Interorganisational - Supply Chain Management

Entries categorized as ‘Theory’

Oliver E. Williamson on SCM (Journal of SCM, 2008, 44:2)

June 2, 2008 · 1 Comment

SCM scholars refer frequently to the work of Oliver E. Willamson on transaction cost economics (for example this one in SCM:AIJ).

The latest issue of Journal of Supply Chain Ma Management (2008, Vol. 44, Number 2) contains an interesting surprise: Outsourcing: Transaction Cost Economics and Supply Chain Management by Oliver E. Williamson.

This paper, that can be downloaded via the link provided here, is interesting for several reasons. First, it is (hopefully) a startingpoint of dialogue between SCM and economics. Many SCM scholars have been using the terminology of TCE for several years, but they are now getting a response. Second, my concern is that the list of references does not necessarily reflect upon this application but builds on selected references to the SCM literature. Third, and perhaps most importantly, Williamson finishes his paper by suggesting nine “TCE Queries for SCM”. You can find theme here by scrolling down this html format of the paper. These suggestions, or questions, are much needed, and will hopefully be discussed in the near future. A lack of interest or ability to do so may leave an impression that is not in favour of further development of SCM?

However, there is no reason to be pessimistic, here is the first of nine questions raised by Williamson:

(1) TCE subscribes to pragmatic methodology. What is the methodology of SCM?

Now, the floor is yours! It would be interesting to discuss this and the other eight suggestions.

Árni

Categories: Research & Methodology · Supply Chain Management · Theory

Will more dialogoue between disciplines break the ‘functional silo’ mentality?

January 19, 2008 · No Comments

I was browsing throug the list of content of the 1/2008 issue of International Journal of Operations and Production Management and found it quite interesting to see how purchasing (or supply management in more recent terms) is represented in the kewords of the articles.

Least square approximation, Operations management, Productivity rate, Research

Business-to-business marketing, Buying behaviour, Internet, Process analysis, Procurement

Automotive industry, Sourcing, Suppliers

Customers, Financial performance, Quality improvement, Service failures

Point being that this helps disciplines to break out of their functional orientation, in this case purchasing and operations management. The domain of these two disciplines does overlap to some extent, but very often, purchasing papers are a target for purchasing journals (and conferences!), OM papers for OM journals (and conferences!), etc.

By considering the evolvement of topics presented at academic conferences, changes of professional organisations (both name and content) and how textbooks have developed, it is fair to say that supply chain management is today a common denominator for the three amigos of purchasing-logistics-and-operations management. We still remain to discuss whether SCM is an appropriate denominator or not.

Will more dialogoue between disciplines break the ‘functional silo’ mentality? Put more strongly, has the rather clear distinction between purchasing, operations management and logistics (departments at business schools, textbooks, programme structure and course content) been one of the major driving forces behind the functional silo mentality? Instead of requesting managers to break down the functional silo mentality, perhaps academia should have a look at their domains?

Árni

Categories: Academic journals · Theory

NOFOMA 2008 - Jun 4-6 in Helsinki

November 22, 2007 · No Comments

The abstract deadline for NOFOMA 2008 is approaching soon - note Jan 15 in your calendars! Uniquely, the conference is co-organised by four different universities, actually, ALL of those that have logistics education in the Helsinki region (and yes, I say Helsinki region, because oddly enough, the Helsinki University of Technology is actually located in Espoo, not in Helsinki). The big four are Hanken, the Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki University of Technology, and the National Defence University. Just in time that they’ve started to co-operate, after all this is nothing smaller than the 20th anniversary conference! So you can be sure of a great celebration in Helsinki during Jun 4-6.

While the website is migrating (we are still waiting for access rights), here are the crucial dates to note. And a link to the call for papers. UPDATE: you’ll find the CFP on the Nofoma 2008 page of this blog!

First to the dates:
- Deadline for structured abstracts (for Nofoma and Educators Day): Jan 15, 2008
- Full paper deadline (for Nofoma and Educators Day): Mar 28, 2008
- Revisions, WIP papers, poster sessions, and papers for the NORDLOG doctoral workshop: May 2, 2008
- Early bird registration: May 2, 2008
- NORDLOG Doctoral Workshop: Jun 4, 2008 (at the Helsinki University of Technology)
- NOFOMA Educators Day: Jun 4, 2008 (at the Helsinki School of Economics)
- NOFOMA main conference: Jun 5-6, 2008 (at HANKEN)

As you’ll note from the CFP, there are a couple of new features coming up with the conference.
- First of all, the educators day has a call for papers! I.e. please submit your teaching-relevant publications to the conference! They’ll be reviewed, and the ones that make it as a full paper will be included in the conference proceedings.
- Secondly, there is a poster session with a special deadline.
- And… lots of surprise elements to come. But they wouldn’t be surprises if I were to post them here, would they? ;-)

So, note the dates and have a look at the CFP. You’ll find all traditional logistics/SCM themes on it (from theoretical developments, modelling and simulation tracks, to TPL-related issues, ICT in logistics etc.). And a couple of new ones: humanitarian logistics, security & safety in traffic and transport (greetings to the EU’s 7FP), and healthcare supply chains.

Most importantly, this is a conference with a full paper review. And, best papers will be selected for the International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management.

Welcome to Helsinki in June!

Gyöngyi

Categories: Academic publications · Call for papers · Conferences · Humanitarian supply chains · PhD · Research & Methodology · Supply Chain Management · Theory

Fuzz about level of analysis

November 3, 2007 · No Comments

In this entry on Academic Journals and Functional Silos, I hinted at the idea that academic journals are centred traditional business functions such as operations, marketing, logistics, and purchasing.

Does this translate into a ‘functional silo’ thinking among academics and/or practitioners? That is, does this reproduce the ‘individual organisation’ as level of analysis rather than break out into other levels of analysis, such as teh the dyad, a set of three or more companies (a.k.a. supply chains), or a comprehensive network of companies?

Extending the level of analysis does not come without confusion. The term ’supply chain’ is often used to denote a variety of situations related to the boundaries of the firm; supply chain performance measurement, supply chain innovation, supply chain relationships, and improving the supply chain. The danger is that the label of ’supply chain’ is used to situations of everthing from relationships in dyads to comprehensive networks.

Take the concept of supply chain performance as an example; where does it start, and where does it end? Who should measure the performance? And what supply chain should be measured?

Adding supply chain to concepts such as management, performance, impact, competition, and improvement does not come without challenge.

Árni

Categories: Supply Chain Management · Theory · supply chain

3PL not replaced after all?

October 20, 2007 · 1 Comment

Abbreviations summarise a set of ideas and concepts, that when added together, become laden with positive attributes, regarded as ’strategies’, ’solutions’, or ‘visions’. Take VMI, SCM, BPR, and 3PL for example. In other cases, metaphors take over: lean, agile, chain, silos.

Almost a decade ago, the common understanding and ability of ‘3PL’ was challenged - 4PL was introduced. The following discussion included an interesting development in the logistics service industry - but has 4PL taken over as a label? Considering article titles of journal articles, 3PL is still used as the main label for the operations and services of logistics firms.

Árni

Categories: Socks and sandals · Theory

The idea of “supply chain vs. supply chains”.

September 18, 2007 · 3 Comments

It is becoming somewhat a common notion in the literature of SCM that the domain of competition has now moved from the company level; it is about supply chains vs. supply chains.

I am still not convinced.

1. Will this apply in all circumstances? What if two companies competing on the same marked share suppliers for critical (or dare I say strategic) components?

2. Where has the literature on strategic management, in particular the resource based view, adopted a supply chain perspective?

Árni

Categories: Supply Chain Management · Theory

Volatile business environment or incomplete ‘business models’?

September 14, 2007 · No Comments

In many textbooks and almost every major (and minor) student assignment, I read about the ever fierce competition in many industries, fueled by globalisation and IT, and of course, this does put logistics & supply chain management into the centre of the Universe.

I had one of these crazy moments of thougth at the LRN 2007 conference last week during one of the sessions. During the last 20 or 30 years, many business models in logistics call for integration and substantial reduction of redundancies (cut down inventories, etc). Well, so far so good.

Recent vocabualry in the SCM literature includes resiliance, risk, robustness, sustainability, product recalls, reverse logistics.

Is this due to the fact that the business environment is changing fast? Or can it be the case, that many ‘business models’ do not allow realistic (e.g. in terms of time and cost) reaction to changes? Further, has this new vocabulary developed as a consequence of the incompletness of the ‘old business models’, that have left businesses with a vulnerable design of their supply chain?`

In other word, and as stated in a previous blog: Is supply chain management the solution to a particular problem, or maybe the problem itself?

Árni

Categories: Reverse Logistics · Supply Chain Management · Theory

Debating SCM research

September 2, 2007 · No Comments

Arguably (and yes, this is to be debated as well), SCM research lacks a real debate. Yes, we build on each others’ results, and the peer review of journals is there to ensure the academic quality of an article. Yet, three questions arise:

(1) Is an article of “good quality” because its results are underpinned by the “correct” use of research methods and the text has a logical flow? How often do we only get some lovely statistical values of an analysis without ever questioning how survey questions were phrased (and what they actually mean)?

(2) How come SCM journals are restricted to scientific articles and book reviews? Other disciplines do have lead articles and invited debaters, and/or even poetry (which this blog called for earlier). Why don’t we introduce at least the debates?

(3) How and where can we debate SCM research? If not in scientific journals, what are the outlets we can use? Blogs are one alternative (as for e.g. management, marketing etc.), another one would be using a discussion forum or any other (edited) online outlet such as e.g. spiked.

So, what ever happened to a debate about SCM research? Do we agree with everything other researchers say? How do we say it if we don’t? And what’s the best outlet for our criticism? Let’s start a real debate - maybe at the upcoming LRN conference?

Gyöngyi

Categories: Academic journals · Conferences · Supply Chain Management · Theory

Are supply chains the creation of PowerPoint?

June 25, 2007 · 1 Comment

The presentation program PowerPoint has had a great impact on the way we present ideas and as well as supporting evidence for our claims. The problem is that sometimes these ideas are — intentionally or unintentionally — presented as an existing practice.

Take the phrase “supply chains”, for example. Supply Chains are frequently depicted in PowerPoint presentations in a linear format with the focal company in the middle. In todays version of PowerPoint, a colorful representation of supply chains takes only few clicks. Microsoft Office ‘95 and Office ‘97 were launched during a period of time where supply chain management also started to become a widespread phrase.

Is there a relationship between the development of PowerPoint and the use of “supply chain” to explain business practices?

Árni

Categories: Supply Chain Management · Theory · supply chain

Mamma Mia! — How you listen, what you hear.

May 14, 2007 · 3 Comments

A remark on relationships and the origin of concepts.

After seeing the ABBA musical Mamma Mia! in London’s West End I’ve become a bit concerned about — or maybe interested in — the origin of the ideas that lead into our research. Related to this, what influences you when you are thinking, discussing, and writing research proposals, analysis and/or results? The tsunami catastrophe, earthquakes, hurricanes and even 9/11 have made a number of scholars interested in various form of supply chain risk and humanitarian logistics.

When listening to the songs in Mamma Mia!, many of which were on the hit lists in the mid and late 1970s and until the early 1980s, I realised that they do to a large extent relate to relationships. What I heard at the musical, however, was not necessarily a romantic relationship alone, but also…and here it comes…buyer-supplier relationships.

Chiquitita:
…tell me the truth
Im a shoulder you can cry on
our best friend, Im the one you must rely on

Some articles on business relationships refer to “trust” and “vocie strategies”.

I do, I do, I do, I do, I do:
So love me or leave me,
make your choice but believe me
I love you

(Re-)Negotiation.

Knowing Me, Knowing You:
Breaking up is never easy, I know but I have to go

Reducing the supplier base.

Money, money, money:
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Aint it sad
And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me

Arms length vs. long-term buyer-supplier relationships. In particular, Dyer’s paper on Transaction Value came into my mind.

S.O.S.:
Where are those happy days, they seem so hard to find
I tried to reach for you, but you have closed your mind

Opportunism?

Take A Chance On Me:
If you change your mind, Im the first in line
Honey Im still free
Take a chance on me

Supplier selection or supplier reduction.

Mamma Mia:
Ive been cheated by you since I dont know when

Moral hazard and supply chain risk?

Super trouper
Super Trouper beams are gonna blind me
But I wont feel blue
Like I always do
cause somewhere in the crowd theres you

Screening the supplier market - and element of both Krajlic’s portfolio model and Ellram’s discussion of Total Cost of Ownership.

Influence or not, the remaining issue is that phrases like collaboration, partnerships, close integration, supply chains, networks and relationships are too often used without further relfection, and may as such, easily become dogmatic, especially since it is difficult if not possible to trace the origins of these concepts.

These are the thoughts generated during the musical. Here are the questions that did emerge after the show:

1. Did the ABBA songs have an influence on the early publications of networks, inter-firm interaction, and buyer-supplier relationships that have emerged since the mid 1970s?

2. If there is some correlation to be found in question 1, the more important question is: What music may you be listening to when thinking about your research topics or writing your papers?

A sub-component of the latter question is whether the rigor of the research methods manages to neturalise this potential influence. But at the end of the day, is research truly objective, conducted without any personal emotions and influence of good music?

Árni

Categories: Theory