sector-level
initiatives such as ECR in supermarket retailing – though even these appeared to be
limited to a focus on a few strategically significant first tier suppliers. The assumption#p#分页标题#e#
in some of the literature that supply chains are managed by powerful customers who
influence suppliers to conform may be broadly correct in the motor industry where
there are a few international large assemblers, but it is a generalisation that does not
apply in many other sectors. Indeed, in many instances the reverse may hold true
(Bates and Slack, 1998). Even “in-sector” ECR generalisability is problematical. For
example, our case research revealed clear “push backs” even from the champions of
ECR: powerful brand holders sometimes resisted customer-led attempts at supply
chain management.
Despite this evident lack of holistic SCM, we did find evidence of internally-focused
integration attempts, particularly within globally dispersed supply chains. Such efforts
tended both to simplify control, whilst reducing costs and cycle times within internal
logistics activities. For example, TelevisionCo had embargoed any more than two
cross-continent airfreight moves during component manufacturing operations which
were distributed around the globe.
Attempts to improve internal functional co-ordination ranged from the appointment
of senior managers with designated responsibilities to the nomination of operational
individuals with specific accountability for selected boundary-spanning activities.
Between these extremes, the institution of formal cross-functional teams was used by
some to improve pipeline integration.
In certain cases, sophisticated key performance indicators (KPIs) were agreed and
monitored between SC partners. Often in the formof balanced scorecards, thesemeasures
wereweighted to drive SCpractice in a particular direction. Customer-orientatedmeasures
were balanced against internal priorities. Theweaknesses of such formalised performance
measurement systems were compensated for by pragmatic exception policies.
Both ElectronicsCo and TelevisionCo produced (among other things) two major
different products: on the one hand, “off-the-shelf” products, and on the other “fully
customised systems”. Off-the-shelf products tended to be high volume, low variety and
low value items that would flow through the logistics infrastructure (including a range
of distribution channels) to the end customer. Fully customised systems, on the other
hand, were very high value, highly customised systems made and, in the case of
ElectronicsCo installed, to specific customer requirements. ElectronicsCo employed
project managers to ensure that the systems were installed to customer requirements
both in terms of specification and time-line, and they even set-up dedicated warehouses
around the world to facilitate installation as required. The scope was similar for
Householdproductsco supplying washing and bathing products to a wide range of
retail customers. However, the main difference here was that Householdproductsco did#p#分页标题#e#
not have contact with the end consumer. The narrowest (though paradoxically the
most clearly “managed”) scope was the 4PLElectronics supply chain. The scope was
limited to the outbound logistical operations of their close partner in Europe. This 4PL
joint venture company did not even have information about products in the process of
manufacture – their first alert was when a product was ready to be shipped from
the factory gate. In consequence of the typically constrained scope of intervention
Theory, practice
and challenges
765
the notion of “seamless end-to-end pipeline management” was far beyond actual
practice – and indeed some distance even beyond aspirations.
Enablers and inhibitors
The research found that a number of factors can either serve to enable or inhibit supply
chain management depending on the context and the way in which the factor is utilised.
The case research identified three core enablers and inhibitors, the understanding of
which is central to turning supply chain rhetoric into reality. These are: transparency
of information and knowledge; supply chain behaviour; and performance
measurement. The results in relation to each are considered in turn.
Transparency of information and knowledge. Most of our cases illustrated a move
away from forward prediction based on short-term, EPOS data. Rather, consolidated
analysis of base trends over the medium-to-long term were used to provide
forward-looking forecasts. These were then overlaid with promotional activities, an
approach adopted, for example, by a shared customer of Householdproductsco and 4PL
Drinks.
When judged in these terms we found, at best, pockets of good practice rather than
whole-firm exemplars. Rich information was largely found to be restricted to
specifically identified users in particular relational contexts. For example, extended
collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment practices had been instigated
with one internal customer within one of the market-orientated supply teams at
TelevisionCo. Even where this occurred, the persistence of such privileged
arrangements was vulnerable to erosion, revision and withdrawal. In another case, a
supplier to Householdproductsco had championed a Supplier Managed Inventory
system with their major customer. Replenishment activities were driven by customer
production schedules. The customer, however, seemed keener to abandon the system
than work through emergent issues.
A further forecasting refinement was attempted by one upstream, component
supplier. An application was introduced to amalgamate component sales’ forecasts at
system-level. This provided a more accurate prediction of future sales, since aggregated
data could be compared against external market trends. The impetus behind this project#p#分页标题#e#
was customers’ tendency to over-forecast their requirements to secure supply in this
rapidly growing marketplace, when they knew manufacturing capacity was scarce.
Supply chain behaviour. Predominantly, traditional inter and intra-organisational
boundaries remain mainly intact. Dyadic buyer-supplier relationships remained the
mainstay of supply interactions. These were supplemented by a variety of support
roles – whether replenishment or product development-focussed.
Clear power differentials existed within buying decision-making units, particularly
within retail organisations. There was substantial evidence of attempts to divorce
traditional elements of buyer-supplier negotiation from “collaborative” activities.
Customer-focussed key-account management structures had evolved to “face up” to
major customers.
However, such so-called “man-to-man marking” on the customer side, often led to
greater intra-organisational complexity. The most complex network of supply
relationships we studied was found within TelevisionCo. Twenty-six parallel business
line teams were responsible for executing order fulfilment activities for their respective
markets. Each of these cross-functional management teams was responsible for
IJOPM
26,7
766
the sourcing, capacity planning and operational control of technologically similar
semiconductor products through a common configuration of manufacturing and test
operations. However, managing the intra-relationships between these organisational
units and an externally-facing sales organisation (to provide a single point of customer
contact) raised internal co-ordination challenges.
Where boundary-spanning specialist “in-plants” where used, these tended to be in
“adjoining” organisations (i.e. supplier-customer). There was a wide variety of roles,
from project analysts working on information system co-developments and data
analysts handling promotional evaluations, to goods despatch handlers and specialist
merchandisers. Whilst the employing companies’ declared clear benefits from these
interactions, the scope of individual roles was often constrained and precarious.
Promotional activities, increasingly common within UK multiple retailers, created
additional challenges. These planned events commonly generated an uplift from base
demand of 70-100 per cent. Such demand stimulation required cohesive supply chain
planning if on-shelf availability was to be sustained. However, such was the cut and
thrust of commercial competition that promotions were frequently not pre-announced
to branded suppliers for fear of a competitor seizing the initiative. Instead, regional
safety stocks were held in an attempt to underpin supply continuity.
Performance measurement. The predominant method of performance measurement#p#分页标题#e#
was the use of KPIs that cascaded down from top level business objectives and
measures, through the organisation into a series of functional measures. The
alternative method found in just two cases was the use of a balanced score card (BSC),
which, in the case of 4PL Co Electronics, was sophisticated. The main results in
relation to performance measurement used in SCM are shown in Table V.
However, even the BSC was cascaded down from business objectives to functional
objectives. Pharmaco made a conscious effort to try and keep the BSC for different
activities at the “highest” level possible. For instance, the BSC for distribution was for
an entire region and not at individual Regional Distribution Centre (RDC) level.
However, the management at the RDC found it to be an inadequate tool for managing
the operation of the RDC and the regional manager in conjunction with the RDC
managers were in the process of developing a hybrid system that measured both RDC
and regional performance. Furthermore, the cascade, whilst seeming to be eminently
sensible in linking metrics, has the pitfall that the sum of the parts does not equate to
the whole. All too often, metrics pursued at a functional level for the benefit of
functional targets, jeopardised the performance of the supply chain as a totality. A good
example was found in 4PLCo Electronics. The performance measurement system
employed in this supply chain was exemplary in many respects. Metrics were collected
at all stages in the supply chain – daily, weekly, monthly and quarterly – and were
actively reviewed through telephone calls, face-to-face meetings and business review
meetings. The format and content was identical across the supply chain and the
measures were used to drive performance improvement and also reward. And with
reward, here-in lies the danger. There has been a shift over the last ten years or so
towards metrics that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely
(SMART). This has led managers (particularly middle managers) to expect targets that
are wholly within their span of control. This in turn leads to functionally driven
behaviour. 4PL Electronics had measures that showed that they consistently achieved
their 3-day delivery target. However, in reality, for the sample studied, the large
Theory, practice
and challenges
767
Company Type of metric system Consistent application across the SC Review period
Pharmaco BSC used across the business Need for review
affecting consistency of usage
Internal echelons Monthly
Householdproductsco Cascade of KPIs No Monthly
4PL Drinks Various, customer-specific service level
arrangements
No As specified by the customer
TelevisionCo Balanced scorecard within each business line linked
to divisional strategy and targets#p#分页标题#e#
Yes, for certain key measures Weekly, monthly, quarterly
ElectronicsCo Cascade of KPIs Yes, for measures co-ordinated by 4PL Weekly, monthly, quarterly
4PLCo Electronics Customer developed their own metric system that
was a developed version of the BSC
Yes, highly co-ordinated by 4PL Daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly
Table V.
Performance
measurement
characteristics
IJOPM
26,7
768
majority of orders were delivered after the date the customer had originally requested,
and on average they were 16 days late. 4PL Electronics were only measured on the part
of the supply chain they were in control of and not on what the customer actually
wanted.
Drivers
Supply chain management is becoming of increasing strategic importance, and the
fieldwork concurred with the literature in identifying globalisation, outsourcing and
fragmentation as three major drivers. Evidence to support each of these drivers is
summarised in Table VI which shows that, for all cases, evidence of each practice was
found to a greater or lesser extent.
However, an additional driver was also uncovered that did not feature so
predominantly in the literature – market polarisation. It could be argued that this
potentially has the most significant effect of all. For Pharmaco, Householdproductsco
and TelevisionCo the mid-high markets that they traditionally served have
disappeared and been replaced by a polarised high-end/low-end market profile.
ElectronicsCo has such a broad range of products that these naturally fall into polar
extremes of the volume: variety continuum yet the supply chain strategy used to
deliver these products is not significantly different. This has serious implications for
supply chain management.
Challenges for SC management and future prospects
The challenges facing SCM as theory and practice stem from their interplay and
misalignment. The research reported here reveals the substantial gaps between theory
and practice. One central challenge is to the very idea of “managing” the supply chain.
Who could and should have this responsibility? Arguably one ideal would be a separate
function independent of the existing array of functions which are partially but not fully
involved. Such a developed function might act as the arbitrator of supply and demand.A
number of our respondents envisaged that this development could be supported by the
maturation of the 4PL concept. Alternatively, some commentators suggest the need to
redefine the purchasing role (Mehra and Inman, 2004). A related challenge is to increase
the scope of SCM involvement – the “arc of integration” (Frohlich andWestbrook, 2001).
This can only be achieved if the enablers identified above are harnessed more effectively
– the greater transparency of information and knowledge, the formation of appropriate#p#分页标题#e#
relationships, and the design and use of appropriate measurements.
So what are the prospects for the future of SCM? There do appear to be some trends
working in favour of a higher profile and a more developed role for supply
management. But we suggest they fall well short of the more full-blown claims of many
of the advocates. We suggest that business models and supply chain practices are
changing in tandem. The most important elements are as follows.
First, supply chain management can be seen as part of a wider set of trends
involving outsourcing, cross-boundary working, new organisational forms
characterised by flattened hierarchies, teams, empowerment and so on rather than
rigid command and control (Ruigrok et al., 1999). These trends present an opportunity
for the development of SCM.
Second, the trend towards outsourcing and the increasing importance of intangibles
heightens the need for, and the potential of, supply chain management. As contract
Theory, practice
and challenges
769
Company Globalisation Outsourcing Fragmentation Market polarisation
Pharmaco Refocused retail operations in
UK but increasingly sourcing
from abroad
Closure of internal
manufacturing facilities and
products increasingly sourced
externally
SKU proliferation Aim for mid-high end of
market. Under competition
from low cost competition, e.g.
similar Christmas gift at
significantly lower price
Householdproductsco Development of global brands.
Source many commodity base
ingredients from abroad
Sub-contract the manufacture
of some products
SKU proliferation Historical middle market
disappeared. Aiming for
mid-high end market
4PL Drinks Global location was a
distinctive product feature,
instrinsic to customer value
Outsourcing was used
judiciously for a wide variety
of reasons: to balance
uncertain demand, to promote
region flexibility; to reduce
costs
Customer-specific packaging,
exclusive products; specific
transit or merchandising pack
configurations
Increasing significance of UK
grocery market shares, when
compared to traditional
off-trade marketplace.
Category competition for
merchandising space
TelevisionCo Global supply chain developed
to minimise
manufacturing/assembly cost
Strategically use outsourcing
to provide additional flexibility
and security
SKU proliferation
Shortening life cycles
Mature market fragmented
into high and low end. Used to
serve middle. Growth markets
turbulent, uncertain and with
rapid technological
convergence
ElectronicsCo Global supply chain with
regional distribution
Outsource all non-core
activities including logistics#p#分页标题#e#
SKU proliferation Customised systems and
merchandised products are at
extremes of volume: variety
continuum
4PL Electronics Global inbound, regional
outbound
As a 4PL are duty bound to
outsource some 3PL activities
Increasing requirement for
customised services
Due to limited scope of many
supply chains difficult to
operate at high-end and add
value
Table VI.
Evidence of SC drivers
IJOPM
26,7
770
manufacturing becomes the norm so the value added role of brand owners who have
valued relations with customers are recognised as having important intangible assets
and skills.
Third, the trend towards fragmentation and variety in product and service offerings
necessitates greater thought and skill in managing decoupling points and
postponement of final product composition. Hence, the drivers impelling attention to
crucial issues of alignment are certainly present but this does not mean that the task is
given to supply chain specialists. This indeed appears to be the source of much
confusion; simply because there is an apparent need for someone to take a helicopter
view of the whole terrain does not mean that this happens in practice. There are
undoubtedly issues of professional status and standing intruding here. In most firms
the supply chain function (in whatever guise it happens to adopt) rarely has the
political standing to allow it take command of these critical strategic issues.
Fourth, globalisation necessitates greater attention to logistics and to other
component elements of supply chain management. The same arguments noted above
in relation to fragmentation also recur here. The need is evident; the power to respond
is problematic and uncertain. The dispersion of nodes in the supply chain across the
continents offers new business opportunities to freight handling companies and third
party logistics providers. But these interventions cannot be described as constituting
“supply chain management” in the holistic senses described in the early part of this
paper. There are wider forces at play – outsourcing, global sourcing, volatile customer
demand, heightened competition, shorter product life cycles, and customisation. Then
there is the shift to virtuality – leased merge centres, contract manufacturers,
innovators who market a concept and have others make it and so on. The pretence that
“supply chain management” is a mode of intervention or a self contained discipline
which is effectively grappling with these forces is an exaggeration. This is not an arena
where a neatly managed activity is underway. That said, the change of mindset
triggered by the constellation of forces as described in this paper and elsewhere could
provide the opportunity for sophisticated and capable managers to engage in practices#p#分页标题#e#
which approximate to the vision as described above. There could be a
professionalisation opportunity here, or at least a pathway for further occupational
development.
References
Abernathy, F.H., Dunlop, J.T. and Hammond, J. (2000), “Retailing and supply chains in the
information age”, Technology in Society, Vol. 22, pp. 5-31.
Andersen, P.H. and Rask, M. (2003), “Supply chain management: new organisational practices
for changing procurement realities”, Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 83-96.
Balakrishan, A. (2004), “Collaboration and coordination in supply chain management and
e-commerce”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Bates, J. and Slack, N. (1998), “What happens when the supply chain manages you?
A knowledge-based response”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management,
Vol. 4, pp. 63-72.
Carr, A.S. (1999), “Strategically managed buyer-supplier relationships and performance
outcomes”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 17, pp. 497-519.
Theory, practice
and challenges
771
Chandrashekar, A. and Schary, P. (1999), “Towards the virtual supply chain: the convergence of
IT and organisation”, International Journal of Logisitics Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 27-39.
Chen, I.J. and Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs
and measurements”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 119-51.
Christopher, M. (1998), Logistics & Supply Chain Management, Pearson Education Limited,
Harlow.
Cigolini, R., Cozzi, M. and Perona, M. (2004), “A new framework for supply chain management:
conceptual model and empirical test”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7-42.
Cox, A. (1999), “Power, value and supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 167-75.
Croom, S. and Romano, P. (2000), “Supply chain management: an analytical framework for
critical literature review”, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 6,
pp. 67-83.
David, J.S., Hwang, Y., Pei, B.K.W. and Reneau, J.H. (2002), “The performance effects of
congruence between product competitive strategies and purchasing management design”,
Management Science, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 866-86.
Davis, T. (1993), “Effective supply chain management”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 35-46.
De Treville, S., Shapiro, R.D. and Hameri, A-P. (2004), “From supply chain to demand chain: the
role of lead time reduction in improving demand chain performance”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 613-28.#p#分页标题#e#
Ellinger, A.E. (2000), “Improving marketing/logistics cross functional collaboration in the supply
chain”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, pp. 85-96.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), “What is the right supply chain for your product?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 75, pp. 105-16.
Frohlich, M.T. and Westbrook, R. (2001), “Arcs of integration: an international study of supply
chain strategies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 185-200.
Gattorna, J.L. (Ed.) (1998), Strategic Supply Chain Alignment, Gower, Aldershot.
Giannakis, M. and Croom, S. (2004), “Toward the development of a supply chain management
paradigm: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Supply Chain Management: A Global
Review of Purchasing and Supply, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 27-38.
Giunipero, L.C. and Brand, R. (1996), “Purchasing’s role in supply chain management”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 29-38.
Goldman, S. and Nagel, R. et al. (1995), Agile Competitors and Virtual Organizations: Strategies
for Enriching the Customer, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Harland, C.M. and Lamming, R. et al., (1999), “Developing the concept of supply strategy”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 40-51.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1012.
Ho, D.C.K. (2002), “Empirical research on supply chain management: a critical review and
recommendations”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40 No. 17,
pp. 4415-31.
IJOPM
26,7
772
Kemppainen, K. and Vepsalainen, A.P. (2003), “Trends in industrial supply chains and
networks”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33
No. 8, pp. 701-20.
Ketchen, D.J.J. and Giunipero, L.C. (2004), “The intersection of strategic management and supply
chain management”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 51-7.
Lambert, D.M., Emmelhainz, A. and Gardner, J. (1996), “So you think you want a partner?”,
Marketing Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 24-30.
Lamming, R.C. (1996), “Squaring lean supply with supply chain management”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-96.
Lee, H.L. (2002), “Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties”, California
Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 105-20.
Matthyssens, P. and Van den Bulte, C. (1994), “Getting closer and nicer: partnerships in the
supply chain”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 72-83.#p#分页标题#e#
Mehra, S. and Inman, R. (2004), “Purchasing management and business competition in
the coming decade”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 710-7.
Meier, R.L. and Humphreys, M.A. (1998), “The role of purchasing in the agile enterprise”,
International Journal of Purchasing & Materials Management, Vol. 34, pp. 39-45.
Mills, J., Schmitz, J. and Frizelle, G. (2004), “A strategic review of ‘supply networks’”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1012-37.
Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes,
communications behaviour, and conflict resolution techniques’”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-52.
Monczka, R.M. and Petersen, K.J. (1998), “Success factors in strategic supplier alliances”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 553-78.
New, S. and Payne, P. (1995), “Research frameworks in logistics: three models, seven dinners and
英国开放大学留学供应链管理论文定制a survey”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 25
No. 10, pp. 60-77.
Pine, B.J. (1993), Mass Customisation: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Randall, T., Morgan, R. and Morton, A. (2003), “Efficient versus responsive supply chain choice:
an empirical examination of influential factors”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 430-44.
Ruigrok, W., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S. and Whittington, R. (1999), “Corporate restructuring and new
forms of organising: evidence from Europe”, Management International Review, Vol. 2,
pp. 41-64.
Saunders, M. (1994), Strategic Purchasing and Supply Chains, Pitman, London.
Senter, R. and Flynn, M. (1999), “Changing interorganizational patterns in the North American
automotive supply chain”, Applied Behavioral Science Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 59-81.
Skjoett-Larsen, T. (1999), “Supply chain management: a new challenge for researchers and
managers in logistics”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 41-53.
Storey, J. (2002), “What are the general manager issues in supply chain management?”, Journal of
General Management, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 65-79.
Storey, J., Emberson, C. and Reade, D. (2005), “The barriers to customer responsive supply chain
management”, International Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 3.
Theory, practice
and challenges
773
Stuart, F.I. (1997), “Supply-chain strategy: organizational influence through supplier alliances”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 223-36.#p#分页标题#e#
Tranfield, D. and Starkey, K. (1998), “The nature, social organization and promotion of
management research: towards policy”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, pp. 341-53.
Wisner, J. and Tan, K.C. (2000), “Supply chain management and its impact on purchasing”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 33-42.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.J. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Rawson
Associates, New York, NY.
Further reading
Ahlstrom, P. and Westbrook, R. (1999), “Implications of mass customisation for operations
management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 262-74.
Ha°kansson, H. and Persson, G. (2004), “Supply chain management: the logic of supply chains and
networks”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 11-23.
Hines, A. (2004), Supply Chain Strategies, Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford.
Lamming, R.C. (1993), Beyond Partnership: Strategies for Innovation and Lean Supply,
Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead.
Lee, H.L. (2004), “The triple-A supply chain”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 102-21.
Min, S. and Mentzner, J.T. (2004), “Developing and measuring supply chain management
concepts”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 63-99.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.J. (2003), Lean Thinking, 2nd ed., Free Press Business, London.
Corresponding author
Professor John Storey can be contacted at: IJOPM
26,7
774
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: Or visit our web site for further details:
|
