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

net/publication/235313551

Supply Chain Management Integration and Implementation

Article  in  Supply Chain Management · September 2005

DOI: 10.1108/13598540510612721

CITATIONS READS

381 5,615

1 author:

Damien Power
University of Melbourne
148 PUBLICATIONS   2,718 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Capitalism, competition and sustainability: Is it really true that the best method for distributing finite resources sustainably is to be found in business models predicated on
fighting each other for those resources? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Damien Power on 13 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Research paper

Supply chain management integration and

implementation: a literature review
Damien Power
Department of Management, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review a sample of the literature relating to the integration and implementation of supply chain management
practices from a strategic viewpoint.
Design/methodology/approach – The literature is examined from three perspectives. First, supply chain integration covers issues relating to
integration of core processes across organizational boundaries through improved communication, partnerships, alliances and cooperation. Second,
strategy and planning examines supply chain management as a strategic matter for trading partners, along with factors relating to the amount of
planning required. Third, implementation issues concern factors critical for successful implementation, as well as issues specific to inter and intra-
organizational aspects of supply chain initiatives are contained in this sub-group
Findings – An important emergent theme from the literature is the importance of taking a holistic view, and the systemic nature of interactions
between the participants. At the same time, it is also apparent that this requirement to take such an holistic and systemic view of the supply chain acts
as an impediment to more extensive implementation. The strategic nature of adopting a supply chain wide perspective, on the one hand provides
significant potential benefit, and on the other requires trading partners to think and act strategically. This is easier said than done within a stand-alone
organization, let alone across a diverse and dispersed group of trading partners.
Research limitations/implications – The scope of this review is by design limited to a cross-section of the literature in this area. As such, it cannot,
and does not, attempt to be an examination of the full range of the literature, but a sampling of important and influential works.
Practical implications – This review of the literature serves to highlight the inter-dependence between integration (technologies, logistics, and
partnerships), a strategic view of supply chain systems, and implementation approach. All three need to inform and underpin each other in order for
management of supply chains to be able to deliver on the promise of benefits for all trading partners.
Originality/value – This study reviews a sample of recent and classic literature in this field, and in doing so provides some clear guidelines for the
conduct of future research.

Keywords Supply chain management, Integration, Management strategy

Paper type Research paper

Introduction creating an inter-dependence and shared destiny. The truly

The integration of supply chain management systems has
been the subject of significant debate and discussion. As
organizations seek to develop partnerships and more effective
information links with trading partners, internal processes
become interlinked and span the traditional boundaries of
firms. Physical logistics become more dependent on
information technologies, and these technologies can also
become enablers of further cooperative arrangements. Firms
are then faced with the management of an extended enterprise
as a network of processes, relationships and technologies
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
10/4 (2005) 252– 263
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546]
[DOI 10.1108/13598540510612721]
strategic nature of supply chain management thus becomes
apparent for participating companies, with successful
implementation becoming a source of competitive advantage.
The intent of this literature review is to document and
analyse literature relating to the integration and
implementation of supply chain management practices. As
such, it is organized into the following sub-sections:
.
Supply chain integration. This section covers issues relating
to integration of core processes across organizational
boundaries through improved communication,
partnerships, alliances and cooperation. It also includes
the application of new technologies to improve
information flows and coordinate the flow of physical
goods between trading partners.
.
Strategy and planning. Supply chain management as a
strategic matter for trading partners, along with factors
relating to the amount of planning required.
.
Implementation issues. Factors critical for successful
implementation, as well as issues specific to inter and
intra-organizational aspects of supply chain initiatives are
contained in this sub-group.

252
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
Framework for analysis
The integration of supply chain processes through investment
in cooperative arrangement and technologies is difficult to
separate from, or consider independently of, the strategic
positioning of organizations. Effective supply chain
integration requires effective implementation, and
implementation uninformed by strategy will at best produce
little in the way of tangible benefits for the parties involved,
and at worst be counter-productive and erode competitive
advantage. As such the three elements that are the focus of
this study are inter-linked and inter-related, and an
examination of the literature in each of the three areas can
throw some light on issues of importance for one or both of
the other two.
Supply chain integration
General
The purpose of supply chain management is described by
Kaufman (1997, p. 14) as to being to “. . . remove
communication barriers and eliminate redundancies” through
coordinating, monitoring and controlling processes. The
integration of supply chains has been described by Clancy as:
. . . attempting to elevate the linkages within each component of the chain, (to
facilitate) better decision making [and] to get all the pieces of the chain to
interact in a more efficient way [and thus] . . . create supply chain visibility
[and] identify bottlenecks (Clancy, cited in Putzger, 1998, p. 55).
The main drivers of integration are listed by Handfield and
Nichols (1999, p. 5) as:
.
the information revolution;
.
increased levels of global competition creating a more
demanding customer and demand driven markets; and
.
the emergence of new types of inter-organizational
relationships.
They describe the three principal elements of an integrated
supply chain model as being information systems
(management of information and financial flows), inventory
management (management of product and material flows),
and supply chain relationships (management of relationships
between trading partners).
The basis of integration can therefore be characterized by
cooperation, collaboration, information sharing, trust,
partnerships, shared technology, and a fundamental shift
away from managing individual functional processes, to
managing integrated chains of processes (Akkermans et al.,
1999). The extent of integration can begin with product
design, and incorporate all steps leading to the ultimate sale of
the item (Transportation and Distribution, 1998; Modern
Materials Handling, 1998; Ballou et al., 2000). Some
authors also include all activities throughout the useful life
of the product including service, reverse logistics and re-
cycling (Carter and Ellram, 1998; Coleman and Austrian,
2000; Thomas and Griffin, 1996).
The potential for integration of the supply chain to improve
both profit potential and competitive position is highlighted
by Wood (1997, p. 26) when he states that:
. . . since the supply chain represents 60% to 80% of a typical company’s cost
structure, just a 10% reduction can yield a 40% to 50% improvement in pre-
tax profits (Wood, 1997, p. 26).
Cottrill (1997) states that the evolution of the concept of
integration has moved over time to one in which the supply
253
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
chain operates as a corporate entity, spans a virtual enterprise
without reference to traditional company boundaries, and can
be driven directly by customer demand via access to electronic
storefronts. He states that this trend will create major changes
in many companies, eventually leading to greater use of
outsourced services. He also believes that the key to
implementation lies in focusing initially on introducing
changes within the company, and then extending the
process to include suppliers and customers. The primary
benefits resulting could include cost and cycle time
reductions. Wood (1997) focuses on the importance of
aligning goals across functions through cooperation and
collaboration, and cites the traditionally poor alignment of
goals between manufacturing and sales/distribution functions
as an example of opportunities for better alignment as a pre-
condition for improvement in supply chain management
practices. This cooperative theme is further supported by
other writers (Fernie, 1995; Lawrence, 1997; Morton, 1997),
and is in essence captured by Parnell (1998, p. 60) when he
states that supply chain integration really occurs when:
. . . customers and suppliers establish tight partnerships with the objectives
and probable outcomes of reduced inventory, shorter lead times and better
service to the customer.
Information flows
Effective application of information technology to the
integration of supply chain activities has the effect of
reducing levels of complexity. Senge (1990) defines two
types of complexity, detail and dynamic. Detail complexity
exists when there are many variables needing to be managed.
Dynamic complexity exists where cause and effect are
separated, and difficult to associate, in both time and space:
. . . situations where cause and effect are subtle, and effects over time of
interventions are not obvious. Conventional forecasting, planning and
analysis methods are not equipped to deal with dynamic complexity (Senge,
1990, p. 71).
The “bullwhip effect” is an example of a typical supply chain
management outcome resulting from circumstances that are
dynamically complex, and was first highlighted by Forrester
(1958, 1961). Chen et al. (2000, p. 269) have defined this
effect thus:
This phenomenon states that the demand process seen by a given stage of a
supply chain becomes more variable as we move up the supply chain (i.e. as
one moves away from customer demand). In other words, the orders seen by
the upstream stages of a supply chain are more variable than the orders seen
by the downstream stages.
Symptomatic of this effect are excessive inventories, low
customer service levels, inaccurate and untimely capacity
planning, lost income, increased transportation costs and
ineffective production scheduling (Lee et al., 1997). Lee et al.
(1997, pp. 94-5) also state that access to, and management of,
information is critical to minimizing this type of variation:
Innovative companies in different industries have found that they can control
the bullwhip effect and improve their supply chain performance by
coordinating information and planning along the supply chain.
Attribution of causes for the bullwhip effect have varied since
it was first observed. Forrester would say that the behaviour in
the system is a function of the interaction of structure
(“effective organization structure and information sources”),
delays (time between cause and effect/decision and
implementation, etc.), and amplification (the inherent
effects of policies) (Forrester, 1961, p. 348). Sterman
(1989) sees the primary influences as being irrational
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
human behaviour driven by a misunderstanding of real
demand. Lee et al. (1997) believe that the problem lies in the
infrastructure of the supply chain itself, identifying practices
such as demand forecast updating, order batching, price
fluctuation and rationing and shortage gaming as the key
drivers. Where there is convergence is in the importance of
reliable and timely information, although Forrester (1961,
p. 427) makes the point that timely information is not
necessarily the solution on its own:
Carried to its extreme, the result of more timely information can be harmful.
The effect can be to cause the manager to put more and more stress on
short-range decisions . . . the system improvements did not result so much
from changing the type of information available or its quality nearly so much
as from changing the sources of information used and the nature of the
decision based on the information.
This view is supported by Churchman (cited in Malhotra,
2000, p. 6) when he states:
. . . knowledge resides in the user and not in the collection of information . . .
it is how the user reacts to a collection of information that matters.
Hill (2000) states that one of the practices exacerbating this
uncertainty of demand is the practice of “forward buying”, or
purchasing larger than needed quantities to take advantage of
lower unit prices. He estimates that this practice can account
for as much as 50 per cent of distribution inventories. Levary
(2000) puts the ultimate result of the bullwhip effect simply as
being either an increase in cost to the end user, or a decrease
in profit for the various members of the chain. Upin et al.
(2000) express this in terms of increased uncertainty of cash
flow and earnings for both buyers and suppliers.
Handfield and Nichols (1999, p. 6) summarize the potential
for information technology applications for supply chain
integration thus:
With the emergence of the personal computer, optical fibre networks, the
explosion of the Internet and the World Wide Web, the cost and availability
of information resources allows easy linkages and eliminates information-
related time delays in any supply chain network.
Bowersox and Calantone (1998) state that the notion of an
integrated supply chain is not a new one, but that it has only
recently become feasible as companies have access to
information that is accurate, timely and affordable. They
also make the point that information is the only element
within the supply chain that has become less expensive over
time. An example of this trend is the increasing use of e-mail
for communication both within companies and between
trading partners. Some recent Australian figures indicate
that e-mail is being used by over 40 per cent of small
businesses and over 80 per cent of medium sized companies
to do business with customers and suppliers (Yellow Pages
Survey, 1999, cited in Lawrence, 1997). At a minimal cost e-
mail is being used to transfer word processor files, design
documentation and CAD files, spreadsheets and trading
documents such as orders and invoices between trading
partners (Braue, 1999). The breadth of applications and
uses that e-mail is being put to in the streamlining of supply
chain communications is often under-estimated. Baum cites
the example of Premenos Technologies, an electronic
commerce vendor in the USA, developing a program
(aimed at small businesses) for transmission of electronic
data interchange (EDI) type documents via e-mail using the
Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) protocol (Baum, 1997). Carter
points out that the use of e-mail is an important facilitator of
better communications and relationships between trading
254
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
partners in an international context (Carter, 2000). The
Delphi Group highlight the “asynchronous” nature of e-mail
type messaging, providing “. . . the ability to communicate
serially, without interaction and interruption, thereby
bridging the constraints of time and distance” (Australian
Industry Group, 1999, p. 19). Many authors point to the
fact that e-mail provides cheap and easy to use means of
staying in contact with trading partners 24 hours-a-day and
seven days a week (Marshak, 1999; Lancioni et al., 2000;
Kaufman, 1997).
Advances in internet technologies and software are also
affecting the application of longer established technologies.
The development of Extensible Markup Language (XML)
and EDI/XML (an open standard for sending EDI
transmissions over the internet) are making connections
between organizations’ different information systems more
cost effective and easier to implement. XML was developed in
the mid-1990s out of an awareness of the limitations of Hyper
Text Markup Language (HTML), the basic language for
internet communications (Cunningham, 1999). XML is
described as:
. . . an industry standard designed to provide a structured mechanism for
sharing and understanding business content [allowing] . . . an application to
recognize a document type, individual data fields, and specific data located
within a document. XML-enabled applications can parse data from a
supplier’s web site, interpret the data, and initiate the appropriate response
or business transaction (A.T. Kearney, 2000, p. 13).
The advantage that XML offers is a flexible standard for the
exchange of information between trading partners via the
internet (New South Wales Department of State and Regional
Development and Microsoft Australia, 2001). It therefore
establishes the ability to exchange rich information
(previously only available through the use of EDI) at a
comparatively low cost. XML adds meaning and semantics to
text, taking it beyond mere formatting (a limitation of
HTML) and in so doing allows the content (rather than just
the code) to be understood by the computer (Westhead et al.,
2000). It is also scalable (able to be built upon without major
modification), and requires significantly less specialist
knowledge to manipulate than previous programs (Huson
and Owens, 2000).
There have been a large number of software applications
developed to allow better flow of information throughout the
supply chain including: ERP systems (developed from MRPII
systems); order management systems to automate the order
fulfilment process; demand planning systems for managing
and monitoring forecasts; warehouse management systems for
inventory management, picking and placement; transport
management systems for the planning and dispatching of
shipments; advanced planning and scheduling systems for
developing and managing production plans; customer
relationship management systems for providing customer
service, support and intelligence on customer demographics;
data warehousing applications able to store, analyse and
report corporate data stored in many different systems in
customized format (Huson and Owens, 2000; Harrington,
1997; Moller, 2000). These systems have usually suffered
from the fact that they have been “bottled up” within parts of
an organization, or even the supply chain, and have not easily
been linked to one another (Huson and Owens, 2000). A
powerful emerging application for XML, enabling supply
chain integration, is as a “middleware” provider between
many corporate legacy systems:
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
With the introduction of XML translation software . . . businesses and
marketplaces now have access to software that acts as an interpreter to
reconcile multiple communications standards allowing, for example, an EDI
purchase order to be converted into an XML equivalent document that is
readable by a supplier’s inventory system (Upin et al., 2000, p. 54).
There is a view, however, that this is a short-term solution,
having many of its own limitations such as lack of scalability, a
reliance on proprietary code, and limited access to useful
business intelligence (Huson and Owens, 2000).
The real ability of information technology to enable true
integration is best captured by Christopher (2000, p. 38)
when he says:
The use of information technology to share data between buyers and
suppliers is, in effect, creating a virtual supply chain. Virtual supply chains
are information-based rather than inventory-based.
Physical logistics
The importance of the management of physical inventory is
being amplified by the following factors; decreasing product
life-cycles; decreasing levels of standardization of products
and demands for customization; customers demanding
shorter delivery lead times; increased levels of competition
due to globalization and lowering of tariff barriers; and
increasing levels of dynamism (rate of change), complexity
(number of changes) and uncertainty (what will change?) in
global markets (Stalk and Hout, 1990; Pine, 1993; Handfield
and Nichols, 1999). Levels of inventory in supply chains are
directly linked to cycle times, and cycle times in physical
logistics are largely a function of distance, uncertainty and
complexity (Bowersox and Calantone, 1998). From the point-
of-view of the movement of physical goods, an integrated
supply chain offers the opportunity for firms to compete on
the basis of speed and flexibility, while at the same time
holding minimum levels of inventory in the chain. Rather
than goods being held at various points within the chain, they
will be moving between these points. Research has shown that
companies that have been able to achieve significant
reductions in cycle times have been able to translate this
into tangible business benefits (Handfield and Pannesi, 1992;
Belyea, 2000; Arntzen et al., 1995; Aron, 1998; Brennan,
1998). Despite this potential for providing a source of
competitive advantage, it has also recently been shown that
the infrastructure necessary to support streamlined product
flows lags behind the rapid developments in information
technology. Kilgore et al., as a result of interviewing 40
logistics managers found that “. . . global trading today
depends on an awkward flow of paper and misinformation”
(Kilgore, 2000, p. 6). As a result, they predict that global
shipping infrastructures will come under severe pressure in
the next three to five years as growth in global e-commerce
picks up. The major problem areas they identify include:
.
Fragmented regulatory rules. The example of Japan is cited
where up to 17,000 different trade laws can apply to
imports, while in China certain products can only be sold
through government agencies.
.
Inadequate intermediaries. Global shipments are estimated
to require on average the involvement of 27 separate
parties to complete. These include brokers for buying
cargo space, carriers for inland transport, compliance
intermediaries at both country and regional levels and
government agents covering tax and other compliance
issues.
255
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
.
Complications in costs. Unpredictable variations in duties
and taxes between countries can make sourcing decisions
akin to playing roulette (Kilgore, 2000, p. 6).
In terms of Forrester’s model of industrial dynamics based on
information feedback systems, these structural problems are
potential sources of delays in the system, the effect of which
could subsequently be amplified depending on the policy
responses of individual trading partners (Forrester, 1958,
1961). As such, the application of improved information
technology will provide a potential source of improvement,
but cannot be expected to solve entirely issues resulting from
such complex sets of interrelationships.
The physical distribution of goods is also affected by
distribution centre and facility location decisions. Arntzen
et al. (1995) state that the main decision criteria for the logical
design of a global outgoing logistics network are: number of
distribution centres; where they need to be located; methods
of distribution and capacity each should have; customers that
each centre will service by product and order type (Arntzen
et al., 1995, pp. 71-2). For incoming logistics they see the
major issues as being: if they are rationalising the supplier
base, which suppliers to drop and which to keep; which
suppliers should supply each plant by class of parts (Arntzen
et al., 1995, p. 72). Other general issues that need to be
considered include the relative merits of tax havens as against
extra freight and duty costs; the location of customers and
suppliers; length of the material pipeline in time and space;
transit time and cost of different transportation options; and
design of products for optimal shipping configuration
(Arntzen et al., 1995, pp. 71-2).
Wheatley (1996) notes that there has been a shift away
from applying technological solutions to physical
distribution systems such as racking systems, trucks and
automated warehousing. He sees the focus moving to
information technology as a result of diminishing marginal
returns in physical handling technologies, although he does
note that these technologies are being embedded in many
material-handling systems such as forklift trucks and
automated materials handling systems (Murphy, A. cited
in Wheatley, 1996). This does not, however, mean that the
physical side of the distribution issue is no longer
significant, or is indeed diminished in terms of its ability
to provide a source of competitive advantage. Wood reports
that survey research conducted in the USA by A.T. Kearney
found that only 9 per cent of those surveyed indicated that
they had a core competence in transport or logistics (Wood,
1997). This survey also reported that 90 per cent of
respondents were planning supply chain initiatives, but that
only 18 per cent of respondents felt that their IT
implementations adequately supported their supply chain
initiatives. Given this low level of basic expertise in
traditional logistics functions, it is easy to see that these
companies run the risk of seeing IT implementation as a
silver bullet that will solve problems more fundamentally
rooted in organizational competencies. The A.T. Kearney
report therefore concludes:
Companies have failed to pay sufficient attention to areas such as transport
and logistics, distribution, and purchasing. The most serious problems
companies face are the continuing internal functional focus, a failure to
align their IT systems and organizations with supply chain needs, and the
traditional nature of their relations with external suppliers and customers
(A.T. Kearney report, cited in Wood, 1997).
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
Partnerships, alliances and cooperation
The significance of effective inter-company relationships to
supply chain integration is captured in the following story:
Consultant John Champion, vice president of Kurt Salmon Associates,
relates the story of a vendor who spent a great deal of time and money to
design special product packaging. When the vendor visited the retailer’s
distribution centre, it was stunned to discover that the customer was simply
throwing the boxes away. The moral, according to Champion: “Get together
and talk” (Bowman, 1997, p. 29).
Handfield and Nichols (1999) also emphasize the importance
of relationships for the effective management of supply
chains. They state that the technological and physical transfer
elements are understood, and that the issue of relationships is
more difficult, less well understood and therefore more
fundamentally important:
. . . without a foundation of effective supply chain organizational
relationships, any efforts to manage the flow of information or materials
across the supply chain are likely to be unsuccessful (Handfield and Nichols,
1999, pp. 9-10).
Tait (1998, p. 21) states that:
Companies that make supplier relationships a priority are rewarded with
better financial performance and greater customer satisfaction.
In spite of this, a report by A.T. Kearney (A.T. Kearney
report, cited in Tait, 1998) found that only a small number of
companies really leverage their supplier relationships, with
less than 20 per cent of North American and Canadian
companies actively involving their suppliers in key business
processes. The major reason identified is the need to
recognize and include key strategic suppliers as early as
possible in order to set joint objectives and align business
goals. Traditional supplier relationships include what Dyer
et al. (1998) describe as the “arm’s length” model,
characterized by multiple suppliers, avoidance of long term
(or in some cases any) commitments and regular price
reviews. The justification for this strategy has been to
counteract the bargaining power of suppliers (Porter, 1980;
Porter and Millar, 1985). The cooperative model, by way of
contrast, focuses on the sharing of information (and in some
cases assets) between organizations, recognising areas of
common interest and mutual competitive advantage. In the
context of a complex rapidly changing supply chain
management environment, the cooperative model has
become a critical element for effective implementation. The
requirement for open communication, trust and recognition
of the interdependence of “individual” elements of the supply
chain as technology implementations bridge company
boundaries has thrown further emphasis on the importance
of such cooperative strategies (Stuart, 1997; Dyer et al., 1998;
Landry, 1998a, b; Tait, 1998; Barratt, 1999; Bensaou, 1999;
Lumsden, 1999; Rishel et al., 1999; Ghobadian et al., 2000;
Kaufman et al., 2000; Kulwiec, 2000; Schonsleben, 2000;
Vokurka, 2000).
The key driver for this need to recognize the “common
interest” has been a fundamental shift in power toward the
customer (Handfield and Nichols, 1999). As the customer
begins to dictate terms in the marketplace, issues of
interdependency between members of a supply chain become
more critical. Winning the custom and loyalty of end users
becomes more difficult as the competitive environment
becomes more volatile. In this type of environment inefficient
and ineffective supply chains characterized by traditional
“arms-length” relationships, and “silo” type structures can
256
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
threaten the survival of the entire chain (Barratt, 1999;
Ghobadian et al., 2000; Landry, 1998a, b; Tolhurst, 2001).
Dyer et al. (1998) have found that this does not necessarily
mean that all relationships with all supply chain members need
to be “one size fits all”. As a result of comparing supply policies
and relationships in the USA, Korea and Japan, they have
concluded that:
To optimise purchasing effectiveness executives should strategically segment
their suppliers into strategic partners and durable arms-length suppliers in
order to allocate different levels of resources to each group (Dyer et al., 1998,
p. 73).
The difference between the two types of relationships is
defined by the nature of the inputs they provide (e.g. those of
“arms-length” suppliers would be typically standardized items
not adding to the differential advantage of the end product).
This view has support from Lambert and Cooper (2000) who
define these different relationships as managed process links,
monitored process links, not managed process links and non-
member process links. Their rationale for this model is stated
thus:
. . . integrating and managing all process links throughout the entire supply
chain is likely not appropriate. Since the drivers for integration are different
from process link to process link, the levels of integration should vary from
link to link, and over time (Lambert and Cooper, 2000, p. 74).
For Lambert and Cooper (2000), the key to these
relationships is the level of management and integration
required, with highly strategic inputs requiring the highest
levels of management and integration by the focal company.
They also make a valid point about the importance of
monitoring the relationships suppliers and customers have
with competitors (“non-member process links”). This model
begs the question of who manages whom, who coordinates
what, and how coordination and integration are maintained?
The emphasis appears to be very much on managing and
controlling partners, perhaps at the expense of setting up
mutually beneficial partnerships.
Others would see the key ingredient as being that of trust
(Landry, a, b; Tolhurst, 2001; Ballou et al., 2000). The need
to manage and monitor the various members of the chain is
obviated (in theory) by the existence of long term mutually
beneficial partnerships built on high levels of trust. In these
circumstances the companies falling into Lambert and
Cooper’s (2000) model as being “managed process links”,
would really be links that would be self-managing (e.g. the
partner who is involved in a VMI programme would not
ideally require close management). Ballou et al. (2000, p. 16)
define trust in this context as:
. . . a general expectancy held by a channel member that the word of the other
can be relied upon. That is, one party has confidence in an exchange
partner’s reliability and integrity.
They also state that trust can lead directly to cooperation, or
indirectly through the development of commitment. They
also cite research indicating a high degree of correlation
between commitment, trust and cooperation in intercompany
relationships (Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. cited in Ballou
et al., 2000, p. 16). In identifying the importance of trust and
commitment for the development of cooperative partnerships,
however, Ballou et al. (2000, p. 17) also identify the challenge
that this reveals:
Since cooperation is usually among members that either have different
reward systems or are legally separate, members need to realize benefits from
their cooperation. The most challenging situation occurs when the benefits
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
“pool” with some members at the detriment of others. Balancing these
benefits so that all members are better off for their cooperation is the new
challenge for supply chain managers.
Conclusion
The integration of supply chain processes can provide an
effective means by which costs can be reduced and customer
service levels improved. The formula for integration, however,
is not a simple one. Organizations that aim to become part of
an extended, integrated supply network can also expect that
this will require an infrastructure enabling effective
information flows and streamlined logistics. A key
component of this infrastructure will be based on robust
and durable collaborative arrangements with trading partners.
The most effective of these networks will be those that are
able to get the mix of information requirements, physical
logistics and collaboration right, providing shared benefits to a
majority of partner organizations.
Strategy and planning
In examining the strategic nature of integrated supply chain
management, and business to business e-commerce in
general, the example of the computer industry provides a
graphic example. Bovel and Martha (2000) use the examples
of Gateway and Dell Computer as companies that have
managed to move supply chain management from the realm
of operations into a source of competitive advantage:
Gateway and Dell, for example, make good personal computers, but so do
Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Compaq, and other vendors. Since all are built from
fairly standard components and loaded with identical software, it is difficult
to say that one is better than another. What differentiates Gateway and Dell
in the eyes of customers is the fact that they can build and deliver a
customer-configured PC within five business days. What sets them apart in
the eyes of shareholders is the fact that they can do this with almost no
inventory, absolutely no working capital, and far fewer capital assets than
most of their rivals (their asset intensity is one-fifth that of major
competitors) (Bovel and Martha, 2000, p. 28).
They also make the point that these companies are in the
minority, with the focus for differentiation still revolving
around price, product innovation and cost cutting, rather
than an integrated and coordinated value chain. Porter (2001)
offers some support for this view, although he sees the
integration of a value chain as complementing traditional
strategies. In analysing the potential for internet-based
technologies to alter competitive environments, he sees a
major opportunity for organizations to differentiate
themselves on the basis of a distinctive value chain. In fact,
he states that this may be one of the few ways in which
companies can develop a sustainable competitive advantage
using internet technologies, as the overall effect of their
adoption will be to intensify competition, lower barriers to
entry and increase bargaining power of both buyers and
suppliers:
Basic Internet applications will become table stakes – companies will not be
able to survive without them, but they will not gain any advantage from
them. The more robust competitive advantages will arise instead from
traditional strengths such as unique products, proprietary content,
distinctive physical activities, superior product knowledge, and strong
personal service and relationships. Internet technology may be able to fortify
those advantages, by tying a company’s activities together in a more
distinctive system, but it is unlikely to supplant them (Porter, 2001, p. 78).
One strategic outcome of supply chain integration can be
“channel consolidation”, or the concentration of control of
distribution channels by a small number of players. In this
257
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
case there will undoubtedly be winners and losers as suppliers
into these channels also will likely be consolidated. Fein and
Jap (1999) identify four strategic responses for manufacturers
finding themselves confronted with this situation:
(1) partner with the winners: appropriate when the winners
are easy to spot;
(2) invest in fragmentation: work with marginalized
distributors to create alternative channels;
(3) build an alternative route to market by forward
integration and (perhaps) use of the internet; and
(4) create new channel equity: use differentiation and
develop brand equity.
In the context of Porter’s analysis of the impact of internet
technologies on the competitive environment, the prospect of
consolidation is perhaps a very real one in many industries. In
this context, the importance of having a coherent supply chain
strategy, rather than just a strategy for the operation of the
individual enterprise, could become even more important as
time goes on.
Hicks (1999, p. 26)states that the goal of strategic supply
chain planning is “. . . to arrive at the most efficient, highly
profitable supply chain system that serves customers in a
market”, and that decisions of this nature typically carry high
expenditures and significant risk. He identifies two different
approaches to supply chain improvement, focusing on either
information technology or logistics. The first has information
as the key to supply chain improvement, with the primary
focus being on “. . . collaborative planning, sharing
information and getting companies synchronized with
suppliers and customers” (Hicks, 1999, p. 26). The second
is more internally focussed and is concerned with quantitative
analysis of complex logistical problems. He states that the
future of supply chain strategy lies in the convergence of these
two paradigms, and recommends a four-step process for
strategic planning:
(1) network optimization: design the least cost network
focusing on customer demand;
(2) network simulation: test alternative models to predict
supply chain behaviour;
(3) policy optimization: develop best operating rules (e.g.
how much inventory to carry for each product line); and
(4) design for robustness: anticipate unforeseen
circumstances and possibilities.
This final step is the most difficult, and the most important.
As Hicks (1999) states; “Optimal answers are not always the
best answers”. Given the importance of this step, it is
interesting that he spends the least amount of time on
explaining how this may be achieved. Lummus et al. (1998,
p. 50) provide some insight into why this issue is so important
by stating:
The explosion of marketing activity and intensity of customer demand has
thrown many companies’ supply chains into a tailspin. Their systems were
not designed to meet the requirements currently placed upon them.
Although it is desirable to model the behaviour of a supply
chain in order to make informed planning decisions, the issue
of dynamic competitive environments makes this an activity
that is at best difficult, and at worst perilous. Some
observations from leading supply chain management
practitioners perhaps provide some insights into this
dilemma. In an interview with Victor Fung (of the Hong
Kong based Li & Fung organization), Magretta notes that one
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
way this organization was able to get around the complexity of
designing an integrated supply chain, was by “breaking up the
value chain” (Magretta and Fung, 1998). Using what Fung
describes as “dispersed manufacturing”, the group decided to
sub contract out a large portion of labour intensive work to
Chinese factories, while maintaining control over the front
and back end operations:
This is a new type of value added, a truly global product that has never been
seen before. The label may say “made in Thailand”, but it’s not a Thai
product. We dissect the manufacturing process and look for the best solution
at each step. We’re not asking which country can do the best job overall.
Instead, we’re pulling apart the value chain and optimising each step – and
we’re doing it globally (Fung, cited in Magretta and Fung, 1998, p. 106).
Michael Dell (founder of Dell computer) describes his model
for supply chain coordination and integration as “virtual
integration”:
Virtual integration means you basically stitch together a business with
partners that are treated as if they’re inside the company (Magretta and Dell,
1998, p. 74).
Based on collaborative partnerships with suppliers, strong and
direct relationships with customers, and the coordination of
disparate supply chain elements, Dell has managed to create a
US$12 billion company in 12 years. From a strategic point of
view, what is interesting about both of these examples, is the
similarity of the basic strategic approaches. Both have tackled
the difficult problem of coordinating the supply chain by
avoiding traditional approaches such as vertical integration.
Control and coordination have been attained through the
development of a core competence in control and
coordination, rather than by trying to control all the many
functions required to make and deliver a product. In terms of
Porter’s notion of developing a distinctive value chain, both
approaches are entirely consistent, as each has been able to
create a sustainable competitive advantage through a
distinctive competence that is not easily copied.
It is also apparent that for organizations to develop a
competence in the management and integration of supply
chains, logistics and supply chain management need to be
given a higher level of strategic importance (Meade, 1998;
Natarajan, 1999; Philip and Pedersen, 1997). Much of the
evidence, however, indicates that this is not a common
phenomenon. Natarajan states that this is due to three major
factors:
(1) lack of a logistics strategy;
(2) lack of alignment between logistics strategy, overall
business strategy and supply chain strategy; and
(3) lack of integration with other functional area strategies
and proper deployment of the logistics strategy.
This view is supported by Philip and Pedersen (1997, p. 357)
who concluded after studying EDI implementations in
Ireland that:
Most companies have introduced EDI at an operational level only with no
clearly identifiable view to obtaining strategic benefits from its
implementation.
Conclusion
The configuration and operation of supply chain activities and
resources provides significant potential for developing new
and alternate sources of sustainable competitive advantage. In
fact, in many industries, this may provide one of the last
sources of such an advantage as product standardization and
258
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
commoditization gravitate competition toward price, and
sources of differentiation become more difficult to establish.
The potential for an integrated supply chain to provide an
alternate source of differentiation both highlights the
importance for organizations of developing a competency in
this area, and begs the question as to why it is still the domain
of a minority. Some explanation for this phenomenon is
perhaps provided by examining issues relating to the
implementation of integrated supply chain management
solutions.
Implementation issues
General
Putzger (1998) states that the key criterion in implementation
is correct choice of information technology, and that the use
of third-party providers for both transportation and
information management is the option chosen by successful
performers. Bowman (1997) says that many companies are
unsuccessful in implementation because they simply are
unable to come to agreement on terms. He notes that this has
been an important reason for the development and adoption
of the standards supporting the supply chain operations
reference (SCOR) model (discussed below). In documenting
implementation in a European company, Hammant and
Fisher (1997, p. 100) list seven critical success factors:
(1) a committed organization, from the board down;
(2) effective programme management;
(3) consistent, pre-emptive communications;
(4) positive action to identify and manage key risks before
they become issues;
(5) a well-defined and managed programme baseline,
changed as necessary;
(6) a succession of manageable delivery milestones to
maintain momentum and confidence; and
(7) an actionable, owned, manageable and measurable set of
business benefits.
Gourley (1998) makes the point that involvement of the
distribution centre (DC) staff (i.e. in a supply chain
improvement program within a DC) in implementation, as
well as suppliers and other stakeholders, has been a factor
critical to success. In the case he cites, the company actively
encourages the involvement of staff in decision making, and
welcomes input from suppliers to identify areas for potential
productivity improvements. Larkins and Luce (2000)
recommend a number of “stepping stones” for the
implementation of supply chain management practices in
the pulp and paper industry:
.
start small, with a single link with which you can have a
good relationship;
.
start internally with a single business process;
.
focus on long-term, sustainable and cost effective business
improvements that will benefit both you and your link;
and
. educate staff and promote buy-in from stakeholders.
Further evidence supporting these criteria comes from the
case the implementation of an advanced planning and
scheduling (APS) system at LEGO in Denmark (Moller,
2000). The three major lessons learnt in this case were:
(1) do not be too ambitious with the timing and expectations
for rapid results;
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
(2) ensure accurate alignment between requirements and
system functionality; and
(3) critical importance of data accuracy.
Parnell (1998) recommends that a range of issues need to be
considered when planning for implementation. He
emphasizes the importance of business processes supporting
new systems, the importance of education in demand
management and system optimization, and the need for
performance measures to support behavioural change.
Tyndal et al. (2000) identify three critical elements that
need to be assessed and balanced to enhance chances of
successful implementation. These are value (relationship
between cost and benefits), risk (probability of success –
dependant on time span for tangible results), and method (the
approach adopted by the company to balance value and risk).
Value they see being determined by the need to be realistic
about benefits. This means having a practical time frame for
deriving a return on their investment, and being realistic
about the size of that return. Linked to this notion of return is
the need to understand the true nature of supply chain costs.
Included, should be internal and opportunity costs, real
inventory costs, subcontractor costs, systems costs, support
costs and asset costs. They also recommend: mitigating risk
by focusing on short-term projects as it will be easier to set
action plans, targets and specific time horizons for short term
projects; implementing in stages to avoid the temptation of
trying for a “silver bullet” solution; and taking care of basics
such as data accuracy at an early stage.
In summarizing their approach, Tyndal et al. (2000, p. 59)
state:
The value of working in stages and by segments is best captured in a wholly
counterintuitive maxim: do less with more. In other words, put more
resources onto fewer, more implementable initiatives, and make them
accountable for results.
Froehlich et al. (1999, p. 473) have identified that structural
issues will need to be identified and addressed prior to
implementation:
E-commerce places new demands not only on delivery technology, but on
the way that business processes are designed. At present, technology is
forcing organizations to embark on e-commerce before they have built a
coherent model of the business processes they need.
The need to have the basic business processes right has also
been identified as a significant potential inhibitor of
implementation. An Anderson Consulting (1994) report has
found that inaccurate data, existing systems infrastructure and
entrenched business practices are common major barriers to
implementation of advanced technologies and innovative
management methods. The importance of getting existing
processes in line with new technologies and methodologies
serves to highlight the role of planning, as well as supporting
the use of standardized frameworks for implementation. One
such framework is the SCOR model.
SCOR model
The SCOR model was developed in the mid-1990s by a cross
industry consortium of over 70 companies in the USA called
the Supply Chain Council. SCOR defines common supply
chain management processes and matches these with best
practice, benchmarked performance measures and use of
software. The purpose is to provide a generic framework for
measuring supply chain performance and identifying areas for
improvement (Allnoch, 1997). The intent of the SCOR
259
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
model is to:
. . . create a business model for supply chain management that can be used
worldwide regardless of industry or geographical location. SCOR isn’t meant
to be a “one size fits all” solution for doing business. Instead, it’s supposed to
give organizations a common language to discuss supply-chain issues,
develop benchmarking measurements and give direction to the development
of supply-chain management software (Saccomano, 1998, p. 27).
The model is based around four generic supply chain
management functions of planning, purchasing,
manufacturing and distribution. Across these four functions
information and material flows are analysed at three separate
levels:
At Level 1, a firm defines its performance targets and gathers the information
needed to build its own SCOR model. At Level 2, it creates its own “supply-
chain configuration” that takes into account assets, product volume and mix,
and technology requirements. With this information a company can
determine its expected performance so that at Level 3 it can work on fine-
tuning its performance (Saccomano, 1998, p. 1).
The benefits of the model reported in the literature include:
the potential for “strategic” level improvements in supply
chain management through the use of the benchmarking tools
(McGrath, 1997); provision of a common platform for
communication between trading partners that does not
require specialized training or expertise (Asgekar, 1998);
identification of points of leverage in the supply chain
enabling more effective allocation of resources (Allnoch,
1997); provision of clear standards, processes and
performance measures for the management of a supply
chain at the industry level (McGrath, 1997); and the enabling
of more rapid development of supply chain management
software applications (Saccomano, 1998).
Huang and Mak (2000) take the view that models such as
SCOR are useful, yet limited in their application because they
fail to model the interfaces between trading partners, and
because they ignore product development processes.
Saccomano (1998) also notes that Supply Chain Council
members have identified that the model is also deficient in the
areas of asset recovery, maintenance, repair and customer
service. These shortcomings perhaps provide some
explanation for the low levels of implementation that have
been recently reported (Stedman, 2000). Although it is
apparent that some large and well known organizations have
accepted the guidelines provided by SCOR, Stedman (2000,
p. 46) reports that “. . . the number of companies that have
fully implemented the guidelines and have had positive results
is relatively small”.
Agile vs lean supply chain models
The requirement for organizations to become more
responsive to the needs of customers, the changing
conditions of competition and increasing levels of
environmental turbulence is driving interest in the concept
of “agility”. What it really means for an organization to be
“agile”, as opposed to just being efficient, effective, lean,
customer focused, able to add value, quality driven, pro-active
rather than reactive etc. has been the source of considerable
debate and academic conjecture. Christopher (2000) makes a
clear distinction between speed (meeting customer demand in
the context of shortened delivery lead times), leanness (doing
more with less) and agility (responding quickly to changes in
demand in terms of both volume and variety). Naylor et al.
(1999, p. 108) go further in stating that:
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
Agility means using market knowledge and a virtual corporation to exploit
profitable opportunities in a volatile marketplace.
The notion of agility is therefore recognized to be holistic
rather than functional, and of strategic rather than tactical
importance. The concept has also been extended beyond the
traditional boundaries of the individual organization to
encompass the operations of the supply chain within which
the organization operates. The effectiveness of an
organization’s response to rapidly changing market
conditions will be largely determined by the capabilities of
trading partners. A manufacturer with key suppliers that have
poor quality and delivery records will find it very difficult to
provide high levels of customer service, even in stable
environments. Place this manufacturer in a rapidly changing
environment and it will be eliminated from participation in
the competitive game altogether. In this context reliability of
supply becomes a critical issue that can best be facilitated by
the sharing of accurate and timely information with suppliers.
At the downstream end of the supply chain, this same
manufacturer will again find it hard to operate in this
environment if distribution channels are unable to respond
due to physical logistics or information flow related issues. In
this sense the development of strategies for competing on the
basis of Agility become very much strategies for the
management of the total supply chain. Towill (1997)
expresses this in terms of creating a “seamless supply chain”
where territorial boundaries between trading partners are
eliminated and they become part of the one organization.
Christopher (2000, pp. 38-9) has identified a number of
characteristics that a supply chain must have in order to be
“truly agile”. These include market sensitivity (through the
capturing and transmission of point of sale data), creating
virtual supply chains (based on information rather than
inventory), process integration (collaboration between buyers
and suppliers, joint product development, etc.) and networks
(confederations of partners linked together as against “stand
alone” organizations). An underlying assumption of this
model is that of open relations between the supply chain
participants, the sharing of information and the use of
technology to create “connectivity” (i.e. the ability for
organizations to share information in “real time”).
Christopher (2000, p. 43) also stresses that agility in
individual organizations can be significantly hindered by the
level of complexity in terms of brands, products, structures
and management processes. In developing a model for
achieving agility in manufacturing organizations, Zhang and
Sharifi (2000) identified a number of “agility providers”
(practices, methods, tools, techniques facilitating a capability
for agility). As a result of surveying 1,000 companies, and
conducting case studies in 12 of them, they concluded that
practices related to people and organizational issues were both
more effective and important for manufacturers. They also
found that the internet, mass-customization and virtual
organizations were only used by a small percentage of
respondents, and usually only partially. Narasimhan and Das
(2000), based on the result of an empirical study of
purchasing managers in manufacturing firms, found that a
key determinant of the ability of manufacturing to make rapid
changes was the selection, development and integration of
suppliers with appropriate capabilities.
Gunasekaran (1999) has proposed a conceptual model for
the design of agile manufacturing systems based on the four
260
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
key dimensions of strategies, technology, people and systems.
He also notes that most of the literature in this area focuses on
strategies or techniques, but there is little or no focus on the
integration issues. He further states that there is a lack of
empirical studies testing hypotheses based on theory in this
area. This view is supported by Sheather and Hanna (2000,
p. 5) who state that:
. . . there is a dearth of empirical evidence regarding the operational
characteristics of supply/buy networks, the appropriate performance
measures, the principles of structural intuition underlying their operation
and theoretical models to guide empirical research.
Conclusion
Implementation of technologies and methodologies for the
management of supply chains is likely to be accompanied by
significant intra and inter-organizational change. This will
manifest itself in particular in the area of process re-design,
and in many cases the development of entirely new processes.
An important factor in determining the success (or otherwise)
of any implementation will be choosing the right areas of
focus, and understanding the implications of the
implementation for all trading partners. The difficulties and
complexities inherent in implementation have led to the
development of frameworks (e.g. SCOR) to enable this
process. It is interesting to note that evidence suggests that
adoption and application of these frameworks is at best
limited. The literature suggests, therefore, that
implementation is best attempted through an incremental
rather than “big bang” approach.
Contribution and further research opportunities
Contribution
Whether the process for integration is vertical or virtual, the
requirement for integration of supply chains is inherently
strategic, and a potential source of competitive advantage for
multiple trading partners. The nature of the integration model
is an implementation issue that needs to be addressed with a
view to customer needs and other variables such as industry
and market characteristics. One theme that appears to hold
constant throughout the literature in this area is the
importance of taking a holistic view, and the systemic
nature of interactions between the participants. The
recognition of the inter-dependence of all partners in a
supply network appears to be an important pre-cursor to
effective integration. In this sense, organizations moving to
implement integrated supply chain management systems
could be seen to be formalising strategies to better manage
this inter-dependence, and to leverage it to mutual advantage.
At the same time, it is also apparent that this requirement to
take such an holistic and systemic view of the supply chain
acts as an impediment to more extensive implementation.
The strategic nature of adopting a supply chain-wide
perspective, on the one hand provides significant potential
benefit, and on the other requires trading partners to think
and act strategically. This is easier said than done within a
stand-alone organization, let alone across a diverse and
dispersed group of trading partners. The challenge for
developing more effective and integrated networks is to
encourage such a mindset, and use it to promote adoption
and implementation of enabling technologies and methods. In
other words, this review of the literature serves to highlight the
inter-dependence between integration (technologies, logistics,
partnerships), a strategic view of supply chain systems, and
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
implementation approach. All three need to inform and
underpin each other in order for management of supply
chains to be able to deliver on the promise of benefits for all
trading partners.
Further research
The need for further research to capture both the
characteristics of successful implementation, and the factors
determining the level of implementation is captured by
Akkermans (1999, p. 566) when he states:
. . . the operations management literature has shown very little empirical
evidence of successful strategic moves towards supply chain management
[and later] . . . we do not yet have causal relationships between the various
factors driving effective supply chain management and their interrelations
with performance improvements in areas like inventory management, supply
chain costs, and customer satisfaction.
There has been some research into a range of barriers to
extensive adoption, particularly with regards to EDI usage,
with cost, ease of implementation and conflicting standards
being identified as restricting wider use. An emergent theme
in the literature is the discussion of implementation in terms
of extent (i.e. formal electronic links with suppliers and
customers, application of barcodes to incoming goods, formal
cooperative agreements with suppliers, etc.), focus (part of an
overall strategic plan), and expected benefit (source of
competitive advantage vs adding cost to the business).
Using this model there is an opportunity to pursue a range
of questions. What is the true extent of implementation of
techniques and methodologies used for the management of
the supply chain? Do organizations that implement supply
chain management techniques progress from a basic
implementation to a more extensive one over time? Are
there significant demographic factors that impact on the
decision to implement such as company size or industry
sector? Can companies be distinguished from one another on
the basis of this extent of implementation model?
Given the apparent contradiction in the literature between
promised benefits and still limited evidence of extensive
implementation, the examination of factors creating and
reinforcing this apparent gap would appear beneficial.
References
A.T. Kearney (2000), Building the B2B Foundation: Positioning
Net Market Makers for Success, A.T. Kearney, New York,
NY.
Akkermans, H., Bogerd, P. and Vos, B. (1999), “Virtuous and
vicious cycles on the road towards international supply
chain management”, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 19 Nos 5/6, pp. 565-81.
Allnoch, A. (1997), “Efficient supply chain practices mean
big savings to leading manufacturers”, IIE Solutions, Vol. 29
No. 7, pp. 8-9.
Anderson Consulting (1994), “The mass merchant
distribution channel: challenges and opportunities”, report
prepared by Anderson Consulting for the Warehouse
Education and Research Council, Oak Brook, IL, July.
Arntzen, B.C., Brown, G.G., Harrison, T.P. and Trafton,
L.L. (1995), “Global supply chain management at Digital
Equipment Corporation”, Interfaces, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 69-93.
Aron, L.J. (1998), “Duck Head: the process is the product”,
Apparel Industry Magazine, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 16-19.
261
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
Asgekar, V. (1998), “RSS manages growth with SCOR”,
Automatic I.D. News, September, p. 58.
Australian Industry Group (1999), “Improving supply chain
management”, Australian Industry Group, October/
November, p. 5.
Ballou, R.H., Gilbert, S.M. and Mukherjee, A. (2000), “New
managerial challenges from supply chain opportunities”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Barratt, M. (1999), “Exploring supply chain relationships and
information exchange in UK grocery supply chains: some
preliminary findings”, in Muffatto, M. and Pawar, K.S.
(Eds), Logistics in the Information Age, Proceedings of 4th
International Symposium on Logistics, Florence, Italy, Servizi
Grafici Editoriali, Padova, pp. 267-72.
Baum, D. (1997), “Transcending EDI”, Info World, Vol. 19
No. 12, pp. 67-8.
Belyea, K. (2000), “How Electrolux takes cost out of the
chain”, Purchasing, Vol. 128 No. 5, pp. 59-65.
Bensaou, M. (1999), “Portfolios of buyer-supplier
relationships”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 35-44.
Bovel, D. and Martha, J. (2000), “From supply chain to value
net”, Journal of Strategic Management, July/August, pp. 24-8.
Bowersox, D.J. and Calantone, R.J. (1998), “Executive
insights: global logistics”, Journal of International
Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 83-93.
Bowman, R.J. (1997), “The state of the supply chain”,
Distribution, Vol. 96 No. 1, p. 28.
Braue, D. (1999), “E-mail features that make every post a
winner”, Sydney Morning Herald, 28 September, p. 32.
Brennan, C.D. (1998), “Integrating the healthcare supply
chain”, Healthcare Financial Management, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 31-4.
Carter, C.R. (2000), “Ethical issues in international buyer-
supplier relationships: a dyadic examination”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 191-208.
Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (1998), “Reverse logistics:
a review of the literature and a framework for future
investigation”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 85-102.
Chen, F., Ryan, J.K. and Simchi-Levi, D. (2000), “The
impact of exponential smoothing forecasts on the bullwhip
effect”, Naval Research Logistics, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 269-86.
Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain – competing
in volatile markets”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Coleman, P.V.B.B. and Austrian, B. (2000), “E-logistics: the
back office of the new economy”, Banc of America
Securities Equity Research, available at: www.
bofasecurities.com/featuredresearch/content/research.asp
(accessed 17 October).
Cottrill, K. (1997), “The supply chain of the future”,
Distribution, Vol. 96 No. 11, pp. 52-4.
Cunningham, M. (1999), “XML – the adoption curve”, The
Harvard Computing Group, available at: www.
harvardcomputing.com (accessed 14 August 2000).
Dyer, J.H., Cho, D.S. and Chu, W.J. (1998), “Strategic
supplier segmentation: the next best practice in supply
chain management”, California Management Review, Vol. 40
No. 2, p. 57.
Fein, A.J. and Jap, S.D. (1999), “Manage consolidation in the
distribution channel”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41
No. 1, pp. 61-72.
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
Fernie, J. (1995), “International comparisons of supply chain
management in grocery retailing”, Service Industries Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 134-47.
Forrester, J.W. (1958), “Industrial dynamics, a major
breakthrough for decision makers”, Harvard Business
Review, July/August, pp. 37-66.
Forrester, J.W. (1961), Industrial Dynamics, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Froehlich, G., Hoover, H.J., Liew, W. and Sorenson, P.G.
(1999), “Application framework issues when evolving
business applications for electronic commerce”,
Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 457-73.
Ghobadian, A., Gallear, D. and Li, R. (2000), “A review of
supply chain purchasing strategies”, in Katayama, H. (Ed.),
Global Logistics for the New Millennium – Proceedings of the
5th International Symposium on Logistics, Iwate, Japan,
Waseda UP Ltd, Tokyo, pp. 454-60.
Gourley, C. (1998), “What’s driving the automotive supply
chain?”, Warehousing Management, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 44-8.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999), “Agile manufacturing: a framework
for research and development”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1/2, pp. 87-105.
Hammant, J. (1997), “Implementing a European supply
chain strategy: turning vision into reality”, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Logistics and the Management of
the Supply Chain, Sydney, Australia, AIMM/LMA/APICS/
AIPMM, pp. 95-100.
Handfield, R. and Pannesi, R. (1992), “An empirical study of
delivery speed and reliability”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 60-74.
Handfield, R.B. and Nichols, E.L. (1999), Introduction to
Supply Chain Management, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ.
Harrington, L.H. (1997), “New tools to automate your
supply chain”, Transport and Distribution, Vol. 38 No. 12,
pp. 39-42.
Hicks, D.A. (1999), “The state of supply chain strategy”, IIE
Solutions, Vol. 31 No. 8, pp. 24-9.
Hill, C.A. (2000), “Information technology and supply chain
management: a study of the food industry”, Hospital and
Material Management Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 53-8.
Huang, G.Q. and Mak, K.L. (2000), “WeBid: a web-based
framework to support early supplier involvement in new
product development”, Robotics & Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 16 Nos 2/3, pp. 169-79.
Huson, M. and Owens, V. (2000), “The supply chain
technology evolution”, available at: www.electroneconomy.
com (accessed 4 June).
Kaufman, A., Wood, C.H. and Theyel, G. (2000),
“Collaboration and technology linkages: a strategic
supplier typology”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21
No. 6, pp. 649-63.
Kaufman, R. (1997), “Nobody wins until the consumer says,
‘I’ll take it’”, Apparel Industry Magazine, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 14-16.
Kilgore, S.M. (2000), “Delivering the global goods”,
Forrester Research, available at: www.forrester.com
(accessed 17 October).
Kulwiec, R. (2000), “Elements of supply chain success”,
Target – Journal of the Association for Manufacturing
Excellence, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 16-21.
262
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2000), “Issues in supply
chain management”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83.
Lancioni, R.A., Smith, M.F. and Oliva, T.A. (2000), “The
role of the internet in supply chain management”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Landry, J.T. (1998a), “Supply chain management – the case
for alliances”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, November/
December, pp. 24-5.
Landry, J.T. (1998b), “Supply chain management – the value
of trust”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, January/
February, pp. 18-19.
Larkins, M. and Luce, K. (2000), “Business and IT work
together to plan and support supply chain management
initiatives – implementing a supply chain management
process does not need to be difficult or complicated”, Pulp
& Paper – Canada, Vol. 101 No. 4, pp. 12-14.
Lawrence, A. (1997), “Customer power forces supply chain
integration”, Works Management, April, pp. 43-7.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang, S.J. (1997), “The
bullwhip effect in supply chains”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 93-102.
Levary, R.R. (2000), “Better supply chains through
information technology”, Industrial Management, Vol. 42
No. 3, pp. 24-30.
Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J. and Alber, K.L. (1998),
“Strategic supply chain planning”, Production and Inventory
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 49-58.
Lumsden, P. (1999), “Proceedings of the International
Conference on Logistics and the Management of the
Supply Chain”, LAA/APICS/MHD Magazine, pp. 191-4.
McGrath, M.E. (1997), “Improving supply chain
management”, Transportation and Distribution, Vol. 38
No. 2, pp. 78-80.
Magretta, J. and Dell, M. (1998), “The power of virtual
integration: an interview with Dell Computers’ Michael
Dell”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76, March/April,
pp. 72-84.
Magretta, J. and Fung, V. (1998), “Fast, global, and
entrepreneurial – supply chain management, Hong Kong
style: an interview with Fung, Victor”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 76, September/October, pp. 102-14.
Malhotra, Y. (2000), “Knowledge management for e-business
performance: advancing information strategy to ‘internet
time’”, Information Strategy: The Executive’s Journal, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 5-16.
Marshak, R.T. (1999), “Creating a common e-commerce
strategy”, Patricia Seybold Group, Boston, MA, www.
psgroup.com (accessed 13 October 2000).
Meade, L. (1998), “Strategic analysis of logistics and supply
chain management systems using the analytical network
process”, Transportation Research Part E – Logistics &
Transportation Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 201-15.
Modern Materials Handling (1998), “Survey spotlights need to
improve capabilities”, Modern Materials Handling, April,
pp. 17-19.
Moller, C. (2000), “SCM in the extended enterprise:
implementation of APS systems”, The Journal of Enterprise
Resource Management, Vol. 4, 4th quarter, pp. 29-35.
Morton, R. (1997), “Learning from the past to shape the
future”, Transportation and Distribution, Vol. 38 No. 1,
pp. 84-5.
 Supply chain management integration and implementation
Damien Power
Narasimhan, R. and Das, A. (2000), “Manufacturing agility
and supply chain management practices”, The Journal of
Enterprise Resource Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 11-17.
Natarajan, R.N. (1999), “Logistics, strategy and supply
chain: making the right connections in the information
age”, in Muffatto, M. and Pawar, K.S. (Eds), Logistics in the
Information Age, Proceedings of 4th International Symposium
on Logistics, Florence, Italy, Servizi Grafici Editoriali,
Padova, pp. 203-10.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagility:
integrating the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in
the total supply chain”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1/2, pp. 107-18.
New South Wales Department of State and Regional
Development and Microsoft Australia (2001), “Brief on
electronic commerce – glossary of terms”, available at:
www.smallbiz.nsw.gov.au/issues/ecommerce/Brief/Glossary.
html (accessed 4 January 2001).
Parnell, C. (1998), “Supply chain management in the soft
goods industry”, Apparel Industry Magazine, Vol. 59 No. 6,
p. 60.
Philip, G. and Pedersen, P. (1997), “Inter-organizational
information systems: are organizations in Ireland deriving
strategic benefits from EDI?”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 337-57.
Pine, B.J. (1993), Mass Customization: The New Frontier in
Business Competition, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Porter, M. (1980), Competitive Strategy, The Free Press,
New York, NY.
Porter, M. (2001), “Strategy and the internet”, Harvard
Business Review, March, pp. 63-78.
Porter, M.E. and Millar, V.E. (1985), “How information
gives you competitive advantage”, Harvard Business Review,
July/August, pp. 149-60.
Putzger, I. (1998), “All the ducks in a row”, World Trade,
Vol. 11 No. 9, pp. 54-6.
Rishel, T.D., Stenger, A.J. and Scott, J.P. (1999), in
Despotis, D.K. and Zopounidis, C. (Eds), Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference of the Decision Sciences
Institute, Technologies Publications, Athens, pp. 946-8.
Saccomano, A. (1998), “Keeping SCOR”, Traffic World,
Vol. 255 No. 13, pp. 27-8.
Schonsleben, P. (2000), “With agility and adequate
partnership strategies towards effective logistics
networks”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 33-42.
Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice
of the Learning Organization, Century Business, London.
Sheather, G. and Hanna, D. (2000), “Towards an integrated
supply network model”, The Journal of Enterprise Resource
Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 5-10.
263
View publication stats
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal
Volume 10 · Number 4 · 2005 · 252 –263
Stalk, G. and Hout, T.M. (1990), Competing Against Time:
How Time-based Competition is Reshaping Global Markets,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Stedman, C. (2000), “Few takers for benchmarks from supply
chain council”, Computerworld, 24 April, p. 46.
Sterman, J. (1989), “Modelling managerial behaviour:
misperception of feedback in a dynamic decision making
environment”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 3,
pp. 321-39.
Stuart, F.I. (1997), “Supplier alliance success and failure – a
longitudinal dyadic perspective”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 17 Nos 5/6,
pp. 539-57.
Tait, D. (1998), “Make strong relationships a priority”,
Canadian Manager, Vol. 23 No. 1, p. 21, 28.
Thomas, D. and Griffin, P.M. (1996), “Coordinated supply
chain management [review]”, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Tolhurst, C. (2001), “It all gets down to saving the bottom
line”, The Australian Financial Review, special report on
supply chain management, 2 May, p. 10.
Towill, D.R. (1997), “The seamless supply chain: the
predator’s strategic advantage”, International Journal of the
Techniques of Manufacturing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 37-56.
Transportation and Distribution (1998), “Overcoming
communication barriers”, Transportation and Distribution,
Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 91-4.
Tyndal, G., Gopal, C., Partsch, W. and Kamauff, J. (2000),
“Making it happen: the value producing supply chain”,
Ernst & Young, available at: www.ey.com/global/gcr.nsf/
US/Supercharging_Supply_Chains_-_Think_Tank_-_
Ernst_%26_Young _LLP (accessed 10 January 2001).
Upin, E.B., Beckwith, M.J., Jennings, C.L., Chen, B.Y. and
Schaeffer, K.B. (2000), B2B: Building Technology Bridges
Outside the Four Walls of the Enterprise, Vol. 20, Robertson
Stephens Research, available at: www.rsco.com (accessed
20 September).
Vokurka, R.J. (2000), “Supplier relationships: a case study”,
The Journal of Enterprise Resource Management, Vol. 2, 2nd
quarter, pp. 78-83.
Westhead, K., Mortenson, C., Moore, J. and Rice, A.W.
(2000), “New economy: forget the WEB, make way for the
GRID”, Deutsche Bank Global Technology Research,
available at: www.db.com (accessed 15 August).
Wheatley, M. (1996), “IT drives the chain”, Management
Today, November, pp. 102-4.
Wood, A. (1997), “Extending the supply chain: strengthening
links with IT”, Chemical Week, Vol. 159 No. 25, p. 26.
Zhang, Z. and Sharifi, H. (2000), “A methodology for
achieving agility in manufacturing organizations”,
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 496-512.