Performance management in collaborative networks: difficulties and barriers

[EN] Global competitiveness obliges to enterprises to collaborate in many processes such as new product and services development in order to shorten the lifecycle, development and commercialization. Therefore, the competence has drifted from an individual focus to a supply chain management one and, from some years, to a collaborative enterprises network approach. It is common to find frameworks for measuring/managing the performance within extended enterprises, supply chains, virtual enterprises, etc. However, few authors deal with a higher level: the collaborative networks one. This concept of enterprises management set up bigger difficulties regarding not only from a conceptual and structural point of view but also considering both the design and posterior development of systems capable of managing the performance achieved in this type of organizations. This work describes both the main difficulties and barriers when trying to apply performance management concepts to collaborative networks. In this sense, it is highlighted the weaknesses of the existing intra-organizational frameworks that cannot be projected, as they are conceived, to manage performance within collaborative networks.Alfaro Saiz, JJ.; Rodríguez Rodríguez, R.; Verdecho Sáez, MJ. (2011). Performance management in collaborative networks: difficulties and barriers. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology. 362:133-139. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23330-2_15S133139362Hausman, W.H.: Supply chain performance metrics. The practice of supply chain management: Where theory and application converge. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2003)Coughlan, P., Coughlan, D.: Action research: action research for operations management. International Journal of Operation and Productions Management 22(2), 220–240 (2002)Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P.: The balanced scorecard. Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 71–79 (January/February 1992)Bourne, M.: Designing and implementing a balanced performance measurement system. Control - Official Journal of the Institute of Operations Management, 21–24 (July/August 1999)Neely, A., Adams, C.: Perspectives on Performance. The Performance Prism’ Web Site of Neely A (2001), www.som.cranfield.ac.uk/som/cbp/adn.htmHronec, S.M.: Vital Signs. Amacom, New York (1993)Bititci, U.S., Mendibil, K., Martinez, V., Albores, P.: Measuring and managing performance in extended enterprises. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25(4), 333–353 (2005)Folan, P., Browne, J.: Development of an extended enterprise performance measurement system”. Production Planning & Control 16(6), 531–544 (2005)Gaiardelli, P., Saccani, N., Songini, L.: Performance measurement systems in the after-sales service: an integrated framework. International Journal of Business Performance Management 9(2), 145–171 (2007)Alfaro, J.J., Ortiz, A., Rodríguez, R.: Performance measurement system for Enterprise Networks. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 56(4), 305–334 (2007)Romero, D., Galeano, N., Molina, A.: A conceptual Model for Virtual Breeding Environments Value System. In: Camarinha-Matos, L., Afsarmanesh, H., Novais, P., Analide, C. (eds.) Establishing the Foundation of Collaborative Networks. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Msanjila, S.S., Afsarmanesh, H.: Trust analysis and assessment in virtual organization breeding environments. International Journal of Production Research 46(5), 1253–1295 (2008)Bititci, U., Turner, T., Mackay, D., Kearney, D., Parung, J., Walters, D.: Managing synergy in collaborative enterprises. Production Planning & Control 18(6), 454–465 (2007)Chalmeta, R., Grangel, R.: Performance Measurement Systems for Virtual Enterprise Integration. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 18(1), 73–84 (2005)Francisco, R.D., Azevedo, A.: Dynamic Performance Management In Business Networks Environment. In: Digital Enterprise Technology. Springer, US (2007)Busi, M., Bititci, U.S.: Collaborative performance management: Present gaps and future research. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 55(1), 7–25 (2006)Rodriguez, R., Ortiz, A., Alfaro, J.: Fostering collaborative meta-value chain practices. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 22(5), 385–394 (2009)Rodriguez, R.R., Gomez, P., Franco, D., Ortiz, A.: Establishing and keeping inter-organisational collaboration: Some lessons learned. International Federation for Information Processing 1, 214–222 (2007)Leseure, M., Shaw, N., Chapman, G.: Performance measurement in organisational networks: an exploratory case study. International Journal of Business Performance Management 3(1), 30–46 (2001

Performance measurement : challenges for tomorrow

This paper demonstrates that the context within which performance measurement is used is changing. The key questions posed are: Is performance measurement ready for the emerging context? What are the gaps in our knowledge? and Which lines of enquiry do we need to pursue? A literature synthesis conducted by a team of multidisciplinary researchers charts the evolution of the performance-measurement literature and identifies that the literature largely follows the emerging business and global trends. The ensuing discussion introduces the currently emerging and predicted future trends and explores how current knowledge on performance measurement may deal with the emerging context. This results in identification of specific challenges for performance measurement within a holistic systems-based framework. The principle limitation of the paper is that it covers a broad literature base without in-depth analysis of a particular aspect of performance measurement. However, this weakness is also the strength of the paper. What is perhaps most significant is that there is a need for rethinking how we research the field of performance measurement by taking a holistic systems-based approach, recognizing the integrated and concurrent nature of challenges that the practitioners, and consequently the field, face

Pomiar wydajności zarządzania zielonymi łańcuchami dostaw

Only what is measured can be managed properly. And the measurement process should serve a continuous improvement of companies and whole supply chains. Data from the performance measurement system should cause an increase of cooperation and help in taking right decisions about changes at the operational level, and on the other hand, are an important information when redefining strategies. This will allow for the development of the supply chain based on knowledge, in which the scope of cooperation is literally unlimited (including green aspects). There are two basic approaches to measuring the performance of supply chains: a comprehensive measurement that measures the results of the entire chain (which can be divided into individual tiers and levels) and partial measurement when we measure only certain aspects. Often, in practice, only measurement of separately operating companies is practiced by companies, not throughout chains. And the problem is even more evident when it comes to measuring performance of green activities in integrated supply chains. The paper presents the possibilities of evaluation of GSCM performance. The major challenges and obstacles are presented and assessed.Tylko to, co jest mierzone, może być właściwie zarządzane. Proces pomiaru powinien służyć ciągłemu doskonaleniu przedsiębiorstw i całych łańcuchów dostaw. Dane z systemu pomiaru powinny powodować wzrost współpracy i pomagać w podejmowaniu decyzji o zmianach na poziomie operacyjnym, a z drugiej strony może to być ważna informacja przy przedefiniowaniu strategii. Pozwala to na rozwój łańcuchów dostaw opartych na wiedzy, gdzie zakres współpracy jest dosłownie nieograniczony (dotyczy to również aspektów ekologicznych). Istnieją dwa podstawowe podejścia do pomiaru wydajności łańcucha dostaw: kompleksowy pomiar, który patrzy na wyniki całego łańcucha (który można rozdzielić na poszczególne szczeble i poziomy), oraz pomiar częściowy, gdy mierzymy tylko niektóre aspekty. Często praktykowany jest tylko pomiar oddzielnie działających firm, a nie całego łańcucha. Problem jest jeszcze bardziej widoczny, jeśli chodzi o pomiar wydajności działań ekologicznych w zintegrowanych łańcuchach dostaw. W artykule opisano możliwości oceny wyników GSCM. Przedstawiono i oceniono główne wyzwania i przeszkody stojące przed pomiarem wyników zielonych łańcuchów dostaw

A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains

[EN] Sustainability practice within supply chains remains in an early development phase. Enterprises still need tools that support the integration of sustainability strategy into their activity, and to align their sustainability strategy with the supplier selection process. This paper proposes a methodology using a multi-criteria technique to support supplier selection decisions by taking two groups of inputs that integrate sustainability performance: supply chain performance and supplier assessment criteria. With the proposed methodology, organisations will have a tool to select suppliers based on their development towards sustainability and on their alignment with the supply chain strategy towards sustainability. The methodology is applied to an agri-food supply chain to assess sustainability in the supplier selection process.The authors of this publication acknowledge the contribution of Project GV/2017/065 'Development of a decision support tool for the management and improvement of sustainability in supply chains', funded by the Regional Valencian Government. Also, the authors acknowledge Project 691249, RUC-APS: Enhancing and implementing knowledge-based ICT solutions within high risk and uncertain conditions for agriculture production systems (www.ruc-aps.eu), funded by the European Union according to funding scheme H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015.Verdecho Sáez, MJ.; Alarcón Valero, F.; Pérez Perales, D.; Alfaro Saiz, JJ.; Rodríguez Rodríguez, R. (2021). A methodology to select suppliers to increase sustainability within supply chains. Central European Journal of Operations Research. 29:1231-1251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-019-00668-3S1231125129Agarwal G, Vijayvargy L (2012) Green supplier assessment in environmentally responsive supply chains through analytical network process. In: Proceedings international multiconference of engineers and computer scientists, Hong KongAgeron B, Gunasekaran A, Spalanzani A (2012) Sustainable supply management: an empirical study. Int J Prod Econ 140(1):168–182Akarte MM, Surendra NV, Ravi B, Rangaraj N (2001) Web based casting supplier evaluation using analytical hierarchy process. J Oper Res Soc 52:511–522Alfaro Saiz JJ, Rodríguez R, Ortiz Bas A, Verdecho MJ (2010) An information architecture for a performance management framework by collaborating SMEs. Comput Ind 61:676–685Alfaro JJ, Ortiz A, Rodríguez R (2007) Performance measurement system for enterprise networks. Int J Prod Perform Manag 56(4):305–334Awasthi A, Govindan K, Gold S (2018) Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int J Prod Econ 195:106–117Azadnia AH, Ghadimi P, Zameri M, Saman M, Wong KY, Heavey C (2013) An integrated approach for sustainable supplier selection using fuzzy logic and fuzzy AHP. Appl Mech Mater 315:206–221Azimifard A, Moosavirad SH, Ariafar S (2018) Selecting sustainable supplier countries for Iran’s steel industry at three levels by using AHP and TOPSIS methods. Resour Pol 57:30–44Bai C, Sarkis J (2010) Integrating sustainability into supplier selection with grey system and rough set methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 124:252–264Bhagwat R, Sharma MK (2007) Performance measurement of supply chain management: a balanced scorecard approach. Comput Ind Eng 53(1):43–62Bititci US, Mendibil K, Martinez V, Albores P (2005) Measuring and managing performance in extended enterprises. Int J Oper Prod Manag 25(4):333–353Brewer PC, Speh TW (2000) Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain performance. J Bus Logist 21(1):75–93Bullinger HJ, Kühner M, Hoof AV (2002) Analysing supply chain performance using a balanced measurement method. Int J Prod Res 40(15):3533–3543Chan FTS (2003) Interactive selection model for supplier selection process: an analytical hierarchy process approach. Int J Prod Res 41(15):3549–3579De Boer L, Labro E, Morlacchi P (2001) A review of methods supporting supplier selection. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 7(2):75–89Degraeve Z, Labro E, Roodhooft F (2000) An evaluation of supplier selection methods from a total cost of ownership perspective. Eur J Oper Res 125(1):34–58Dobos I, Vörösmarty G (2014) Green supplier selection and evaluation using DEA-type composite indicators. Int J of Prod Econ 157(11):273–278Dou Y, Sarkis J (2010) A joint location and outsourcing sustainability analysis for a strategic offshoring decision. Int J Prod Res 48(2):567–592Dyllick T, Hockerts K (2002) Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Bus Strategy Environ 11:130–141Falatoonitoosi E, Leman Z, Sorooshian S (2013) Modeling for green supply chain evaluation. Math Probl Eng 2013:1–9Farzad T, Rasid OM, Aidy A, Rosnah MY, Alireza E (2008) AHP approach for supplier evaluation and selection in a steel manufacturing company. JIEM 1(2):54–76Ferreira LMDF, Silva C, Garrido Azevedo S (2016) An environmental balanced scorecard for supply chain performance measurement (Env_BSC_4_SCPM). Benchmark Int J 23(6):1398–1422Figge F, Hahn T, Schaltegger S, Wagner M (2002) The sustainability balanced scorecard: linking sustainability management to business strategy. Bus Strat Env 11:269–284Folan P, Browne J (2005) Development of an extended enterprise performance measurement system. Prod Plan Control 16(6):531–544Freeman J, Chen T (2015) Green supplier selection using an AHP-entropy-TOPSIS framework. Supply Chain Manag 20:327–340Genovese A, Koh L, Bruno G, Esposito E (2013) Greener supplier selection: state of the art and some empirical evidence. Int J Prod Res 51(10):2868–2886Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C (1998) A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ 56–57:199–212Glock CH, Grosse EH, Ries JM (2017) Decision support models for supplier development: systematic literature review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 194:246–260Govindan K, Khodaverdi R, Jafarian A (2013) A fuzzy multi criteria approach for measuring sustainability performance of a supplier based on triple bottom line approach. J Clean Prod 47:345–354Govindan K, Rajendran S, Sarkis J, Murugesan P (2015) Multi criteria decision making approaches for green supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. J Clean Prod 98:66–83Gunasekaran A, Patel C, Tirtiroglu E (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. Int J Oper Prod Manag 21(1/2):71–87Ho W, Xu X, Dey PK (2010) Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 202:16–24Hsu CW, Hu AH (2009) Applying hazardous substance management to supplier selection using analytic network process. J Clean Prod 17(2):255–264Hsu CW, Kuo TC, Chen SH, Hu AH (2013) Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management. J Clean Prod 56:164–172Huan SH, Sheoran SK, Wang G (2004) A review and analysis of supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Supply Chain Manag Int J 9(9):23–29Hutchins M, Sutherland JH (2008) An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions. J Clean Prod 16(15):1688–1698Igarashi M, Boer L, Magerholm Fet A (2013) What is required for greener supplier selection? A literature review and conceptual model development. J Purch Supply Manag 19(4):247–263Jimenez-Jimenez D, Martínez-Costa M, Sanchez Rodriguez C (2019) The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between information technology and innovation. J Knowl Manag 23(3):548–567Kaplan RS, Norton DP (1992) The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance. Harvard Bus Rev 70(1):71–79Luthra S, Govindan K, Kannan D, Kumar Mangla S, Prakash Garg C (2017) An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J Clean Prod 140:1686–1698Maestrini V, Luzzini D, Maccarrone P, Caniato F (2017) Supply chain performance measurement systems: a systematic review and research agenda. Int J Prod Econ 183A:299–315Masella C, Rangone A (2000) A contingent approach to the design of vendor selection systems for different types of co-operative customer/supplier relationships. Int J Oper Prod Manag 20(1):70–84Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97Mohammed A, Harris I, Govindan K (2019) A hybrid MCDM-FMOO approach for sustainable supplier selection and order allocation. Int J Prod Econ 217:171–184Motevali-Haghighi S, Torabi SA, Ghasemi R (2016) An integrated approach for performance evaluation in sustainable supply chain networks (with a case study). J Clean Prod 137:579–597Nawaz W, Koç M (2018) Development of a systematic framework for sustainability management of organizations. J Clean Prod 171:1255–1274Nie X (2013) Green suppliers selecting based on analytic hierarchy process for biotechnology industry. In: Zhong Z (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on information engineering and applications. Springer, London, pp 253–260Nielsen IE, Banaeian N, Golińska P, Mobli H, Omid M (2014) Green supplier selection criteria: from a literature review to a flexible framework for determination of suitable criteria. In: Golinska P (ed) Logistics operations, supply chain management and sustainability. Springer, Cham, pp 79–99Noci G (1997) Designing ‘green’ vendor rating systems for the assessment of a supplier’s environmental performance. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 3(2):103–114Petersen KJ, Handfield RB, Ragatz GL (2005) Supplier integration into new product development: coordinating product, process and supply chain design. J Oper Manag 23:371–388Pishchulov G, Trautrims A, Chesney T, Gold S, Schwab L (2019) The voting analytic hierarchy process revisited: a revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection. Int J Prod Econ 211:166–179Popovic T, Kraslawski A, Barbosa-Póvoa A, Carvalho A (2017) Quantitative indicators for social sustainability assessment of society and product responsibility aspects in supply chains. J Int Stud 10(4):9–36Qorri A, Mujki Z, Kraslawski A (2018) A conceptual framework for measuring sustainability performance of supply chains. J Clean Prod 189:570–584Reefke H, Trocchi M (2013) Balanced scorecard for sustainable supply chains: design and development guidelines. Int J Prod Perform Manag 62(8):805–826Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkSaaty RW (1987) The analytic hierarchy process: what it is and how it is used. Math Model 9(3–5):161–176Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–98Saaty TL, Ozdemir MS (2003) Why the magic number seven plus or minus two. Math Comput Model 38(3–4):233–244Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710Shaik M, Abdul-Kader W (2011) Green supplier selection generic framework: a multi-attribute utility theory approach. Int J Sustain Eng 4(1):37–56Shi P, Yan B, Shi S, Ke C (2015) A decision support system to select suppliers for a sustainable supply chain based on a systematic DEA approach. Inf Technol Manag 16(1):39–49Superdecisions (2018) Tutorial on hierarchical decision models. Creative Decisions Foundation. https://www.superdecisions.com/sd_resources/v28_man03.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2018Thakkar J, Kanda A, Deshmukh S (2009) Supply chain performance measurement framework for small and medium scale enterprises. Benchmark Int J 16(5):702–723Theißen S, Spinler S (2014) Strategic analysis of manufacturer–supplier partnerships: an ANP model for collaborative CO2 reduction management. Eur J Oper Res 233(2):383–397Tseng ML, Lim M, Wong WP (2015) Sustainable supply chain management: a closed-loop network hierarchical approach. Ind Manag Data Syst 115(3):436–461Uysal F (2012) An integrated model for sustainable performance measurement in supply chain. Proc Soc Behav Sci 62:689–694Valenzuela L, Maturana S (2016) Designing a three-dimensional performance measurement system (SMD3D) for the wine industry: a Chilean example. Agric Syst 142:112–121Verdecho MJ, Alfaro-Saiz JJ, Rodriguez-Rodriguez R, Ortiz-Bas A (2012) A multi-criteria approach for managing inter-enterprise collaborative relationships. Omega 40:249–263Virender P, Jayant A (2014) A green supplier selection model for an agriculture-machinery industry. Int J Appl Eng Res 9(5):597–605Weber CA, Current JR, Benton WC (1991) Vendor selection criteria and methods. Eur J Oper Res 50(1):2–18Xu L, Kumar DT, Madan Shankar K, Kannan D, Chen G (2013) Analyzing criteria and sub-criteria for the corporate social responsibility-based supplier selection process using AHP. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68(1–4):907–916Xu Z, Qin J, Liu J, Martínez L (2019) Sustainable supplier selection based on AHP Sort II in interval type-2 fuzzy environment. Inf Sci 483:273–293Zaklad A, McKnight R, Kosansky A, Piermarini J (2004) The social side of the supply chain. Ind Eng 36(2):40–44Zhe S, Wong NT, Lee LH (2013) Using data envelopment analysis for supplier evaluation with environmental considerations. In: International systems conference, OrlandoZimmer K, Fröhling M, Schultmann F (2016) Sustainable supplier management: a review of models supporting sustainable supplier selection, monitoring and development. Int J Prod Res 54(5):1412–144

Measuring performance at the supply chain level: the role of the chain director

[EN] Supply chains lack their own across-the-board managers that can design and implement a performance measurement system (PMS), nor do they have an explicit overall strategy from which the PMS can be derived. The focus of this article is to develop a qualitative theoretical model on PM in supply chains to explore how to adopt PMS as a tool to implement collaboration and integration in chains. The exploratory nature of the research question determined our use of a multiple case study. Two focal firms in the agro-food sector from Spain and the Netherlands, serving a total of five different chains, illustrate the message of the model.The findings show when an attempt to implement a PMS at the supply chain level might be appropriate and effective (if a chain exists and has a director), and how the system’s content should be focused on what is needed to improve chain performance (with end customers’ demands as a starting point). The paper highlights the benefits obtained by the other partners if they comply with the best informed supply chain member in the development of the chain’s PMS, as well as how a PMS cannot be developed when none of the partners can be labelled as chain director.De Haan, JA.; Sacristán-Díaz, M. (2016). Measuring performance at the supply chain level: the role of the chain director. Working Papers on Operations Management. 7(1):1-21. doi:10.4995/wpom.v7i1.5380.SWORD12171Arzu Akyuz, G., & Erman Erkan, T. (2009). Supply chain performance measurement: a literature review. International Journal of Production Research, 48(17), 5137-5155. doi:10.1080/00207540903089536Aramyan, L. H., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., van der Vorst, J. G. A. J., & van Kooten, O. (2007). Performance measurement in agri‐food supply chains: a case study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 12(4), 304-315. doi:10.1108/13598540710759826Arif-Uz-Zaman, K., & Nazmul Ahsan, A. M. M. (2014). Lean supply chain performance measurement. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(5), 588-612. doi:10.1108/ijppm-05-2013-0092Bagchi, P. K., Chun Ha, B., Skjoett‐Larsen, T., & Boege Soerensen, L. (2005). Supply chain integration: a European survey. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 16(2), 275-294. doi:10.1108/09574090510634557Bailey, K., & Francis, M. (2008). Managing information flows for improved value chain performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(1), 2-12. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.017Batt, P. J., & Purchase, S. (2004). Managing collaboration within networks and relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(3), 169-174. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.11.004Beamon, B. M., & Chen, V. C. P. (2001). Performance analysis of conjoined supply chains. International Journal of Production Research, 39(14), 3195-3218. doi:10.1080/00207540110053156Bhagwat, R., & Sharma, M. K. (2007). Performance measurement of supply chain management using the analytical hierarchy process. Production Planning & Control, 18(8), 666-680. doi:10.1080/09537280701614407Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2010). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3), 163-180. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2010.12.008Carter, P. L., Carter, J. R., Monczka, R. M., Slaight, T. H., & Swan, A. J. (2000). The Future of Purchasing and Supply: A Ten-Year Forecast1. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 36(1), 14-26. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493x.2000.tb00066.xChan, F. T. S. (2003). Performance Measurement in a Supply Chain. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 21(7), 534-548. doi:10.1007/s001700300063Childerhouse, P., & Towill, D. R. (2003). Engineering the Seamless Supply Chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 14(1), 109-120. doi:10.1108/09574090310806486Ciliberti, F., de Haan, J., de Groot, G., & Pontrandolfo, P. (2011). CSR codes and the principal-agent problem in supply chains: four case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(8), 885-894. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.09.005Cox, A. (2004). The art of the possible: relationship management in power regimes and supply chains. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(5), 346-356. doi:10.1108/13598540410560739Cuthbertson, R., & Piotrowicz, W. (2011). Performance measurement systems in supply chains. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(6), 583-602. doi:10.1108/17410401111150760Dapiran, G. P., & Hogarth‐Scott, S. (2003). Are co‐operation and trust being confused with power? An analysis of food retailing in Australia and the UK. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(5), 256-267. doi:10.1108/09590550310472424De Haan, J., de Groot, G., Loo, E., & Ypenburg, M. (2003). Flows of goods or supply chains; lessons from the natural rubber industry in Kerala, India. International Journal of Production Economics, 81-82, 185-194. doi:10.1016/s0925-5273(02)00362-6Denzin, N.K. (1989). Strategies of multiple triangulation. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Fabbe‐Costes, N., & Jahre, M. (2008). Supply chain integration and performance: a review of the evidence. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 19(2), 130-154. doi:10.1108/09574090810895933Fisher, M. (1997). What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Review, Vol. March-April, pp. 105-116.Folan *, P., & Browne, J. (2005). Development of an extended enterprise performance measurement system. Production Planning & Control, 16(6), 531-544. doi:10.1080/09537280500112355Frohlich, M. T., & Westbrook, R. (2001). Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain strategies. Journal of Operations Management, 19(2), 185-200. doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(00)00055-3George, A.; Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Gereffi, G. (1999). International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain. Journal of International Economics, 48(1), 37-70. doi:10.1016/s0022-1996(98)00075-0Ghalayini, A. M., & Noble, J. S. (1996). The changing basis of performance measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(8), 63-80. doi:10.1108/01443579610125787Gopal, P. R. C., & Thakkar, J. (2012). A review on supply chain performance measures and metrics: 2000‐2011. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(5), 518-547. doi:10.1108/17410401211232957Gunasekaran, A., & Kobu, B. (2007). Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995–2004) for research and applications. International Journal of Production Research, 45(12), 2819-2840. doi:10.1080/00207540600806513Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & Tirtiroglu, E. (2001). Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(1/2), 71-87. doi:10.1108/01443570110358468Handfield, R. B., & Bechtel, C. (2002). The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(4), 367-382. doi:10.1016/s0019-8501(01)00169-9Kraljic, P. (1983). Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business Review, September-October, pp. 109-117.Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000). Issues in Supply Chain Management. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(1), 65-83. doi:10.1016/s0019-8501(99)00113-3Martin, P. R., & Patterson, J. W. (2009). On measuring company performance within a supply chain. International Journal of Production Research, 47(9), 2449-2460. doi:10.1080/00207540701725604Medlin, C. J. (2006). Self and collective interest in business relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59(7), 858-865. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.020Meredith, J. (1998). Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 441-454. doi:10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00023-0Morgan, C. (2007). Supply network performance measurement: future challenges? The International Journal of Logistics Management, 18(2), 255-273. doi:10.1108/09574090710816968Murphy, G. B., Trailer, J. W., & Hill, R. C. (1996). Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Research, 36(1), 15-23. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(95)00159-xPetersen, K. J., Ragatz, G. L., & Monczka, R. M. (2005). An Examination of Collaborative Planning Effectiveness and Supply Chain Performance. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 41(2), 14-25. doi:10.1111/j.1055-6001.2005.04102002.xSeuring, S. A. (2008). Assessing the rigor of case study research in supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(2), 128-137. doi:10.1108/13598540810860967Shepherd, C., & Günter, H. (2006). Measuring supply chain performance: current research and future directions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 55(3/4), 242-258. doi:10.1108/17410400610653219Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2), 195-219. doi:10.1108/01443570210414329Whipple, J. M., & Russell, D. (2007). Building supply chain collaboration: a typology of collaborative approaches. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 18(2), 174-196. doi:10.1108/09574090710816922Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.Zokaei, K., & Hines, P. (2007). Achieving consumer focus in supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 37(3), 223-247. doi:10.1108/0960003071074243

Knowledge acquisition in supply chain partnerships: The role of power

This is the post-print version of the final paper published in International Journal of Production Economics. The published article is available from the link below. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. Copyright @ 2013 Elsevier B.V.Knowledge is recognised as an important source of competitive advantage and hence there has been increasing academic and practitioner interest in understanding and isolating the factors that contribute to effective knowledge transfer between supply chain actors. The literature identifies power as a salient contributor to the effective operation of a supply chain partnership. However, there is a paucity of empirical research examining how power among actors influences knowledge acquisition and in turn the performance of supply chain partners. The aim of this research is to address this gap by examining the relationship between power, knowledge acquisition and supply chain performance among the supply chain partners of a focal Chinese steel manufacturer. A structured survey was used to collect the necessary data. Two conceptually independent variables – ‘availability of alternatives’ and ‘restraint in the use of power’ – were used to assess actual and realised power, respectively. Controlling for contingencies, we found that the flow of knowledge increased when supply chain actors had limited alternatives and when the more powerful actor exercised restraint in the use of power. Moreover, we found a positive relationship between knowledge acquisition and supply chain performance. This paper enriches the literature by empirically extending our understanding of how power affects knowledge acquisition and performance

Determinants of Informal Coordination in Networked Supply Chains

Purpose – Provide insight into the determinants or constructs that enable informally networked supply chains to operate in order to achieve improved operational performance. Design/methodology/approach – The research is based on a wide literature review, focused on the identification of dimensions of informal networking in supply chains along network connectivity, supply chain relationship alignment, informally networked supply chain, and operational performance. These determinants or constructs of informal networking were statistically validated for validity and reliability, using a sample of 231 supply chain professionals. Findings – Four determinant of informal networking were derived: capability connectivity, describing the ability of supply chain partners to rapidly and informally integrate capabilities to service an ad hoc market requirement; relationship alignment or the ability to informally integrate resources across supply chain partners in the context of highly dynamic market situations; the informally networked supply chain itself, measuring the ability of supply chain partners to respond to transient opportunities in the context of highly dynamic markets; and finally operational performance which measures the effect informal networking has on company performance. Research limitations/implications – Future research may investigate the effects of informally networked supply chains on a broader array of measures of company performance, and additional measures of operational performance. Practical implications – These newly developed constructs or determinants give managers further insight into which dimensions need to be fostered to enable informally networked supply chains to operate, and what operational gains may be potentially realised as a result of informal networking. Originality/value – This paper contributes to enhancing the understanding of the newly emerging phenomenon of informal networking in supply chains and how it may yield operational efficiency and effectiveness gains.construct development;coordination;informal networking;supply chain

Evolution of Supply Chain Collaboration: Implications for the Role of Knowledge

Increasingly, research across many disciplines has recognized the shortcomings of the traditional “integration prescription” for inter-organizational knowledge management. This research conducts several simulation experiments to study the effects of different rates of product change, different demand environments, and different economies of scale on the level of integration between firms at different levels in the supply chain. The underlying paradigm shifts from a static, steady state view to a dynamic, complex adaptive systems and knowledge-based view of supply chain networks. Several research propositions are presented that use the role of knowledge in the supply chain to provide predictive power for how supply chain collaborations or integration should evolve. Suggestions and implications are suggested for managerial and research purposes

Applying performance measures to support decision-making in supply chain operations: a case of beverage industry

Performance measurement systems (PMS) have commonly been applied to evaluate and reward performances at managerial levels, especially in the context of supply chain management. However, evidence suggests that the effective use of PMS can also positively influence the behaviour and improve performance at an operational level. The motivation is to accomplish organisational goals, namely to increase supply chain flexibility by responding to evermore-varying customer demands in a timely manner. The purpose of the study described in this paper was to develop a conceptual framework that adopts performance measures for ex-ante decision-making at an operational level within the supply chain. To guide the research, five questions were asked and subsequently key gaps have been identified. In an attempt to fill the gaps, a case study at a major global brand beverage company has been carried out, and as a result, a conceptual framework of the PMS has been developed. Overall, the research offers a foundation of the applicability and impact of PMS in the supply chain and provides a framework that attends to some of the potential uses of PMS that so far have not been practically applied. The outcomes from the testing indicate that the initial gaps identified in the literature have been addressed and that the framework is judicious with scope for practical applicability. The framework is deemed worthy of further testing in different operational contexts of the supply chain

Technic and Collaboration Breakdown Structures: Drivers of collaborative problem solving approaches in a supply chain context

Problem Solving Methodologies have been par excellence a cornerstone element of the firms’ strategy on achieving effective continuous improvement. But the enterprise evolution towards an extended environment characterized by network-based organization has radically changed the problem solving paradigms. This paper aims to propose a generic and collaborative methodology addressing more complex and distributed problems, dealing with Supply Chain issues and having a key role as a driver for building global competitive advantages and create superior performances at a Supply Chain level