Abstract Number: 011-0055 Title: Optimal Supply Chain Strategy: A Process Industry Perspective.

Authors: Albert Munoz, Centre for Business Services Science University of Wollongong Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia 2500 Email: am629@uow.edu.au Ph; +61 4 3727 4639 Dr. Tim Coltman, Associate Professor School of Information Systems & Technology University of Wollongong Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia 2500 E-mail; tcoltman@uow.edu.au Tel: +61 2 4221-3912 Fax: +61 2 4221-4055 Mb: 0417 275 459 Prof. Trevor Spedding School of Management and Marketing University of Wollongong Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia 2500 Telephone: +61 2 4221 4125 Fax: +61 2 4221 4289 E-mail: spedding@uow.edu.au

Page 1

POMS 20th Annual Conference Orlando, Florida U.S.A. May 1 to May 4, 2009

Optimal Supply Chain Strategy: A Process Industry Perspective Keywords: Abstract

In recent years considerable attention has been given to the importance of generic supply chain strategies that can take a lean, agile or continuous replenishment orientation. However, little theoretical and empirical work has been directed towards the relevance of these strategies in the complex settings that are frequently found in process industries. This paper addresses these concerns by developing a performance measurement instrument that captures the way managers orchestrate supply chain strategy in a process industry. We then draw on a case study illustrate the trade-off that takes place between three factors: (1) inventory levels, (2) customer satisfaction, and (3) throughput. The interaction between these three characteristics is critical to supply chain performance and implies that singularly focused supply chain strategies are far less common than normally assumed.

supply chain management, supply chain strategy, lean, agile, continuous replenishment

Page 2

1. Introduction
It takes little more than a browsing of the management section of the local bookstore blazoned with titles such as Lean Thinking (Womack and Jones 1996), Lean Solutions (Womack and Jones), Creating the Agile Supply Chain (Harrison, Christopher et al. 1999), and The Toyota Way (Liker 2004) to recognize the importance that publishers and managers place on operations management philosophies based on lean, agile and continuous replenishment strategies. In the manufacturing strategy arena, a vast literature exists that provides the conceptual grounding for each strategic orientation. For example, lean manufacturing is based on identifying and eliminating waste through a products value chain (Womack, Jones et al. 1990). Agile manufacturing is based on lead time reduction and has been shown to be effective whenever product life cycles are short and market demand is unpredictable (Richards 1996; Towill and McCullen 1999). These two important scholarly contributions have provided the basis for manufacturing strategy over the past two decades (Yusuf and Adeleye 2002). More recent scholarly attention has been directed towards a hybrid approach based on the combination of lean and agile strategies. The leagile concept (Naylor, Naim et al. 1999) has become a popular way to more effectively adapt to changes in the business environment and to address market and customer needs in a more proactive manner while maintaining high levels of operational efficiency (Lee 2004). However, despite the popularity of this hybrid approach, there remains little agreement on what combination of lean and agile strategy is most optimal. This situation has left many practitioners confused and hesitant to embrace leagile strategies (Holweg, Disney et al. 2005). A particular area that has yet to benefit from robust scholarly investigation of different strategic orientations is the process industry. Process industries provide several unique

Page 3

challenges to supply chain strategy due to the strict processing conditions and high capital investments that are typically required (Wallace 1984; Fransoo and Rutten 1994). What distinguishes process industries from other industries is that they require the use of numerous continuous or batch process steps to add value by mixing, separating or forming materials. Examples of process industry organizations include petrochemicals processing and steel manufacturing. Process industries often focus on mass production to ensure high levels of utilization are achieved from expensive capital intensive equipment (Hill 1994). The firms that operate in process industries have yet to report significant benefits from the many strategic supply chain management developments seen in discrete manufacturing industries (Dennis and Meredith 2000; Groover 2007). One reason is that although textbook manufacturing strategies that have proven to be effective in discrete manufacturing contexts, are particularly difficult to implement in complex process industry settings (Abdulmalek and Rajgopal 2006). Therefore, it is unclear: 1. What strategy or combination of strategies is most optimal, given the unique characteristics of the process industry? and 2. Whether these strategies, developed primarily for discrete manufacturing, are appropriate for process industries? These two questions motivate the research presented in this paper. A review of the literature reveals that very little scholarly attention has been directed towards process industry supply chains. This is problematic because process industries are particularly complex and require a multi-faceted approach to strategy. In this paper, we develop an instrument to aid supply chain performance measurement that is specifically aimed at process industries..

Page 4

There are a number of common characteristics in process industries that set them aside from most discrete industries. First, the redesign of material flow will typically incur significant capital expenditures that are not easily justified. Second, there are usually numerous complex processing steps which include the transition between continuous and batch flow processes. Continuous flow in manufacturing is characteristically inflexible with known, stationary bottlenecks and low information requirements (Hayes and Wheelwright 1984; Hill 1989; Voss 2007). Finally, all supply chains that rely on production machinery are subject to uncertainties in operations, such as unplanned machine breakdowns. All of which affect overall performance. These characteristics, prevalent in process industries, must be considered in choosing a supply chain strategy (Beckett, Wainwright et al. 2000; Christopher 2000). But it is nave to propose that process industry managers make one dimensional strategic choices between lean, agile or continuous replenishment orientations. Instead, the choice of strategic orientation is multidimensional and based on prudent trade-offs between elements of all three strategies (Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004; Lee 2004; Tushman and O' Reilly Iii 2006). This choice has recently been supported by testimony from case study practitioners that reveal a balanced approach is required to optimize efficiency in operations whilst maintaining the flexibility required to quickly respond to changes in markets (Lee 2004). Even though these models have been developed and are readily available, the behaviour of experienced managers remains ad-hoc (Childerhouse and Towill 2000; Geary, Disney et al. 2006). A key reason for this is that managers are constantly required to trade-off the advantages and disadvantages of high production costs, against inventory costs and other costs associated with providing high levels of customer service (Tomlin and Snyder 2006).

Page 5

The supply chain strategy trade-off is a key focus of this paper. The remaining sections of this paper are structured as follows. Section 2 provides a brief literature review on supply chain management and its more popular strategies in a process industries context. Section 3 presents an overview of the performance measurement instrument and its relationship to certain strategies. Section 4 provides a case study of a large steel manufacturing firm which demonstrates the applicability of the measurement instrument. Section 5 is a discussion of the managerial implications of the use of the instrument and Section 6 discusses the areas of future research to be explored.

2. Literature Review
Supply chain management theories and perspectives have evolved from a traditional focus on the movement of materials and goods, to a more strategic emphasis based on opportunities to provide greater customer value through integration of the supply chain and supply chain partners (Christopher and Towill 2002; Ketchen and Hult 2007). One common theme to emerge is that supply chain management recognizes the classic conflict of interest between achieving high levels of customer service while at the same time, maintaining high levels of equipment utilisation and low inventories (Towill 1994). Three of the more common strategic orientations mentioned in the literature are lean, agile and continuous replenishment. The relevant literature on each is as follows.

a. Lean Manufacturing
Lean manufacturing is focused on doing more with less by reducing and eliminating waste or muda throughout the production process. The concept of leanness entails developing a value stream to eliminate all waste, including time, and to ensure a level schedule (Page 108, Naylor, Naim et al. 1999). The most popular example of lean manufacturing is the Toyota

Page 6

Production System, as described by Womack and his colleagues (1990) in their book titled The Machine that Changed the World. The Toyota production system attributes supply chain success to their ability to achieve economies of scale in manufacturing and procurement based on small batch size production units (Holweg 2007). The reduction of inventory, considered a major form of waste in supply chains, is one of the commonly cited benefits that arise from the implementation of lean practices (Christopher, Peck et al. 2006). A critical assumption that underpins lean manufacturing is that demand needs to be predictable, variety of production should be low and consistent lead times. This is necessary to ensure that waste is eliminated (Naylor, Naim et al. 1999; Mason-Jones, Naylor et al. 2000). Measurements that track accuracy and predictability are emphasized for lean supply chains. Such metrics include logistics cost per unit, forecast accuracy and variances, the utilisation level of storage facilities and so on (Gattorna 2006). From an organisational standpoint, lean supply chains mainly consider cash-to-cash cycle times are a critical measure of performance. The longer it takes to convert inventories into cash, the more working capital is required, and any reduction in this measure will mean the release of working capital and hence a reduction in cost (Christopher and Gattorna 2005; SCC 2008). Lean supply chains are found in the automotive industry, where competition among firms has forced supply chain integration and the implementation of lean manufacturing and just in time practices to serve customers (Womack, Jones et al. 1990). The exemplar example is the Toyota Production System that evolved into a producer of higher differentiated automobiles at comparatively low volumes while retaining competitive prices. However, deeper analysis has revealed that although car assembly operations are more efficient,the upstream and downstream partners in the supply chain appear to be holding excess inventory. In other

Page 7

words, the Toyota company has simply based on the costs and reduced the efficiency of these partners (Howleg 1998). The implementation of lean in a process industry setting is considered to be particularly difficult even though certain aspects of lean have been argued to be applicable. For example, Billesbach (1994), Cook and Rogowski (1996), Ahmad et. al. (2005), and Melton (2005) have examined aspects of continuous production that are amenable to lean techniques and present a classification scheme for the implementation of lean in process industries (Abdulmalek and Rajgopal 2006). It should be noted that these studies were selective in the locations where they applied lean principles, mainly in the batch or non-continuous sections of the production process. Only partial adoption of lean manufacturing in process industry supply chains has been successful

b. Agile Manufacturing
Agile manufacturing uses market knowledge and a virtual corporation to exploit profitable opportunities in a volatile marketplace (Naylor, Naim et al. 1999). In situations of unpredictable demand and long lead times for products with short life cycles it is recommended that firms postpone the assembly/configuration/distribution of finished goods by carrying inventory in some generic form until the demand is encountered (Christopher, Peck et al. 2006). The most common examples are in the fashion industry, where firms such as Zara, a large Spanish apparel manufacturer and distributor, attribute their competitive advantage to short product life cycles and quick response to changes in market demand (Gattorna 2006). The design of Zaras product delivery system is flexible enough to cope with sudden changes in demand, opting to produce less than expected sales whilst retaining significant levels of raw materials and slack in equipment utilisation. Zara views undersupply as a lesser evil than holding slow-moving or obsolete stock. In some industries,

Page 8

this supply chain behaviour can be very profitable, as significant per unit profits far outweigh the inventory holding costs and costs associated with equipment idle time. In volatile markets, the ability to meet customer demands at short delivery times and synchronise operations to meet the peaks and troughs of demand is essential; this high level of manoeuvrability is commonly termed agility (Christopher 2000). The key point to agility is that in order to cope with volatile market demand the business must be responsive with high levels of quality and short product lead times (Mason-Jones, Naylor et al. 2000). Both agility and leanness require high levels of product quality, a minimisation of total lead time in alternative ways. Lead time in agility needs to be minimised to enable fast reaction time to changes in market demand, while in lean manufacturing lead time must be minimised to reduce excess time and waste (Towill and McCullen 1999; Mason-Jones, Naylor et al. 2000). The notion of hybridisation of strategies has also been well explored in literature. Leagility is the combination of the lean and agile paradigm within a total supply chain strategy by positioning the decoupling point so as to best suit the simultaneous need to respond to volatile downstream demand and upstream scheduling requirements (Naylor, Naim et al. 1999; Mason-Jones, Naylor et al. 2000; Christopher, Peck et al. 2006). Scholarly work has investigated the application of agile manufacturing principles in process industries. However, one form of applying agile philosophies to process industries is to refocus thinking from large scale single stream continuous and batch plants to smaller customised plants located closer to the customers (Ahmad and Benson 1999). Other attempts to increase the responsiveness in process industries include the use e-business to streamline business processes, provide windows into operations, integrate the supply chain and plant systems already in place, increase customer services and streamline distribution (Rao 2002;

Page 9

Gunasekaran, Lai et al. 2008). Applications of agile principles based on theoretical concepts such as delayed differentiation have not been reported in the literature (Caux, David et al. 2006). In common with those applied studies of lean strategy the implementation of agile strategy has been limited to the discrete portions of the process industry. Agile manufacturing is for the most part infeasible in process industry, as this industry is characterised with highly capital intensive machinery, low variability in demand and high inventory holding costs coupled with the uncertainties in process equipment capacity and throughput.

c. Continuous Replenishment
Continuous replenishment planning is the practice of partnering between distribution channel members that changes the traditional process from distributor-generated purchase orders based on economic order quantities to the replenishment by the vendor of product based on actual and forecast data (ECR 1993). A key principle of this strategy is to create order forecasts based on shared demand and forecasted production capacity. This is aimed at reducing inventory costs, to optimise asset utilisation and take advantage of transportation economies of scale (Rizk, Martel et al. 2006). A popular example of this strategy is the Campbell soup company, a multinational food manufacturer that pioneered the use of continuous replenishment strategies in the early 1990s. Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) links with retailers are used by Campbells to monitor stock levels, forecast future demand and determine which products require replenishment based on upper and lower inventory limits (Fisher 1997). In the event that product inventory is below a predetermined inventory level, a shipment is made to bring the product inventory to at least a minimum level. Similarly, programmes such as Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI) utilise similar schemes, except in VMI the vendor in charge of

Page 10

what and when to ship (Andel 1996). This results in higher volumes of throughput for upstream supply chain partners (Clark and McKenney 1994; Cachon and Fisher 1997). The need to make efficiency driven decisions under a continuous replenishment programme (for example, production scheduling) is given considerable importance (Smith-Daniels and Ritzman 1988). This creates a dangerous environment whereby management constantly seeks to reach or maintain high levels of asset utilisation, exposing organisations to the perils of dynamic markets. For example, two studies conducted by Lee and his colleagues (2004) in the 1990s found that although stock was often readily available in factory stockyards, the shipment was not sent to the customer until shipping containers were full, a prominent practice in continuous replenishment strategies. This practice often delayed product delivery, while retail outlets lost sales due to stockouts. Lee (2004) concluded that efficient supply chains often become uncompetitive due to their inability to adapt to changes in market structures. Reasons for these shortcomings are best summarised by Lee (2004); Many companies have centralised manufacturing and distribution facilities to generate scale economies, and they deliver only container loads of products to customers to minimise transportation time, freight costs, and the number of deliveries. When demand for a particular brand, pack size, or assortment rises without warning, these organisations are unable to react even if they have the items in stock.

d. Summary
In summary, the literature is characterized by three types of strategy: (1) lean, (2) agile and (3) continuous replenishment. These strategies have not been proven to meet the unique challenges faced in process industries. As evidenced by the lack of research in the area, although several authors have contributed by examining aspects of continuous production

Page 11

that are amenable to lean implementation in process industries [see Melton (2005) and Abdulmalek and Rajgopal (2006) for more information]. Research where implementation of the strategic principles described in this paper are few, Table 1 summarizes the small number of studies that have examined lean, agile or continuous replenishment principles in process industry supply chains.

Page 12

Table 1 Examples of Process Industry studies for Supply Chain Strategies Lean/Agile/ Continuous Replenishment Lean Lean Lean Lean

Author (Ahmad, Dhafr et al. 2005) (Billesbach 1994) (Cook and Rogowski 1996) (White 1993)

Method Single Case Study Single Case Study Single Case Study Survey

Data and Sample Chemicals Manufacturing Textile Production Plant Chemicals Transportation Value Stream 1165 surveys from manufacturing firms Batch Process Industry Various Case Studies of Specialty Chemicals Industries Large pulp and paper company

Key Variables Theoretical production rates Level of Work in Progress (WIP) Forecast accuracy, distribution lead time, lead time variability. Production cycle time

Contribution Model for determining theoretical production targets Reduction in WIP by 96% while maintaining constant volume throughput. Increase of 25% in forecast accuracy, 25% reduction in distribution lead time, and 50% reduction in lead time variability. More than 78% of respondents indicated that JIT implementation was beneficial to their organisation Delayed differentiation was found to reduce the number of required slab types Corporate culture influences a firms ability to adopt new technologies such as process choice or set-up time reduction. Cost barriers to reconfigurability are smaller than previously suspected. In using integrated flow planning problems, the choice of problem formulation will have significant impacts on solving time.

(Caux, David et al. 2006) (Shaw, Burgess et al. 2005)

Single Case Study Action Research

Number of slab types Set up times, process choice, plant reconfigurability

Agile Agile

(Rizk, Martel et al. 2006)

Single Case Study

Transportation costs, changeover costs

Continuous Replenishment

Page 13

All strategies described in this paper (lean, agile, and continuous replenishment) have a common goal, that is, to select the most optimal strategy to improve supply chain performance. As per strategy selection, in addition to simply implementing a single supply chain strategy from end to end (Womack and Jones 2003), it has been suggested that practitioners attempt to match supply chain strategies to either the products they are producing (Fisher 1997) or their customer demand attributes (Christopher and Towill 2002). The difficulty in satisfying the demands imposed in supply chain management is evidenced by the lack of best practice in industry, even though models are available to aid organisations in integrating and managing supply chains (Childerhouse and Towill 2000). For example, the implementation of lean practices, such as just in time delivery, may reduce inventory in one business leaving its suppliers with increased inventory and transportation costs (Christopher, Peck et al. 2006). This may arise because a significant portion of this research has evolved from cases of industries handling discrete units that are fabricated and/or assembled during manufacturing, resulting in numerous successful strategies for discrete industries (Dennis and Meredith 2000). Although there have been applications across many sectors including automotive, electronics and consumer products manufacturing, these have almost exclusively been applied to discrete manufacturing applications, with very few examples reported in the continuous process sector (Abdullah and Rajgopal 2003). The process industries cover a wide range of businesses, ranging from continuous facilities in the petrochemical industry, to large batch manufacturing in steel production, to small batch manufacturing in the pharmaceutical industry. While the process industry is responsible for a considerable portion of GDP in many countries, researchers have paid little attention to this large group of industries (Van Donk and Fransoo 2006).

Page 14

The difficulty in managing process industry supply chains is exacerbated by the inherent complexity of these systems. Balancing the priorities, tradeoffs and effects associated with achieving high levels of throughput, low levels of finished inventory and providing high levels of customer service is at the heart of supply chain management. This argument, has been expounded by scholars for some time now, notably the use of multidimensional tools such as the Balanced Scorecard (see Kaplan and Norton (1996) to aid in the implementation of strategies in organisations and the concept of Minimum Reasonable Inventory in system dynamics (see Towill (1994)) as a form of balancing the tradeoffs inherent to supply chain management. Both of these concepts use multidimensional tools to aid managers in finding an optimal balance of simultaneously competing and interacting priorities which ultimately govern the performance of an organisation or supply chain.

3. Provisional Measurement Instrument for Supply Chain Performance

The classic conflict of interest between throughput of material, levels of inventory, and delivering the right product to the right customer at the right time will be the focus of this measurement instrument. Our measurement instrument uses a three dimensional figure to map the performance of a supply chain based on three factors. Each factor is mapped on a dimensional axis. The Y axis represents the level of customer service a supply chain can deliver. The X axis being the throughput of material produced, as the total output of the supply chain independent of whether the product was sold. The Z axis the level of inventory present, both in the form of work in progress and finished goods inventory which has yet to be sold (see Figure 1). Each dimension ranges from a high to low levels of performance and costs.

Page 15

Figure 1 Three dimensions of supply chain management Reaching maximum efficiency in all three axes is not possible in a real world supply chain that is subject to process constraints. Rather, every dimension has a point of diminishing returns where the overall net benefit of maximizing a dimension is less than an optimal overall result. For example, a steel manufacturer cannot maintain maximum asset utilization without high levels of inventory to maintain adequate buffers. Buffers are necessary to ensure that bottlenecks in the system do not adversely influence throughput rates (Tan 2001). The dynamic nature of supply chain behaviour of has been well investigated through the use of system dynamics in supply chains. System dynamics has been successfully used as a means of better understanding dynamic behaviour and improved redesign to improve robustness and operating effectiveness of these systems (Berry, Towill et al. 1994; Towill 1996). Developing a strategy whereby the supply chain reaches optimal positions on each axis and minimises the impact on the other two axes is a core capability within the process industry. Similar situations are reported in the international business literature where firms must make

Page 16

strategic choices based on the three dimensions (inventory, customer service, throughput) that underpin the transnational challenge (Devinney, Midgley et al. 2001). The common issue to both literatures is that managers work in operationally constrained environments and are therefore required to make decisions that will result in an improvement in one dimension at the detriment of another. In addition, the costs associated with achieving higher levels of performance must be considered. As the concept of supply chains are adopted by an organisation, the choice of a strategy will result in levels of performance which can be represented as a location (x,y,z) in Figure 1. This location will have a cost associated with achieving this level of performance as well as a level of profitability. Implementing a supply chain strategy developed in, or for, a discrete process industry setting implies that managers are concerned about factors such as operational constraints and machine reliability will inevitably lead to differences in performance. For some managers, the desire may not be to adopt one particular orientation and hope that the resulting performance is equal or exceeding other adopters of the strategy. An alternative approach is to select a particular location within the three dimensional space. This is relevant because the desired location will require a combination of strategies tailored to the processes of the organisation. This would allow managers to set goals based on the current performance of the supply chain and even set a route to achieve the desired location. In well established organisations, where performance levels at individual dimensions are well known, the tradeoffs between dimensions may also be known to exist but the extent of the impact on strategic orientation may not be known.

Page 17

4. Case Study TDH Steel Ltd.

TDH Steel Ltd.1, is a steel manufacturer in the Asia Pacific region, supplying a wide range of steel products to the building, construction, manufacturing, automotive, and packaging industries. Over time, the supply chain at TDH Steel Ltd. has evolved into a complex arrangement of interconnected operating models to support different information systems and diverse operating rules within historical organizational boundaries. Production at TDH Steel is subject to numerous operational constraints and uncertainties. Scheduling is extremely complex and requires a great deal of attention. Synchronisation between product batches as well as across parallel lines of production is a primary concern amongst the scheduling management team because numerous production steps and long production lead times inhibit a make to order strategy. Instead, a primarily make to forecast strategy and secondary make to stock strategies are used. Forecasted sales are scheduled into production to adhere to the required large batch sizes, however in most cases the forecasted sales and operational constraints result in some stock being made regardless of whether its forecast to be sold or not. This practice simultaneously takes advantage of economies of scale and adheres to the operational constraints. Throughout the processing stages, scheduling in key product differentiation steps is used to ensure that forecast levels of product mix are maintained. Some markets demand shorter lead times than those required for production, those which typically require higher volumes of product are given lead times similar to those of production, therefore customer orders are commonly matched to current on hand inventories. Unfortunately, commonly used management tools for supply chain management decision making at TDH have yet to deliver an effective method for decision support at TDH as evidenced by high inventory levels and less than ideal customer service. The level of capital

The name of the organization has been changed to protect confidentiality

Page 18

intensiveness in production equipment is such that high utilisation of equipment must be maintained, which inevitably produces stock units that may not be required. Furthermore, pressure to meet performance targets has not provided managers with the opportunity to evaluate the wider implications of their operational decisions. Instead, broad experience and lengthy tenure are used to assist decision makers to better appreciate the multidimensional nature of the supply chain. TDH Steel has three main performance metrics for their supply chain, each metric focuses on a dimension as described in the previous section. Customer service is primarily measured as the ability of the supply chain to deliver the right product to the right customer at the right time, this is measured as the percentage of deliveries made in full and on time (DIFOT). The level of inventory held is measured by the amount of time the inventory spends as inventory before it is sent out to a customer; days of inventory (DOI). The production throughput is measured as total production per time as measured in TDH as tones per day. This is an important metric as in a process industry; the quantity of finished products highly influences the variable costs of production, and the level of equipment uptime.

Page 19

Figure 2 Operationalisation of Supply Chain Metrics The overall complexity of the supply chain and decades of operational experience have lead TDH to adopt these three performance metrics as the basis for supply chain performance. With this measurement instrument, TDH can view, in simple terms, (1) how much is being produced, (2) how long it is remaining in the supply chain and (3) how well the customers are being served. Qualitative investigations into the operational and organisational nuances of the processing facilities within TDH have yielded some significant differences in the (x,y,z) metrics at different portions of the supply chain. The more customer centric, responsive portions of the supply chain have evolved at the customer end of the supply chain. Meanwhile, the more capital intensive portions of the supply chain show a high throughput focus. The interfaces between these portions of the supply chain often experience problems and require a great deal of consideration and will be examined closely in future stages of this study.

Page 20

5. Limitations and Conclusions

This research highlighted the benefits and shortcomings of single supply chain strategies and ignoring the tradeoffs between factors which are heavily interrelated in real world supply chains. The reality of many supply chains is that the applications of single strategies have provided little benefit given the complexities of real world supply chains which require significant alterations of the prescribed strategies. A single strategy would still include tradeoffs, although these would be fixed depending on the strategy and would not allow the flexibility of reverse engineering. The measurement instrument presented highlights the importance of taking into consideration the tradeoffs involved in implementing supply chain strategies into real world situations. Process industries are subject to complexities that differentiate them from most other industries. As such, they do not easily conform to a single supply chain orientation. Until now, managers in process firms have used intuition and judgement to guide strategic decision making, possibly due to the complexity of the supply chains they manage. The instrument presented, allows the visualisation of strategic priorities applicable to process industry supply chains. The names of the axes provided are very narrow in definition and would require some alterations in applying them to other industries and organisations. The instrument is also limited in that universally speaking; other dimensions may be present in certain industries which may be significant enough to render this instrument inapplicable unless more dimensions are added mathematically. Future directions of this research will focus on the development of continuous-discrete event simulation models that will mimic the behavioural dynamics of process industry supply chains. The instrument presented in this paper will then

Page 21

be applied to the simulated supply chain in order to validate the model and develop theories that will aid process industry supply chains.

Page 22

References:
Abdullah, F. and J. Rajgopal (2003). Lean manufacturing in the process industry. Proceedings of the IIE Research Conference, Portland, OR, IIE. Abdulmalek, F. A. and J. Rajgopal (2006). "Analyzing the benefits of lean manufacturing and value stream mapping via simulation: A process sector case study." International Journal of Production Economics: (2006), doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.09.009. Ahmad, M. and R. Benson (1999). Benchmarking in the Process Industries, Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE). Ahmad, M., N. Dhafr, et al. (2005). "Model for establishing theoretical targets at the shop floor level in specialty chemicals manufacturing organizations." Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 21(4-5): 391-400. Andel, T. (1996). "Manage inventory, own information." Transportation and Distribution 37(5): 54-58. Beckett, A. J., C. E. R. Wainwright, et al. (2000). "Implementing an industrial continuous improvement system: a knowledge management case study." Industrial Management and Data Systems 100(7): 330-8. Berry, D., D. R. Towill, et al. (1994). "Supply chain management in the electronics products industry." International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 24: 20-20. Billesbach, T. J. (1994). "Applying Lean Production Principles to a Process Facility." Production and Inventory Management Journal 35: 40-40. Cachon, G. and M. Fisher (1997). "Campbell Soup' Continuous Replenishment Program: s Evaluation and Enhanced Inventory Decision Rules." Production and Operations Management 6(3): 266-276. Caux, C., F. David, et al. (2006). "Implementation of delayed differentiation in batch process industries: a standardization problem." International Journal of Production Research 44(16): 3243-3255. Childerhouse, P. and D. Towill (2000). "Engineering supply chains to match customer requirements." Logistics Information Management 13(6): 337345. Childerhouse, P. and D. Towill (2000). Engineering supply chains to match customer requirements, MCB UP Ltd. 13: 337345. Christopher, M. (2000). "The Agile Supply Chain: Competing in Volatile Markets." Industrial Marketing Management 29(1): 37-44. Christopher, M. and J. Gattorna (2005). "Supply chain cost management and value-based pricing." Industrial Marketing Management 34(2): 115-121. Christopher, M., H. Peck, et al. (2006). "A Taxonomy for selecting global supply chain strategies." International Journal of Logistics Management 17(2): 277-287. Christopher, M. and D. R. Towill (2002). "Developing Market Specific Supply Chain Strategies." International Journal of Logistics Management 13(1). Clark, T. H. and J. L. McKenney (1994). Campbell Soup Company: A Leader in Continuous Replenishment Innovations: 248265. Cook, R. L. and R. A. Rogowski (1996). "Applying JIT Principles to Continuous Process Manufacturing Supply Chains." Production and Inventory Management Journal 37: 12-17. Dennis, D. R. and J. R. Meredith (2000). "An analysis of process industry production and inventory management systems." Journal of Operations Management 18(6): 683-699.

Page 23

Devinney, T. M., D. F. Midgley, et al. (2001). "The Organizational Imperative and the Optimal Performance of the Global Firm: Formalizing and Extending the IntegrationResponsiveness Framework." Organization Science 11(6): 674-695. ECR (1993). Efficient Consumer Response. F. M. I. Research Department. Washington, DC. Fisher, M. L. (1997). "What Is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product?" Harvard Business Review 75: 105-117. Fransoo, J. C. and W. Rutten (1994). "A Typology of Production Control Situations in Process Industries." International Journal of Operations & Production Management 14: 47-47. Gattorna, J. (2006). Living Supply Chains, London, England: Prentice Hall. Geary, S., S. M. Disney, et al. (2006). "On bullwhip in supply chainshistorical review, present practice and expected future impact." International Journal of Production Economics 101(1): 2-18. Gibson, C. B. and J. Birkinshaw (2004). "The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity." Academy of Management Journal 47(2): 209226. Groover, M. P. (2007). Automation, Production Systems, and Computer-integrated Manufacturing, Prentice Hall. Gunasekaran, A., K. Lai, et al. (2008). "Responsive supply chain: A competitive strategy in a networked economy." Omega 36(4): 549-564. Harrison, A., M. Christopher, et al. (1999). Creating the Agile Supply Chain, Institute of Logistics and Transport. Hayes, R. H. and S. C. Wheelwright (1984). Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing Through Manufacturing, Wiley. Hill, T. (1989). Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases, Irwin. Hill, T. (1994). Manufacturing strategy: text and cases, Irwin. Holweg, M. (2007). "The genealogy of lean production." Journal of Operations Management 25(2): 420-437. Holweg, M., S. Disney, et al. (2005). "Supply Chain Collaboration: Making Sense of the Strategy Continuum." European Management Journal 23(2): 170-181. Howleg, M. (1998). The three-day car challenge - Investigating the inhibitors of responsive order fulfilment in new vehicle supply systems. Cardiff Business School, University of Wales. PhD Thesis. Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton (1996). "Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System." Harvard Business Review 74: 75-87. Ketchen, J. D. J. and G. T. M. Hult (2007). "Bridging organization theory and supply chain management: The case of best value supply chains." Journal of Operations Management 25(2): 573-580. Lee, H. L. (2004). "The Triple-A Supply Chain." Harvard Business Review 82(10): 102-113. Lee, H. L. (2004). The Triple-A Supply Chain. 82: 102-113. Liker, J. K. (2004). The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World' Greatest s Manufacturer, McGraw-Hill. Mason-Jones, R., B. Naylor, et al. (2000). "Engineering the leagile supply chain." International Journal of Agile Management Systems 2(1): 54-61. Melton, T. (2005). "The Benefits of Lean Manufacturing: What Lean Thinking has to Offer the Process Industries." Chemical Engineering Research and Design/Official Journal of the European Federation of Chemical Engineering: Part A 83(A6): 662-673. Naylor, B. J., M. M. Naim, et al. (1999). "Leagility: Integrating the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain." International Journal of Production Economics 62(1-2): 107-118. Page 24

Naylor, J. B., M. M. Naim, et al. (1999). "Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain." International Journal of Production Economics 62(1/2): 107-18. Rao, S. S. (2002). "Making enterprises Internet ready: e-business for process industries." WORK STUDY 51(4/5): 248-253. Richards, C. W. (1996). "Agile manufacturing: beyond lean." Production and Inventory Management Journal 37(2): 60-64. Rizk, N., A. Martel, et al. (2006). "Multi-item dynamic production-distribution planning in process industries with divergent finishing stages." Computers and Operations Research 33(12): 3600-3623. SCC, Ed. (2008). Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model Version 9.0. www.supply-chain.org, Version. Shaw, N. E., T. F. Burgess, et al. (2005). "Supply chain agility: the influence of industry culture on asset capabilities within capital intensive industries." International Journal of Production Research 43(16): 3497-3516. Smith-Daniels, V. L. and L. P. Ritzman (1988). A model for lot sizing and sequencing in process industries, Taylor & Francis. 26: 647-674. Tan, K. C. (2001). A framework of supply chain management literature. 7: 39-48. Tomlin, B. T. and L. V. Snyder (2006). On the Value of a Threat Advisory System for Managing Supply Chain Disruptions, Working paper, Lehigh University. Towill, D. R. (1994). 1961 and all that: the influence of Jay Forrester and John Burbidge on the design of modern manufacturing systems. Towill, D. R. (1996). "Industrial dynamics modelling of supply chains." International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 26: 23-42. Towill, D. R. and P. McCullen (1999). "The impact of agile manufacturing on supply chain dynamics." international Journal of Logistics Management 10(1): 83-96. Tushman, M. L. and C. A. O' Reilly Iii (2006). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change, Sage Publications Inc. Van Donk, D. P. and J. C. Fransoo (2006). Operations management research in process industries, Elsevier. 24: 211-214. Voss, C. A. (2007). "Learning from the first Operations Management textbook." Journal of Operations Management 25(2): 239-247. Wallace, T. F. (1984). APICS Dictionary, American Production and Inventory Control Society, Falls Church, Va. White, R. E. (1993). "An Empirical Assessment of JIT in US Manufacturers." Production and Inventory Management Journal 34: 38-38. Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones Lean Solutions. 22. Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones (1996). Lean thinking, Simon & Schuster New York, NY. Womack, J. P. and D. T. Jones (2003). Lean Thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation, Free Press. Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, et al. (1990). The machine that changed the world, Rawson Associates New York. Yusuf, Y. Y. and E. O. Adeleye (2002). A comparative study of lean and agile manufacturing with a related survey of current practices in the UK, Taylor and Francis Ltd. 40: 4545-4562.

Page 25