Category Archives: Theory

Fuzz about level of analysis

Posted on November 3, 2007 by | Leave a comment

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

→ Leave a comment

Posted in supply chain, Supply Chain Management, Theory

3PL not replaced after all?

Posted on October 20, 2007 by | 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

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Socks and sandals, Theory

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

Posted on September 18, 2007 by | 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

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Supply Chain Management, Theory

Volatile business environment or incomplete ‘business models’?

Posted on September 14, 2007 by | Leave a comment

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

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Reverse Logistics, Supply Chain Management, Theory

Debating SCM research

Posted on September 2, 2007 by | Leave a comment

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

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Academic journals, Conferences, Supply Chain Management, Theory

Are supply chains the creation of PowerPoint?

Posted on June 25, 2007 by | 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

→ 1 Comment

Posted in supply chain, Supply Chain Management, Theory

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

Posted on May 14, 2007 by | 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

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Theory

Organization Theory and Supply Chain Management

Posted on May 12, 2007 by | 1 Comment

Here you find an introductory paper to a special issue on Organization Theory and Supply Chain Management that was recently published in Journal of Operations Management (edited by David J. Ketchen Jr. and Tomas M. Hult).

They state that “…to date, researchers interested in operations management in general and in supply chain management (SCM) in particular have made limited use of organizational theories”. Here is the full abstract:

Organization theory (OT) has the potential to offer provocative and helpful wisdom to the field of supply chain management, yet OT’s potential has remained largely underdeveloped in the supply chain arena. As a result, enormous opportunities exist to integrate insights from organization theory and supply chain management in order to build understanding of why some supply chains excel while others do not. We preview the contributions toward developing such a synthesis offered by each of the articles contained in this special issue. Collectively, the articles take a significant step toward closing the gap between ‘what we know’ and ‘what we need to know’ about supply chain management.

It would be interesting to reverse this and ask what Organization Theory may learn from SCM?! The challenge of that discussion is the difficulty of explaining what “chain” is all about, and more specifically, to what extent “chains” do constitute an object of study (for researchers) or a managerial domain (business managers).

Edited: It should be added that James Stock made this call more than ten years ago in this paper , who identifies a number of areas of study that the field of logistics can benefit borrowing theories from.

Árni

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Supply Chain Management, Theory

Back to the future #1

Posted on May 1, 2007 by | 2 Comments

In 1969, Donald Bowersox wrote “Some Issues for Research” at the end of this paper: Physical Distribution Development, Current Status, and Potential (Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, January, pp. 63-70). Here is the abstract:

Physical distribution, one of the oldest facets of commercial enterprise, has historically been one of the most neglected of business subjects. A flurry of attention has focused upon the concept of integrated physical distribution since the mid-1950s. In this article the where been, where now, and where going of physical distribution are examined. The author first reviews major developments which have served to establish the field of physical distribution. The second section provides a synthesis of developments into a summary statement of the existing state of physical distribution. The final section provides a review of research topics on the fore-front of development in 1969.

In particular, five issues were considered as “…areas and issues that appear most germane to subject matter expansion during the immediate future“. These five issues are listed in bold below. It is worth noting that they all do emphasise issues of interest for both researchers and practitioners within SCM. Below, I have selected few remarks from the article that relate to each of the five issues.

1. Some Remaining issues of Cost

“At the individual firm and channel level, traditional accounting does not generally provide the necessary information for physical distribution making“.

2. The International Arena
“…physical distribution may be a major factor toward helping emerging nations become tomorrow’s mass markets“.

3. The Channel – a Research Media
“In the years ahead, we can expect significant returns from channel-orientated physical distribution research“.

4. Issues of Time in Physical Distribution System
“The relevant concept in inventory models that embraces transportation is the order cycle“.

5. Some Final Issues
“As with any emerging field, physical distribution currently suffers from a lack of standardized definition of vocabulary“.

Some years ago I used this paper as one of the core texts in a course in Logistics Management, and found it very useful. This paper was also among the references we used in this paper on Research Methodologies in Supply Chain Management — What Do We Know? .

Árni

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Research & Methodology, Supply Chain Management, Theory

In (no) search of SCM theory

Posted on March 5, 2007 by | Leave a comment

Again and again, supply chain management is criticised for being a-theoretical. But is it? Whereas no scholar would probably argue for SCM being a theory, it makes use of a myriad of theories. As Jim Stock once wrote, why re-invent the wheel? Why not borrow theories instead and use them in SCM?

Jan Stentoft Arlbjørn and Árni once argued that it is a question of the maturity of a discipline if it has it’s own theory/theories. As for logistics, Mentzer et al. have started developing a “unified” theory… . But, why does every discipline need its own theory? Yes, other disciplines do, but aren’t other disciplines also “stuck” in their development?

Who wants to be mature but stuck?

Gyöngyi

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Supply Chain Management, Theory