Literature Review of Past Research into Supply Chain Management

Published:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

This chapter will give an general idea of past research in specific dimensions of supply chain integration that are related to the research problem. Initially, different concepts of intra- and inter-organizational collaboration are discussed. Association of information technology and integration is then presented in two categories, information sharing and information integration tools. After that, literatures about performance measurement systems in the perspective of supply chain will be reviewed.

2.1 Collaboration as a Means of Interfirm Integration

The term "Collaboration" is still developing in the perspective of supply chain and authors have had different approaches towards it. Perhaps the most referred one collaborative planning forecasting and replenishment (CPFR) (Simatupang and Sridharan,. 2005; Barratt, 2004; Skjoett-Larsen et al., 2003; Stank et al., 1999).

To enlighten on some of the ambiguities about collaboration, Barratt (2004) attempts to present a deeper understanding of some basic issues. First, he argues that there are number of questions which the answer would show the requirement to internal or external collaboration between partners, namely: focusing solely on activities like planning and omit other related activities such as forecasting or replenishment; running inappropriate promotions; poor communication throughout organization; organizations' little understanding of their own processes; conflicts due to different performance measures in different part of supply chain; poor decision-making due to large amount of information from various sources, etc. Secondly, there are number of areas where we can collaborate in the supply chain. Generally we can either have vertical or horizontal collaboration (see figure 2-1). Fawcett and Magnan (2002) described in terms of vertical collaboration, the observation shows that even between the best supply chain companies, integrative practice tends to span only a triad of companies - typically the company plus one tier up and downstream. Third, it is also important that we understand whom should we collaborate with. Collaboration is not just about mounting close information exchange based relationships at an operational level of activity, but also desires to be implemented at tactical and strategic levels in the organisations across the supply chain (Vereecke and Muylle, 2006). Bagchi et al. (2005) has proposed as the fundamental definition for their research in supply chain

External Collaboration

(Suppliers)

Internal Collaboration

External Collaboration

(Customers)

External Collaboration

(Competitors)

External Collaboration

(Other Organizations)

Vertical Collaboration

Horizontal Collaboration

Figure: 2-1 The Scope of Collaboration: Generally

Source: (Barrat, 2004)

integration.

Lastly, elements of supply chain collaboration are categorized in three groups (see figure 2-2): cultural elements includes collaborative culture, internal and external trust, mutuality, information exchange, and openness and communication. Second group represents the desirable elements for collaboration to be successful: joint decision-making, cross functional activities, process alignment, and accurate supply chain metrics. The last group represents some strategic elements for the collaboration to be sustainable: the role of technology, representing the business case, resources and commitment, intra-organizational support, and the corporate focus.

Cross functional activities

Process Alignment

Joint Decision Making

SC Metrics

Resources/ commitment

Technology

Intra-Org

Support

Business Case

Corporate

Focus

Trust

Mutuality

Information

Exchange

Openness and Communication

Collaborative Culture

Strategic

Elements

Collaboration

Cultural

Elements

Figure 2-2 Elements of supply chain collaboration

Source: (Barratt, 2004)

According to Simatupang and Sridharan (2005) collaboration is close cooperation between business associates or units engaging in joint efforts to meet consumer needs with minimum costs and suggest that supply chain members should have joint approach towards collaboration. They suggest a framework of supply chain collaboration, this framework include five features: collaborative performance system, synchronization of decision, innovative supply chain processes, incentive alignment, and sharing of information (see figure 2-3). The framework shows that how different elements of collaborative supply chain can work with each other to achieve better performance; for example, if information sharing is able to provide appropriate, accurate, and timely information for effective decision-making, then the two-way connection between information sharing and decision synchronization is significant.

Figure 2-3 The architecture of supply chain collaboration

Source: (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2008)

According to Min et al. (2005) there are two main conceptualizations of collaboration. First, collaboration as an inter-organizational business process where partners work together toward common goals that equally benefit them (Mentzer et al., 2001; cited by Min et al., 2005) and processes include mutual decision-making (Stank et al., 2001), joint problem-solving (Spekman et al., 1997; cited by Min et al., 2005), etc. Second, collaboration has been viewed as a foundation of interorganizational relationships which parties involved work together and share information, resources, andcertain degrees of risk in order to accomplish mutual objectives (Bowersox et al., 2003; cited by Min et al., 2005).

Based on empirical data from surveys and in-depth interviews, Min et al. (2005) proposed a conceptual model for supply chain collaboration (see figure 2-4) which covers progression of such relationships including antecedents, collaboration, and consequences.

Antecedents

Strategic Intend

Internal Alignments

Relationship Orientation

Relationship-specific Investment

Free flow of Information and heightened Communication

Formalization

Collaboration

Information Sharing

Joint Planning

Joint Problem Solving

Joint Performance Measurement

Leveraging Resources and Skills

Consequences

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Profitability

Reinforcement and Expansion of Relationship

Figure 2-4 A conceptual model of supply chain collaboration

Source: (Min et al., 2005)

Regarding antecedents, strategic intent expresses the necessity for capability-based functional integration, internal alignment is achieved through process mapping and streamlining internal operation, relationships should be ongoing and long-term oriented and investments should be put on time, personnel, employee training, physical resources, and information technology. There should be free flow of information and formalization represents the need for performance metrics, goals and objectives, roles, responsibilities, reporting mechanisms, collaborative planning and scheduling, collaborative technology, and specified type of shared information (Min et al., 2005).

Respecting the nature of collaboration, information sharing should be utilized for forecasting issues, recognizing customer demands and materials requirements, designing marketing plans, and scheduling. Mutual sales and performance targets, budgeting, and prioritizing goals and objectives will be obtained through joint planning. Joint problem solving comprises product development/redesign, logistics issues (shipping, routing, backhauling, pallet size, packaging, etc.), and marketing support (marketing materials, delivery schedule, store display, etc.). Another element is joint performance measurement which indicates performance reviews on a regular basis, measuring KPI (customer service, cost savings, productivity, etc.), and determining rewards and taking corrective actions. Finally channel members should leverage their resources and capacity, skills and knowledge, and specialization. Consequences of such a collaborative model would result in efficiencies like cost reduction, reduced inventory, shortened lead-time, and streamlined supply chain processes. Effectiveness can be viewed as improved customer service, increased market share, better pricing, and new product development. Profitability depends on increase in return on investment and sales per target segment. Trust, commitment, interdependent, and mutual involvements are considered as factors of relationship reinforcement and expansion (Min et al., 2005).

Towill et al. (2002) state that there is a relatively slow diffusion dynamics of SCM in the real world. Their study of 20 European automotive supply chains revealed that only 10 percent approach seamless integration. A framework was also proposed in order to identify process uncertainties for reengineering. It is shown that reduction of uncertainties in different levels of process, supply, and demand will result in various degrees of functional, internal, and external integration.

Van Donk and Van der Vaart (2004); cited by Van Donk et al. (2008) distinguish between simple (high volume, low product variety, large batches, make-to-stock, and costs as a major order-winner) and complex (low volume, high product variety, small batches, make-to-order, and flexibility among the main order-winners) business conditions. Complex conditions correspond with a high level of uncertainty within the supply chain. They state and empirically show that only complex business conditions require a high level of supply chain integration. However, they also show that shared resources (capacity used to serve different customers) limit the possibilities to perform integration while buyer focus (singling out capacity for the purpose of serving one customer) is an enabler for supply chain management integration. A combination of uncertainty and shared resources is seen as one of the most difficult ones and it seems that many food manufacturers are exactly in that position. Figure 2-5 summarizes the above relationships.

Figure 2-5 Context and supply chain integration

Source: (Van Donk and Van der Vaart, 2004)

Based on the taxonomy presented in figure 2-5, Van Donk et al. (2008) has recently investigated the limitations and barriers of supply chain integration in food industry. Four basic integration strategies are introduced to overcome problems naturally exist in food supply chains: when there are volume uncertainties or capacity is used for several buyers, it is suggested that manufacturers concentrate on buyer-focused or virtual buyer-focused operations. If processing and packaging are not fully decoupled or there are different demand characteristics for buyers then it is better to use aggregated hierarchical planning; and, in case of uncertainties in the market, frequent scheduling caused by production, or high complexity of the plant, it is suggested that integrated planning and scheduling should be implemented.

Fawcett and Magnan (2002) tried to find the reality of supply chain integration in an empirical study among managers from purchasing, manufacturing and logistics in the USA. The study revealed that the notion of integration from suppliers' supplier to customers' customer does not resemble the theories. It is said that "…the end-to-end transparency needed to understand and manage the entire supply chain simply has not materialized for the vast majority of supply chains…". The integration is usually defined amongst focal company and its first-tier supplier/customer and management of beyond tiers is handed over to first-tier members.

An international study of supply chain integration strategies was conducted by Frohlich and Westbrook (2001). They define direction (towards customers and/or towards suppliers) and degree (extent of integration) for shared operational activities and call it "Arc of Integration". To explore the extent to which organizations integrate their activities with their suppliers and customers, five valid types of strategies are introduced: inward-facing, periphery-facing, supplier-facing, customer-facing, and outward-facing. They conclude that companies with the greatest arcs of supplier and customer integration will have the largest rates of performance improvement.

Other areas of integration have also been investigated. For instance, Ragatz et al. (1997) suggest that integration of suppliers into new product development lead to significant performance improvement and competitive advantage. Two sets of differentiators are proposed to minimize or overcome the obstacles in achieving such integration: relationship structuring (buyer's top management commitment, shared education and training, joint agreement on performance measures, confidence in supplier's capability, formalized risk/reward sharing, formal trust development practices, and supplier's top management commitment ), and asset allocation (intellectual-, human-, and physical asset). As shown in figure 2-6, Pagell (2004) offers a model of internal supply chain integration across operations, purchasing, and logistics. McAdam and McCormack (2001) performed a qualitative study of the relationship between managing business processes and managing supply chains. They explored that only few firms actually using the integration of business processes in their supply chains. The two areas were treated separately and most business process management techniques were applied to one member of the supply chain and their links with immediate suppliers and customers.

Figure 2-6 Model of internal supply chain integration

Source: (Pagell, 2004)

2.2 Information Technology and Integration

In this section I will review the role of IT integration in supply chains from two perspectives: information sharing and information integration tools.

2.2.1 Information Sharing

In recent years numerous studies have emphasised the importance of information sharing within the supply chain (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2008; Yao et al., 2007, Bagchi and Skjoett-Larsen, 2002; Mentzer et al., 2000; Stank et al., 1999). While there is no doubt that information technology can reduce costs, the formation of a business model and utilization of information is also crucial (Trkman et al., 2007). Mentzer et al. (2000) have seen information sharing as one of the enablers of partnering implementation and state that collection, creation, management, and communication of information are critical to the efficiency, effectiveness, and competitive advantage of any supply chain. Simatupang and Sridharan (2002) discuss that this flow of data enhances visibility across both internal functions and organizations. It is said that variety of data is usually shared between members like resource availability (e.g., capacity, inventory, etc.), status of performance (e.g., time, quality, costs), status of processes (e.g., forecasting, ordering, delivery, replenishing), and the status of contract. They believe that information sharing can benefit members at both strategic and tactical levels where mutual understanding of competitive advantage, lessening demand uncertainty, and joint decision-making are at the heart of collaboration. According to Yu et al. (2001) uncertainties rise when perfect information can not be secured; therefore, by augmenting shared data between all participating members of supply chain which leads to whole system improvement, uncertainty and consequently negative impacts of bullwhip effect, a phenomenon where orders to supplier tend to have a larger variance than sales to the buyer, can be reduced or eliminated.

Vendor-managed inventory (VMI) and CPFR are the partnership programs primarily developed to encourage retailers to share information. VMI, also known as continuous replenishment or supplier-managed inventory, is one of the most widely discussed partnering initiatives for encouraging collaboration and information sharing among trading partners where vendor decides on the appropriate inventory levels of each of the products and suitable policies to maintain those levels. However, retail-level information is one of the major limitations of VMI system. This is due to the fact that retailers are closer to the marketplace and consequently have better knowledge about consumers, but they are not usually involved in demand forecast process in typical VMI programs. CPFR, on the other hand, could be seen as the solution for the problems that are encountered in adaptation of VMI because it requires all supply chain partners to jointly develop demand forecasts, production and purchasing plans, and inventory replenishments (Sari, 2008). The role of information sharing from CPFR perspective is discussed in many other studies (Skjoett-Larsen et al., 2003; Stank et al., 1999; Mentzer et al., 2000).

Zhou and Benton (2007) have considered three aspects of information sharing: information sharing support technology, information content, and information quality. Information sharing support technology includes the hardware and software needed to support information sharing. Information content refers to the information shared between manufacturers and customers. Information quality measures the quality of information shared between manufacturers and customers (e.g. accuracy, recency, frequency, etc.). Fawcett et al. (2007) state that many organizations have only focused on technological side of information sharing and did not get desired returns on their investment and believe that this is due to lack of investment on organizational culture. Accordingly, the research evaluates the role of information sharing capability in two dimensions - willingness and connectivity - towards operational and competitive performance improvement (see figure 2-7).

Figure 2-7 A contingency perspective of information sharing capability as a strategic enabler

Source: (Fawcett et al., 2007)

As depicted in figure 2-8, their interview with various companies has led to introduction of two-by-two connectivity-willingness matrix. For example in quadrant IV where levels of connectivity and willingness are both high, relationships are strategic and built on high levels of trust; accurate data about joint decision-makings are shared in a timely basis; and, opportunities are available for high levels of collaboration.

Other subjects have also drawn attention regarding information sharing. For example, advantages of information sharing and replenishment co-ordination for supply chain members are said to be: (1) sharing information alone would provide cost savings and inventory reduction for supplier, but it would not benefit retailer much; (2) combining information sharing with replenishment co-ordination would result in cost savings and inventory decrement for both retailer and supplier; (3) the underlying demand process would significantly influence the magnitude of cost savings and inventory reductions associated with information sharing and replenishment co- ordination (Lee et al., 1996; cited by Zhao et al., 2002).

Figure 2-8 The connectivity-willingness matrix

Source: (Fawcett et al., 2007)

2.2.2 Information Integration Tools

Nowadays, companies are trying to improve their agility level with the objective of being flexible and responsive to meet the changing market requirements. In an effort to achieve this, many companies have decentralized their value-adding activities by outsourcing and developing virtual enterprises (Gunasekaran and Ngai, 2004). All of these highlight the importance of information technology and its infrastructure in integrating partnering firms in supply chain.

2.2.2.1 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Systems

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) was created from development of its predecessor's software applications, material requirements planning (MRP) and manufacturing resource planning (MRP II). In the late 1960s MRP was born through a joint effort between some machinery manufacturers and IBM corporation and was a state- of-the-art method for planning and scheduling materials for complex manufactured products. MRP II was developed in 1980s with newer capabilities; In fact, the backbone was MRP, but re-written in modern code (Jacobs and Weston Jr., 2007). ERP is defined as a "framework for organizing, defining, and standardizing the business processes necessary to effectively plan and control an organization so the organization can use its internal knowledge to seek external advantage" (Blackstone and Cox, 2005; cited by Jacobs and Weston Jr., 2007). Another definition is given by Beheshti (2006): "An ERP system is a set of business units of an organization such as financial, accounting, manufacturing, and human resources into a tightly integrated single system with a common platform for flow of information across the entire business".

Whilst many benefits of ERP implementation like eliminating redundancies usually occur in separate legacy systems, transferring from functionally oriented organizations to process oriented ones, standardisation of business applications, and more agile supply chain are cited in different studies (Swafford et al., 2008; Beheshti, 2006; Akkermans et al., 2003), failure cases should also been concerned. Ke and Wei (2008) have investigated the role of leadership and organizational culture in implementation of ERP system. They state that ERP implementation imposes a great challenge on an adopting organization to foster a culture that is conductive to its success. It is also said that top management actions (e.g. right strategic vision of ERP adoption, setting up learning structures, dispensing contingent rewards, etc.) can manipulate organizational culture. Impact of ERP on SCM was investigated by Akkermans et al. (2003) and findings show that there are: (1) SCM opportunities for ERP: mass customization, standardization, and global IT usage; (2) SCM shortcomings of current ERP systems: lack of extended enterprise functionality, lack of flexibility in adapting to changing supply chain needs, lack of advanced decision support capabilities, and lack of open, modular system architecture. Another research about ERP implementation was also conducted in Swedish firms by Olhager and Selldin (2003). Results show that there is a high adoption of ERP systems within Swedish manufacturing firms; in addition, core production management modules involved in the customer order process and also financial accounting and control have recognised to be the most implemented modules. In an attempt to find impact of ERP on corporate performance, Hendricks et al. (2007) discovered that early adopters of ERP systems has stronger improvements in profitability but not in stock returns.

2.2.2.2 Adoption of EDI / XML Technologies in Supply Chain

Electronic data interchange (EDI) is a rapidly growing technology, even though it has been widely available since the beginning of the 1980s (Lim and Palvia, 2001). It is defined as "the direct computer-to-computer communication of inter-company and intra-company business documents in a machine-readable standard format" (Crum et al., 1998). Agi et al. (2005) call it a type of inter-organizational information technology that enables trading partners to exchange data automatically between their information systems. Lim and Palvia (2001) state that in addition to general benefits of EDI like faster processing speed, greater accuracy, reduced costs, competitive advantage, improved operations, security, tracking and control, etc., there are also positive impacts on customer service. Their study revealed that product availability, order cycle time, and distribution system (malfunction, flexibility, and information) was improved through EDI implementation. Machuca and Barajas (2004) presented the same positive impact on decreasing bullwhip effect and supply chain inventory costs. Widely-usage of EDI in food and automotive industry is also probed in other studies; for instance, an empirical research in the food industry showed that while most firms use EDI for the frequent and routine transactions, invoices, and purchasing orders, they are not using it for coordinated activities like transferring schedules, production, and sales; moreover, companies tend to do more EDI activities with their customers than their suppliers (Hill and Scudder, 2002). Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in automotive industry have also lots of opportunities in implementing EDI systems with their supply chain partners (Tuunainen, 1999).

The extensible markup language (XML) was developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1998 and defined as "data format for structured document interchange on the web" (Buxmann et al., 2002). Owing to the rapid development of XML in recent years, enterprises have set operating standards for their electronic document-interchange procedures using XML format. This has improved the efficiency of data interchange (by allowing users to define and describe document formats and structures) between enterprises, and has led to the role of EDI in this field becoming much diminished (Fu et al., 2007).

A study of 329 European companies by Nurmilaakso (2008) suggests that firm size, employee skills, and e-business functions has positive influence on moving from EDI-based to XML-based e-business frameworks in supply chain integration; furthermore, XML-based e-business frameworks has more effect on the adoption of e- business functions.

2.3 Supply Chain Performance

Supply chain performance and effective management of supply chains have been increasingly recognized as critical factors in gaining competitive advantage for firms (Sezen, 2008). Different aspects of supply chain performance have been discussed by both scientists and practitioners in recent years; however, most of these studies have focused on two major areas. First, determining factors that explain why some supply chain performances are better off; second, proposition of measurement systems for supply chain performance. In the next section I review these two categories.

2.3.1 Enablers of Efficient Supply Chain

According to Zhao et al. (2002), among many factors that can influence the performance of a supply chain is forecasting. This is because under demand uncertainty, supply chain members can not plan and decide on their inventory and production; thus, sharing information for predicting matters seems to be decisive within supply chain partners. They studied the interactions between inventory replenishment decisions by retailers and production decisions by suppliers based on a simulated model. Their assessment exposed that information sharing can significantly influence supply chain performance, and sharing future order information with supplier is more beneficial than sharing only the future demand information. It is also said that, while data sharing is usually useful for suppliers in different situations, it can be harmful in terms of cost and service level for retailers especially when capacity is low. Effect of information sharing on performance is partly supported by Fawcett et al. (2007). As discussed earlier in section 2.2.1, they evaluated the impact of information sharing capability in two dimensions- willingness and connectivity - on operational and competitive performance. Despite the slight influence on competitive performance, both affect the operational performance (willingness had stronger effect). Jonsson and Gunnarsson (2005) elaborate on how internet can be used as an enabler to create customer value and effectiveness for supply chain members by developing integrative logistics operations. The research implies that three routes can be considered for this purpose: (1) from business strategy perspective, supply chain partners are striking for utilizing internet in order to link shortfalls in logistics operations; however, there are deficiencies at the beginning, (2) a gradual increase in efficiencies emerges in form of intensified external customer-perceived value, and (3) application of internet in this stage is seen as an instrument for continuous cost reduction, rationalization of transaction sequences, and process streamlining. They see these three principles as a short-term strategy for enhancing supply chain performance.

A longitudinal assessment of an integrated supply chain was conducted to see the impact on overall organizational performance (Elmuti et al., 2008). Elements of integration are shown in figure 2-9. Results disclosed that SCM activities through such model allows companies to reduce cost, improve quality, and reduce cycle time, and leads to productivity enhancement due to decreased inventory and external failure costs. Improved delivery dependability, lower costs, and flexibility lead to superior levels of customer satisfaction, which result in higher sales and organisational performance. According to Sezen (2008), companies should pay attention to supply chain design in addition to integration and information sharing to achieve efficient and effective supply chain. Supply chain design involves decisions about number of suppliers, proximity to suppliers, supplier selection and evaluation, planned capacities in each facility, definition of contractual terms, and reactions to the possible disagreements between channel members. Supply chain performance measures are flexibility-, resource-, and output performance. His study of 125 manufacturing firms in Turkey revealed that supply chain design has higher influence on supply chain performance measures compared to integration and information sharing. However, flexibility performance is more affected by information sharing than that of supply chain design.

Figure 2-9 Conceptual model of supply chain integration and performance measures

Source: (Elmuti et al., 2008)

Kim (2006) investigated the interrelationships among SCM practices, level of supply chain integration, and competition capability plus examination of these constructs' impact on performance. Their empirical study of numerous small and large firms showed that the level of effect on performance can be different based on the intensity between the three constructs. While efficient integration in small firms can cause performance improvement, close interrelationship between SCM practice and contest capability have more significant outcome on performance advancement in large firms. Narasimhan and Kim (2002) stress that supply chain strategies depend on product and market characteristics. They found that internal and external integration across supply chain positively moderate the relationships between product diversification and performance, and between international market diversification and performance. Zailani and Rajagopal (2005) explain more about impacts of supply chain integration on performance by study of companies in East Asia and USA. In a comprehensive survey of European firms, Bagchi et al. (2005) uncover that over sixty percent of respondents approved some improvements in order fulfilment and lead-time after integration. Other performance metrics such as production flexibility, inventory turnover ratio, and rate of returns were seen to have significant positive association with factors like participation of key suppliers in supply chain design. Tan et al. (1999) found positive association between SCM issues (firm's competitive environment and management responsiveness, use of total quality management (TQM) tools and practices, effective management of the supply base, and customer relation focus) and high levels of performance. Fynes et al. (2005) suggest that adaptation (or investment in transaction-specific investments) leads to an improvement in product quality and cost decrement but has no effect on flexibility or delivery performance. Results of a case study by Bartlett et al. (2007) demonstrate that exchange of high-quality information as part of an improvement initiative does lead to significant improvements in the overall performance of supply chain; more precisely, improvements observed through high visibility across capacity planning, material ordering, and inventory management.

Lee et al. (2007) discuss the impact of supply chain linkages in upstream, internal, and downstream parts on performance (see figure 2-10). The two indicators of performance were selected as cost-containment (i.e. cost of in and outbound activities, warehousing, inventory-holding, and increasing asset turnover) and performance reliability (i.e. order fulfilment rate, inventory turns, safety stocks, inventory obsolesces, and number of product warranty claims). They define supply chain linkage as planning and executing an integrated business process and operations in supply chain through information technology. Customer linkage is concerned with planning and implementing successful connection between providers and recipients; supplier linkage deals with involving suppliers in activities like new product design, production planning, inventory management, etc.; internal linkage means easy access to key operational data, integrated database, inventory status, etc. The study points out that internal linkage is a primary determinant of cost-containment performance and supplier linkage is a key indicator of performance reliability as well as overall performance. It is also found that e-ordering and a fast and easy ordering system are critical factors of customer linkage for enhancing SCM cost-containment and reliability performance.

Figure 2-10 A model for SCM performance measurement

Source: (Lee et al., 2007)

McCarthy and Golicic (2002) express the coalition between collaborative forecasting and supply chain performance. Their study of three firms reveals that collaborative forecasting results in increased responsiveness, increased product availability assurance, and optimized inventory and associated costs which totally leads to increased revenues and earnings. In accord with Stank et al. (2001), internal and external collaboration have distinctive association with logistical service performance. They offer that internal collaboration significantly influences logistical service performance, but this is not supported for the link between external collaboration and performance. Furthermore, external collaboration with supply chain entities will increase internal collaboration. This indicates that if firms want to enhance service performance via collaboration with external customers and suppliers, they need to improve their internal collaboration. This is in line with the research that have been conducted by Chen et al. (2007) and shows that marketing/logistics collaboration have no direct impact on firm performance when firm-wide integration is considered. Instead, it is true via mediation of firm-wide cross-functional integration. However, there are number of studies which exposed little evidence of support for collaboration's effects on performance improvement (Vereecke and Muylle, 2006; Stank et al., 1999).

2.3.2 Performance Measurement Systems

According to Gunasekaran et al. (2001) there is a need for performance measurement system and metrics in a supply chain for two reasons; first, lack of a balanced approach (existence of different performance measures e.g. financial, operational, etc.); second, lack of a clear distinction between metrics at strategic, tactical, and operational levels. To create such a comprehensive measurement system, they defined metrics in above mentioned levels and then ,as depicted in figure 2-11, put them in a framework of four basic links of integrated supply chain (plan, source, make/assemble, and delivery/customer). A complementary framework is also proposed by the authors in 2004 (see table 2-1).

Figure 2-11 Measures and metrics at four basic links in a supply chain

Source: (Gunasekaran et al., 2001)

Table 2-1 Supply chain performance metrics framework

Source: (Gunasekaran et al., 2004)

Beamon (1999) state that resource-, output-, and flexibility measures are the three main components of a supply chain performance measurement system (see table 2-2) and identify sub-measures for each type. These are listed below:

Resource measures: total cost, distribution cost, manufacturing cost, inventory cost, return on investment (ROI)

Output measures: sales, profit, fill rate on-time deliveries, backorder/stockout, customer response time, manufacturing lead time, shipping errors, and customer complaints

Flexibility measures: volume flexibility, delivery flexibility, mix flexibility, new product flexibility

Table 2-2 Goals of performance measurement types

Source: (Beamon, 1999)

2.4 Theoretical Framework

In order to get an overall view of the state of supply chain integration in Iran, this study aims at evaluation of three fundamental criteria which represent integration-related constructs in most reviewed literature; that is, interfirm integration, IT integration, and supply chain performance. Figure 2-12 illustrates the classification of these categories. Next section will present a discussion about each dimension.

Figure 2-12 Theoretical framework

2.5 Frame of Reference

To give a holistic view, table 2-3 summarizes the literature that has reviewed in three major areas of our research: collaboration, IT integration, and supply chain performance.

Table 2-3 A guide to literature review

Reviewed Literature

Supply Chain Integration Issue

Collaboration

IT Integration

Performance

Agi et al.

2005

√

Akkermans et al.

2003

√

√

Bagchi and Skjoett-Larsen

2002

√

√

Bagchi et al.

2005

√

√

√

Barratt

2004

√

Bartlett et al.

2007

√

√

Beamon

1999

√

Beheshti

2006

√

Burca et al.

2005

√

Buxmann et al.

2002

√

Chan and Qi

2003

√

Charan et al.

2008

√

Chen et al.

2007

√

√

Crum et al.

1998

√

Elmuti et al.

2008

√

√

Fawcett and Magnan

2002

√

Fawcett et al.

2007

√

√

Ford et al.

2002

√

Frohlich and Westbrook

2001

√

√

Fu et al.

2007

√

√

Fynes et al.

2005

√

Gunasekaran and Ngai

2004

√

Gunasekaran et al.

2001

√

Gunasekaran et al.

2004

√

Hendricks et al.

2007

√

Hill and Scudder

2002

√

√

Jacobs and Weston Jr.

2007

√

Jonsson and Gunnarsson

2005

√

√

√

Ke and Wei

2008

√

Kim

2006

√

√

Lee et al.

2007

√

√

√

Lim and Palvia

2001

√

Machuca and Barajas

2004

√

√

McAdam and McCormack

2001

√

McCarthy and Golicic

2002

√

√

Mentzer et al.

2000

√

√

√

Min et al.

2005

√

Narasimhan and Kim

2002

√

√

Nurmilaakso

2008

√

√

Olhager and Selldin

2003

√

Pagell

2004

√

Prosser and Nickl

1997

√

√

Ragatz et al.

1997

√

√

Sari

2008

√

Sezen

2008

√

√

Simatupang and Sridharan

2005

√

√

Simatupang and Sridharan

2002

√

√

Simatupang and Sridharan

2008

√

√

Skjoett-Larsen et al.

2003

√

Stank et al.

1999

√

√

Stank et al.

2001

√

√

Swafford et al.

2008

√

Tan et al.

1999

√

Towill et al.

2002

√

Trkman et al.

2007

√

√

Tuunainen

1999

√

Van Donk et al.

2008

√

Vereecke and Muylle

2006

√

√

Wong and Wong

2007

√

Yao et al.

2007

√

Yu et al.

2001

√

Zailani and Rajagopal

2005

√

√

Zhao et al.

2002

√

√

Zhou and Benton

2007

√

√

Writing Services

Essay Writing
Service

Find out how the very best essay writing service can help you accomplish more and achieve higher marks today.

Assignment Writing Service

From complicated assignments to tricky tasks, our experts can tackle virtually any question thrown at them.

Dissertation Writing Service

A dissertation (also known as a thesis or research project) is probably the most important piece of work for any student! From full dissertations to individual chapters, we’re on hand to support you.

Coursework Writing Service

Our expert qualified writers can help you get your coursework right first time, every time.

Dissertation Proposal Service

The first step to completing a dissertation is to create a proposal that talks about what you wish to do. Our experts can design suitable methodologies - perfect to help you get started with a dissertation.

Report Writing
Service

Reports for any audience. Perfectly structured, professionally written, and tailored to suit your exact requirements.

Essay Skeleton Answer Service

If you’re just looking for some help to get started on an essay, our outline service provides you with a perfect essay plan.

Marking & Proofreading Service

Not sure if your work is hitting the mark? Struggling to get feedback from your lecturer? Our premium marking service was created just for you - get the feedback you deserve now.

Exam Revision
Service

Exams can be one of the most stressful experiences you’ll ever have! Revision is key, and we’re here to help. With custom created revision notes and exam answers, you’ll never feel underprepared again.