Cross‐Functional Integration: Concept Clarification and Scale Development

• Published date: 01 June 2019
• Author: Daniel A. Pellathy,Theodore P. Stank,Chad W. Autry,Diane A. Mollenkopf
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12206
• Date: 01 June 2019

Cross-Functional Integration: Concept Clarification and Scale

Development

Daniel A. Pellathy

1

, Diane A. Mollenkopf

2

, Theodore P. Stank

2

, and Chad W. Autry

2

1

Grand Valley State University

2

University of Tennessee

The centrality of cross-functional integration (CFI) to supply chain theory and practice has long been recognized. Yet researchers continue to

struggle with consistently defining or measuring the CFI construct, thus limiting the utility of CFI research. This research develops (1) a com-

prehensive definition of CFI that synthesizes previous supply chain research and (2) a valid set of scale items that measure the conceptual domain

outlined by this definition. The goal is to build a common foundation for extending knowledge on CFI’s antecedents and consequences, and ulti-

mately to improve scholars’ability to guide a broader practitioner community still struggling to achieve integration in their organizations.

Keywords: integration; cross-functional; internal; interdepartmental; supply chain; middle-range theory; definition; measure; construct

development; scale development

INTRODUCTION

The centrality of cross-functional integration (CFI) to supply

chain management (SCM) theory and practice has long been rec-

ognized (Frankel et al. 2008). Managerial surveys from earlier

this decade cited internal integration of supply chain-related busi-

ness functions as a principal challenge inhibiting organizational

performance (Thomas et al. 2011). Yet, several years and dozens

of research studies later, CFI remains poorly understood by

scholars and managers. This is occurring largely due to a lack of

consistency in defining and operationalizing CFI across numer-

ous scholarly and applied research studies.

One reason for this poor specification stems from CFI’s con-

ceptual heritage. As a research construct, CFI emerged from at

least three discrete theoretical bases spanning the plural, rela-

tively disconnected subdisciplines that have come to comprise

the modern SCM field. As Oliva and Watson (2011, 435) noted,

“integration occupies a central place in several domains ... with

each discipline focusing on different organizational activities or

components.”Though there is some agreement across the SCM

subdisciplines as to CFI’s“true”nature, the discreteness of the

subdisciplinary thought schools has often led researchers to view

CFI through the lens of their own academic heritage. This situa-

tion exemplifies an acknowledged problem inherent to the SCM

academy, in which “divergent theoretical, ontological, and

methodological traditions...have led to conceptual fragmentation

that challenges knowledge development, dissemination, and

application”(Petersen and Autry 2014, 36).

The lack of consistency in understanding the CFI construct

has potentially serious, negative implications for the field. As

Table 1 demonstrates, researchers from across the SCM subdis-

ciplines have been voicing concerns regarding CFI’s specifica-

tion for over twenty years. The absence of a common

specification has created confusion over CFI’s conceptual scope,

making it difficult for scholars to establish construct validity

within and across studies (Turkulainen and Ketokivi 2012). The

inconsistent specification naturally begets inconsistent measure-

ment, leading to mixed findings, and thereby limiting research-

ers’ability to articulate an established body of knowledge

(Autry et al. 2014). Meta-analyses cannot overcome this prob-

lem, as the interpretation of meta-analytic results depends on

compatibility of the underlying conceptualizations and measures

(Mackelprang et al. 2014). And, perhaps most concerning of

all, CFI’s conceptual fragmentation undermines the practical

value of its focal research. By failing to actualize a common

understanding of CFI, SCM scholars have to date foregone the

opportunity to provide critical guidance to a managerial com-

munity that acknowledges a struggle to integrate functional

areas within its companies (Thomas et al. 2011; Jin et al.

2013).

In response, this research seeks to remedy inconsistencies

regarding the definition and measure of CFI by developing a mid-

dle-range CFI construct that encompasses the breadth of the SCM

discipline while retaining the nuances of its subdisciplines. The

paper begins with a review of three foundational notions of the

general concept of integration within an organization that appear in

the literature, including the integration of goals, of activities, and

of knowledge. Supply chain management researchers have consis-

tently drawn upon these foundational notions when defining the

more narrow and specific concept of integration within a SCM

context. These foundational notions provide a strong theoretical

basis for developing a holistic characterization of CFI that encom-

passes the three basic dimensions of the concept—collaboration to

develop goals, coordination of activities, and communication of

knowledge. This research, therefore, seeks to establish a theoreti-

cally grounded and empirically validated CFI construct that taps

each of these dimensions using the dominant terminology applied

by SCM researchers and practitioners. A rigorous process of scale

development and testing is reported, with the validity and structure

of the new scale thoroughly assessed under multiple scenarios

(Koufteros et al. 2009; MacKenzie et al. 2011). The resulting con-

struct can be applied in multiple research streams while remaining

Corresponding author:

Daniel A. Pellathy,Management Department, Seidman Collegeof Busi-

ness, Grand Valley State University, 50 Front Avenue, SW, Grand

Rapids, MI 49504-6424,USA; E-mail: daniel_pellathy@gvsu.edu

Journal of Business Logistics, 2019, 40(2): 81–104 doi: 10.1111/jbl.12206

© 2019 Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

supply chain specific, so as to facilitate further explorations of the

concept in a SCM context.

A GENERAL THEORETICAL FOUNDATION FOR

UNDERSTANDING CFI

Integration is perhaps the focal concept in SCM (Frankel et al.

2008). As Pagell (2004, p. 460) put it, “in its essence the entire

concept of supply chain management is really predicated on

integration.”SCM scholars have consistently distinguished

between two different types of integration: (1) integration that

occurs between an organization and its upstream/downstream

trading partners and (2) integration that occurs within a company

among its own internal supply chain functions (Mackelprang

et al. 2014). The focus of this research is on defining and opera-

tionalizing the second type of integration, which scholars have

called cross-functional, interfunctional, interdepartmental, intra-

organizational, or internal integration. This research adopts the

term cross-functional integration because—more than any other

term—cross-functional integration roots the concept in the earli-

est discussions of SCM as a unique approach to value creation

predicated on working across the internal functional siloes that

form around companies’purchasing, operations, and logistics

activities (Oliver and Webber 1982; Laseter and Oliver 2003).

Just as organizational siloes have long represented a major

obstacle to SCM practice, academic siloes have impeded SCM the-

ory as pertains to defining and measuring CFI (Petersen and Autry

2014). Supply chain management’s root subdisciplines of purchas-

ing, operations, and logistics bring their own perspectives to CFI

research, each grounded in distinct theoretical and methodological

traditions (Zacharia et al. 2014). Logistics researchers, for

instance, tend to view CFI as a relational process, emphasizing

integrative practices such as informal interactions, prosocial behav-

iors, participative decision making, and consensual conflict resolu-

tion (Kahn and Mentzer 1996; Song et al. 1997; Ellinger et al.

2006; Daugherty et al. 2009; Thornton et al. 2016). Operations

management researchers, meanwhile, focus on managing organiza-

tional flows, emphasizing process coordination and control mecha-

nisms, the use of analytics and other decision-making tools, and

the application of management information systems (Kouvelis

et al. 2006). Purchasing researchers bring yet another perspective,

focusing largely on the management of cross-functional teams

(Moses and 

Ahlstr€

om 2008; Driedonks et al. 2014; Kaufmann and

Wagner 2017). A process perspective found in the logistics litera-

ture (Lambert et al. 2005; Chen et al. 2009) and a general interest

in information exchange (Speier et al. 2008) add to this diversity.

The first step toward reconciling the diversity of perspectives on

the more specific concept of CFI in a SCM context requires a foun-

dational theoretical understanding of the general concept of inte-

gration within an organization. SCM research on CFI—whether in

operations, purchasing, or logistics—is rooted in foundational

scholarship addressing the effective management of complex orga-

nizations (Forrester 1958; March and Simon 1958; Buffa 1961;

Cyert and March 1963; Starr 1964; Alderson and Martin 1965;

Lawrence and Lorsch 1967; Thompson 1967; Galbraith 1974;

Mintzberg 1980). This foundational scholarship pointed to a cru-

cial tension within organizations between the need to specialize

within functional areas to gain efficiencies and the need to manage

across interdependent functional areas to maximize organizational

performance. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) addressed this tension

between functions when they defined the general concept of inte-

gration within an organization as bringing together different areas

of specialization (differentiation) to achieve “unity of effort.”

Foundational scholarship on the general concept of integration

within an organization provided three general notions as to why

the need for integration arises in organizations, what is being

integrated, and how integration affects performance (Barki and

Pinsonneault 2005). These three foundational notions define

Table 1: CFI: Findings of inconsistency in past SCM research

Citation Journal Issues raised

Kahn and Mentzer

(1996)

IJPDLM Construct validity

Narasimhan and

Das (2001)

JOM Construct validity

Pagell (2004) JOM Construct validity

Fabbe-Costes and

Jahre (2008)

IJLM Construct validity

Mixed findings

Troy et al. (2008) JM Construct validity

Chen et al. (2009) JBL Construct validity

Flynn et al. (2010) JOM Construct validity

Thomas et al. (2011) IJPDLM Practitioner relevance

Oliva and Watson (2011) JOM Construct validity

Turkulainen and

Ketokivi (2012)

IJOPM Construct validity

Mixed findings

Leuschner et al. (2013) JSCM Construct validity

Mixed findings

Meta-analytic challenges

Jin et al. (2013) JBL Construct validity

Practitioner relevance

Autry et al. (2014) JBL Construct validity

Mixed findings

Lack of theoretical

development

Mackelprang

et al. (2014)

JBL Construct validity

Mixed findings

Meta-analytic challenges

Frankel and

Mollenkopf (2015)

JBL Construct validity

Mixed findings

Lack of theoretical

development

Swink and

Schoenherr (2015)

JBL Construct validity

Lack of theoretical

development

Wieland et al. (2016) JBL Construct validity

Lack of theoretical

development

CFI, Cross-functional integration; SCM, supply chain management;

IJLM, International Journal of Logistics Management; IJOPM, Interna-

tional Journal of Operations & Production Management; IJPDLM, Inter-

national Journal of Production, Distribution & Logistics Management;

JBL, Journal of Business Logistics; JM, Journal of Marketing; JOM,

Journal of Operations Management; JSCM, Journal of Supply Chain

Management.

82 D. A. Pellathy et al.