Evolving Functional Perspectives Within Supply Chain Management

• Published date: 01 January 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12022
• Author: Nada R. Sanders,Brian S. Fugate,Zach G. Zacharia
• Date: 01 January 2014

EVOLVING FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVES WITHIN SUPPLY

CHAIN MANAGEMENT

ZACH G. ZACHARIA AND NADA R. SANDERS

Lehigh University

BRIAN S. FUGATE

Colorado State University

Since its introduction over three decades ago, the field of supply chain

management (SCM) has undergone numerous transformations. Today it is

a prevailing theme in scholarly and popular research, and numerous dis-

parate disciplines claim its ownership. Despite the field’s evolution there

continues to be little agreement on the domain and unifying theory of

SCM, as well as a consensus definition. The result has been a lack of

clarity as to the scope of SCM, “siloed”research methodologies, and par-

allel research efforts. We interviewed 50 academic scholars across disci-

plines, as well as 20 SCM business executives, to extract commonality of

opinion and discuss the future of SCM. The most important of these find-

ings are the identification of “common ground”regarding the definition

and scope of SCM, establishment of the need for interdisciplinary

research, the recognition of the existence of “inner”and “outer core”

functions central to SCM, and the nature of functional involvement in

interdisciplinary research. In this paper we present these findings and pro-

vide a path forward based on the collective wisdom of these scholars and

executives.

Keywords: supply chain management; purchasing/operations; purchasing/IS

INTRODUCTION

The field of supply chain management (SCM) has

undergone significant development and change over

the past three decades, as the term was first coined by

Keith Oliver in a 1982 Financial Times article (Laseter

& Oliver, 2003). In fact, even after 31 years, there is

little agreement on the primary functions responsible

for SCM; there is no overarching and unifying theory

of SCM; there is not even a consensus definition of

SCM. Yet, there are over 82 periodicals that now pub-

lish SCM articles and case studies (Menachof, Gibson

& Hanna, 2009). An increasing number of functions

are being identified as directly relevant to SCM. In

addition to the four functions identified as founda-

tional —operations, logistics, supply management,

and marketing (Frankel, Bolumole, Eltantawy, Paulraj

& Gundlach, 2008) —management information sys-

tems (MIS) is increasingly viewed as integral to SCM.

Further, areas such as finance, economics, accounting,

psychology, sociology, human resources, and organi-

zational behavior are being included as relevant

(Bertrand & Fransoo, 2002).

The result has been a lack of clarity regarding the

meaning and scope of SCM, “siloed” research meth-

odologies, and parallel research efforts. In fact, a

meta-analysis of SCM research documents that differ-

ent interpretations of the same concepts, as well as

using different concepts with the same meaning, is

highly problematic for researchers (Fabbe-Costes &

Jahre, 2008). A more cohesive understanding of SCM

is needed for researchers to develop a consistent

stream of research that builds on what has been

carried out in the past, helps identify relevant research

directions, and establishes acceptable rigorous meth-

odologies. In addition, a clearer understanding of

SCM would enable researchers and executives to work

January 2014 73

more collaboratively to address particularly complex

and intractable problems endemic in today’s business

environment. The ability to address emerging SCM

challenges, such as global value creation and delivery,

healthcare services delivery, or improving food distri-

bution networks in emerging economies, would bene-

fit from a more unifying, definitional, and theoretical

lens.

To better understand these issues, we interviewed 50

journal editors across a range of key functions, as well

as 20 SCM executives. Interviews are ideal to capture

the state of a field when it is undergoing rapid change

and there are significant time delays from when a

change occurs to when it is reported in academic jour-

nals (Melnyk, Lummus, Vokurka, Burns & Sandor,

2009). We interviewed scholars from operations man-

agement, logistics, supply management, and market-

ing —the functions identified as foundational to

SCM (Frankel et al., 2008). In addition, based on

responses from academic participants, we included

scholars from MIS. Our objective was to extract com-

monality of opinion regarding the current state of

SCM and its future direction and to develop a better

understanding of SCM across functions. We did not

attempt to introduce a new or novel definition or

conceptualization of SCM, but rather find “common

ground” from which to advance the development of

SCM. Identification of commonalities and differences

between the functions was seen as a precursor to

exploring opportunities for constructive change.

To complement the theoretical perspective, our

interviews also included SCM executives to develop a

more comprehensive view of SCM and to understand

SCM implementation challenges at the firm level.

Although the executives underscored many of the

same challenges raised by the academics, they offered

a complementary perspective. For example, the execu-

tives noted their own views of SCM as being organiza-

tionally and industry “siloed” and very much focused

on their own function. They also noted that func-

tional roles within business organizations have chan-

ged as SCM has evolved in importance within the

firm. In this paper, we present these findings and pro-

vide a view of the evolving functional roles in SCM

based on the collective wisdom of these scholars and

executives.

DIFFERENCES IN FUNCTIONAL

PERSPECTIVES

Divergent Definitions

Researchers from many functions have put forth

varying definitions of SCM. A subset of these defini-

tions taken from introductory textbooks within each

function is shown in Tables 1 and 2. Most attempt to

be as comprehensive and as inclusive as possible,

elaborating on both downstream and upstream man-

agement of networks of organizations and processes,

with a focus on the end customer. Reviewing these

definitions, however, reveals a definitional bias influ-

enced by the unique perspective of each function. For

example, operations’ definitions of SCM typically

focus on issues related to the mechanism of design

and delivery of goods; logistics definitions focus on

the flow of materials; purchasing definitions focus on

raw materials; and marketing definitions focus on the

link to the channels of distribution.

Although there is commonality, each function has

defined and conceptualized SCM slightly differently

and there is a lack of definitional consensus (Stock &

Boyer, 2009). There is even disagreement as to

whether SCM is a management philosophy, imple-

mentation of a management philosophy, or a set of

management processes (Gundlach, Bolumole, Eltan-

tawy & Frankel, 2006). These different perspectives

have resulted in a “siloed” study of SCM. They have

also resulted in “turf wars” for the ownership of SCM

and the creation of numerous barriers for the progress

and evolution of SCM theory.

Topical and Methodological Differences

Functional areas of study sometimes lock into a par-

ticular paradigm, theory, or research method, ignoring

complementary developments in other functions that

could provide additional insights (Merchant, Van der

Stede & Zheng, 2003). Reviewing textbooks and

research articles by function enables identification of

dominant SCM research areas and methodologies;

Table 3 lists commonality and research gaps across

the five functions.

As seen in Table 3, the five foundational SCM func-

tions exhibit topical and methodological commonal-

ity. All are increasingly focused on elevating their

function as a critical strategic element in achieving a

competitive advantage. In addition, each function is

evolving toward a broader, external orientation, in line

with the study of SCM (Frankel et al., 2008). However,

each function remains “siloed,” conducting SCM

research within their own domain. Each function is

also shifting their methodological focus, with some

adopting more mathematical methodologies, and oth-

ers shifting to a broader use of empirical methods.

A review of function-based SCM research reveals

common trends across all five functions. First, all five

functions have recognized the need to evolve from an

intrafirm focus to a more holistic, strategic, and col-

laborative focus across the supply chain. Second,

although each function tends to favor a particular

research methodology, such as preferring empirical

methods or modeling, the functions have begun to

Volume 50, Number 1

Journal of Supply Chain Management

74