Supply Chain Management at the Crossroads: Divergent Views, Potential Impacts, and Suggested Paths Forward

• Date: 01 March 2014
• Author: Chad W. Autry,Kenneth J. Petersen
• Published date: 01 March 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12036

Supply Chain Management at the Crossroads: Divergent Views,

Potential Impacts, and Suggested Paths Forward

Kenneth J. Petersen and Chad W. Autry

University of Tennessee

The academic field of supply chain management (SCM) is comprised of scholars holding four different worldviews based on their academic

heritages. This situation presents both threats and opportunities for SCM scholarship and practice. In this brief paper, we explain why we

see this occurring, and actions that academics might take in order to form a more cohesive and effective SCM discipline.

Keywords: supply chain management; purchasing; logistics; operations

Almost three decades after consulting executive Keith Oliver

coined the term supply chain management (SCM) (Schechter

2002), scholars, managers, and executives continue to deliberate

its most fundamental concepts. Such debates, when productive,

often serve to advance a knowledge domain (Anderson 1983;

Hunt 1991). However, divergent theoretical, ontological, and

methodological traditions within the SCM academy have led to

conceptual fragmentation that challenges knowledge develop-

ment, dissemination, and application—but also creates great

opportunity for SCM scholars. We are in search of a single, uni-

fied professional identity for our multidisciplinary field, but

because of discriminant worldviews, we have thus far struggled

to find it.

Our fundamental observation is this: academic SCM organiza-

tions are segregated into entrenched thought schools based on aca-

demic heritages in four root disciplines, and the result is that SCM

scholars tend to conduct research, teach, and provide outreach

based on the assumptions inherent to their heritage in transporta-

tion/logistics, marketing channels, operations management/

research, or purchasing. The aggregate result of these “siloed”

approaches to SCM scholarship is that the academy struggles to

develop knowledge at the intersections of its functional subdivi-

sions. Simply put, there has to be a more integrative way forward

for both business organizations practicing SCM and the academic

communities that support their efforts.

As an example, Caterpillar Inc. has recently announced that it

will reorganize its supply chain group (Manufacturing, Procure-

ment, and Logistics) under a single umbrella, headed by a single

corporate-level executive that reports directly to the company’s

CEO. Historically, each of the three functional heads reported up

through different parts of Caterpillar’s overall leadership struc-

ture, thereby inhibiting opportunities for cross-functional supply

chain communication, coordination, and collaboration. Caterpil-

lar’s new organizational structure is forcing each of these supply

chain functions to horizontally align its strategies, as well as ver-

tically with the strategy of the overall business. Our observation

of this scenario, in light of recent research espousing the value

of functional integration, begs an important question for the sup-

ply chain academy to consider: If firms are reorganizing in order

to better functionally integrate, how can SCM scholars best sup-

port their industry stakeholders with similarly integrative thought

leadership?

The current disconnectedness between academic SCM thought

schools creates an important opportunity to reflect for both SCM

scholars and practitioners. While scholars aspire to teach and

research cross-functional and cross-organizational SCM theories,

constructs, and processes, much of today’s supply chain scholar-

ship is functionally insular, lacking breadth and cohesiveness

across organizational levels and internal boundaries. Concur-

rently, practitioners are increasingly challenged by functionally

siloed views of SCM (born in their educational experiences, and

then propagated on the job) that inhibit functional integration

across their organizations. The integration of knowledge within

an academic discipline facilitates the permeation of its key prin-

ciples among its stakeholders, which in SCM’s case should lead

to managerial consensus on basic concepts and best practices,

and facilitate incremental innovation in research and practice. In

other words, having consistency in SCM terminology, founda-

tions, theories, models, and/or hypothesis testing would serve as

a basis for firm-level organization and decision making, guide

best practice, and enable/encourage innovation in the SCM

space, which should lead to greater economic, customer, environ-

mental, and social outcomes. The business community, its key

stakeholders, and society as a whole, stand to gain if knowledge

synthesis can occur within the SCM academy. Yet, the institu-

tionalization of discriminant thought schools within the SCM

community has perhaps never been greater.

And so, as SCM scholars, we find ourselves truly at the cross-

roads of opportunity and stagnation. If the scholarly field fails to

move past its functional biases, academics will struggle to create

the integrative knowledge that is needed by industry. Yet, our

disciplinary thought schools are becoming rigidly institutional-

ized, and individual scholars who attempt to buck the system

often risk their own career progress in doing so. Only if we can

challenge our existing structure and processes can the field pro-

gress in ways that yield fruit for our constituents in industry.

In this paper, we present a conceptual model that attempts to

explain (1) why fragmentation persists in the SCM academy, and

(2) how monolithic, heritage-based SCM worldviews may poten-

tially harm the academic discipline and dependent business orga-

nizations. Using the model as a basis, we recommend positive

steps for individuals and institutions to foster healthy future

advancement that will better serve our stakeholder communities.

Corresponding author:

Chad W. Autry, Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Univer-

sity of Tennessee, 341 Stokely Management Center, Knoxville, TN

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

Journal of Business Logistics, 2014, 35(1): 36–43

© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals