Douglas M. Lambert

Issues in Supply Chain Management

Abstract Successful supply chain management requires cross-functional integration and marketing must play a critical role. The challenge is to determine how to successfully accomplish this integration. We present a framework for supply chain management as well as questions for how it might be implemented and questions for future research. Case studies conducted at several companies and involving multiple members of supply chains are used to illustrate the concepts described.

Supply Chain Management: More Than a New Name for Logistics

Practitioners and educators have variously addressed the concept of supply chain management (SCM) as an extension of logistics, the same as logistics, or as an all‐encompassing approach to business integration. Based on a review of the literature and management practice, it is clear that there is a need for some level of coordination of activities and processes within and between organizations in the supply chain that extends beyond logistics. We believe that this is what should be called SCM. This article proposes a conceptual model that provides guidance for future supply chain decision‐making and research.

Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities

In 1998, the Council of Logistics Management modified its definition of logistics to indicate that logistics is a subset of supply chain management and that the two terms are not synonymous. Now that this difference has been recognized by the premier logistics professional organization, the challenge is to determine how to successfully implement supply chain management. This paper concentrates on operationalizing the supply chain management framework suggested in a 1997 article. Case studies conducted at several companies and involving multiple members of supply chains are used to illustrate the concepts described.

Supply Chain Metrics

Most discussions and articles about supply chain metrics are, in actuality, about internal logistics performance measures. The lack of a widely accepted definition for supply chain management and the complexity associated with overlapping supply chains make the development of supply chain metrics difficult. Despite these problems, managers continue to pursue supply chain metrics as a means to increase their “line of sight” over areas they do not directly control, but have a direct impact on their companys performance. We provide a framework for developing supply chain metrics that translates performance into shareholder value. The framework focuses on managing the interfacing customer relationship management and supplier relationship management processes at each link in the supply chain. The translation of process improvements into supplier and customer profitability provides a method for developing metrics that identify opportunities for improved profitability and align objectives across all of the firms in the supply chain.

Developing and Implementing Supply Chain Partnerships

Many executives are developing supply chain partnerships in an attempt to reduce costs, improve service and gain competitive advantage. While partnerships can be beneficial, they are not appropriate in all situations. This article provides a model which can be used to determine whether a partnership is warranted, and if so, how close of a partnership is warranted.

THE SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT PROCESSES

Increasingly, supply chain management is being recognized as the management of key business processes across the network of organizations that comprise the supply chain. While many have recognized the benefits of a process approach to managing the business and the supply chain, most are vague about what processes are to be considered, what sub‐processes and activities are contained in each process, and how the processes interact with each other and with the traditional functional silos. In this paper, we provide strategic and operational descriptions of each of the eight supply chain processes identified by members of The Global Supply Chain Forum, as well as illustrations of the interfaces among the processes and an example of how a process approach can be implemented within an organization. Our aim is to provide managers with a framework to be used in implementing supply chain management, instructors with material useful in structuring a supply chain management course, and researchers with a set of opportunities for further development of the field.

The Returns Management Process

Returns management is the supply chain management process by which activities associated with returns, reverse logistics, gatekeeping, and avoidance are managed within the firm and across key members of the supply chain. The correct implementation of this process enables management not only to manage the reverse product flow efficiently, but to identify opportunities to reduce unwanted returns and to control reusable assets such as containers. In this paper, we describe how the returns management process can be implemented within a firm and across the supply chain. The process is described in terms of its sub‐processes and associated activities, and the interfaces with corporate functions, other supply chain management processes and other firms. Examples of successful implementation are provided.

Internet-enabled coordination in the supply chain

Abstract The Internet fosters the integration of business processes across the supply chain by facilitating the information flows necessary for coordinating business activities. However, the Internet also supports the use of market mechanisms, such as auctions, that foster price competition. Using market mechanisms is less likely to generate a sustainable competitive advantage, but they might offer the opportunity to purchase some items at a lower price. Managers have the challenge of selecting the Internet-enabled coordination mechanism that best fits the needs of a variety of business situations in the supply chain. The authors present a framework to assist managers with this decision.

Measuring and Selling the Value of Logistics

In order to receive adequate rewards for the firms innovations and performance in logistics, managers have to measure and sell the value that is being provided to customers. Value, once determined, must be sold to customers and also to top management within the firm. There are several value metrics mentioned in the literature, ranging in financial sophistication from customer satisfaction to shareholder value including: customer satisfaction, customer value‐added (CVA), total cost analysis, segment profitability analysis, strategic profit model and shareholder value. While customer satisfaction and CVA may lead to the achievement of higher shareholder value, the specific connection to changes in value for the customer or the supplier are typically not made. The other measures focus on the measurement of value in financial terms. However, financial measurements such as total cost analysis only capture part of the value created by logistics. One of the problems faced by logistics professionals over the years is that logistics has been viewed simply as a cost that needs to be reduced. Segment profitability analysis and the strategic profit model are more complete measures of the impact of logistics, but they are used to evaluate historical performance and lack measures of risk and the time value of money that are included in shareholder value.

A Customer‐based Competitive Analysis for Logistics Decisions

Evidence suggests that the recent interest in competitive strategy and competitive positioning, while good in itself, has resulted in the management of many firms placing too much emphasis on competitive performance and too little emphasis on customer expectations. This research in the chemical industry provides support for the conclusion that management needs to refocus on the customer if US companies are going to succeed in the increasingly competitive marketplace. A methodology is presented that can be used by management to collect and analyse customer‐based competitive data for use in establishing priorities for customer service expenditures.