Reconsidering the Supply Chain Integration–Performance Relationship: In Search of Theoretical Consistency and Clarity

• Author: John E. Bell,Chad W. Autry,William J. Rose
• Published date: 01 September 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12059
• Date: 01 September 2014

Dialogue

Reconsidering the Supply Chain Integration–Performance

Relationship: In Search of Theoretical Consistency and Clarity

Chad W. Autry

1,2

, William J. Rose

1

, and John E. Bell

1

1

The University of Tennessee

2

University of Bath

Supply chain integration (SCI) p urportedly helps firms achieve

performance returns on supply chai n management (SCM) activi-

ties and resource investments that exceed the sums of their

parts. Thus, several of the SCM fiel d’s seminal models focus on

SCI as a central construct. Howev er, the rapid development of

literature on SCI has yielded so me inconsistent and confusing

findings. For example, two recen t meta-analyses of the SCI–per-

formance relationship have attem pted to clarify SCI’sidentity

and value (authored by Leuschner et al . 2013, and Mackelprang

et al. 2014). Both were rigorously executed and based on t heir

differing initial assumption s, appear to be “right.”But, they

derive different conclusions pe rtaining to the overall “value

proposition”of SCI. How can this be ?

THE META-ANALYSIS PROCESS: COMPARISONS AND

IMPLICATIONS

The two meta-analytic studies shared a common research objec-

tive. The similarities end there. The respective authors pursued

distinct research processes because of differing underlying

assumptions about what constitutes SCI. Key differences in the

meta-analytic processes and assumptions included:

•Different definitions: The definitions of integration were incon-

sistent across the studies. One focused on the locus of integration

(i.e., which functional groups are being integrated). The other

on its substance (i.e., which information and organizational

processes are being integrated). This led to:

•Different operationalizations: One study focused on extent of

collaboration; the other on strength of linkages. These differ-

ences were based on and exacerbated by alternative keyword

searches within the sampling process. This led to:

•Different levels of analysis: One study suggested that SCI

occurs at the strategic level of the firms in a supply chain

only; the other suggests that SCI occurs at strategic, opera-

tional, and tactical levels of the organization.

These differences culminated in the collection of two distinct

sets of data, in the form of sample articles—one of much broader

scope/sample size than the other. The result: different conclu-

sions regarding the value of SCI:

•Leuschner et al. (2013) find that firms move through “layers”

of SCI, and the degree of SCI at each layer associates with

operational outcomes such as delivery performance, but there

is a lack of statistically significant association with financial,

cost, and flexibility measures.

•Alternatively, Mackelprang et al. (2014) find significant

relationships between SCI and financial, cost, and flexibility

performance outcomes, but in doing so, they view SCI only as

occurring at the strategic layer of the firm; they find differ-

ences in performance based on which partners are doing the

integrating, but these differences are agnostic to the type of

processes and information actually being integrated.

In short, one study finds limited benefits of SCI because it

focuses on “what”is being integrated. The other study finds

more benefits because the focus is on “who”is being integrated

with “whom”—without regard to the “what.”

WHITHER PHENOMENOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT?

Fundamental differences in the conceptualization and theoretical

linkage of foundational variables suggest that we are failing to pro-

vide solid foundations for the discipline. Certainly, we will not

fully understand our key concepts overnight. But, we must be con-

cerned that the rush to publish theory-testing work has effectuated

a quantitative “arms race,”with a primary casualty being the

methodical processes of qualitative and conceptual theorization

needed to create such foundations. Because SCM researchers are

too willing to hurry on to the next theory-testing project before the

foundational work is done, the field’s credibility suffers.

As fields of inquiry mature, their researchers must define and

debate their most central terms and theories. SCM is in a nascent

stage of development, and as we can see, a common conceptuali-

zation of SCI has yet to develop. The failure to anchor SCI as a

research concept has led to a situation where several related and

overlapping definitions of SCI battle for acceptance. Disarray

surrounds the meanings and theoretical identities of behaviors

that appear to constitute a continuum of interaction: coordination,

cooperation, collaboration, and integration. Table 1 clearly dem-

Corresponding author:

Chad W. Autry, William J. Taylor Professor of Supply Chain Man-

agement, The University of Tennessee, 307 Stokely Management

Center, Knoxville, TN 37996-0530, USA; E-mail: autry@utk.edu

Journal of Business Logistics, 2014, 35(3): 275–276

© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals