The Relationship Between Strategic Supply Chain Integration and Performance: A Meta‐Analytic Evaluation and Implications for Supply Chain Management Research

• Author: Jessica L. Robinson,Ednilson Bernardes,Alan W. Mackelprang,G. Scott Webb
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12023
• Date: 01 March 2014
• Published date: 01 March 2014

The Relationship Between Strategic Supply Chain Integration and

Performance: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation and Implications for

Supply Chain Management Research

Alan W. Mackelprang

1

, Jessica L. Robinson

1

, Ednilson Bernardes

2

, and G. Scott Webb

3

1

Georgia Southern University

2

West Virginia University

3

Brigham Young University

Although research evaluating the impact of supply chain integration on performance has advanced substantially in the last decade, inconsis-

tency and considerable variability of empirical findings leave unanswered questions for both research and practice. Using a meta-analysis,

we examine empirical studies to clarify the actual relationship, suggest new directions, and ultimately contribute toward the development of sup-

ply chain management theory. We focus on “strategic”supply chain integration rather than on functional or operational/tactical studies, which

would weaken the practical value of the analysis and findings. To ascertain focus and homogeneity of the sample, we adopt a rigorous search

protocol and sample construction. We find that integration–performance relationships are complex and nuanced such that integration should not

be universally viewed as improving performance. We identify relationships that are more generalizable and also those that need additional

scrutiny. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings and provide directions for future research.

Keywords: meta-analysis of correlations; supply chain integration; performance; validation

INTRODUCTION

Both research and practice have identified the coordination and

integration of activities across the supply chain as key strategies

to improve firm performance and to achieve and sustain competi-

tive advantage. Although strategic supply chain integration does

not have a universally accepted definition (Fawcett and Magnan

2002; Pagell 2004), it is broadly associated with the level to

which a firm strategically links and aligns processes with suppli-

ers and customers (e.g., Mentzer et al. 2001; Zhao et al. 2008;

Jayaram et al. 2010). Coincidental with the rapid adoption of

integration in practice, a growing number of research studies

have attempted to empirically validate a relationship between

strategic supply chain integration and performance.

A large stream of research has associated higher levels of inte-

gration with increased performance (e.g., Frohlich and Westbrook

2001; Narasimhan and Kim 2001; Rosenzweig et al. 2003; Ger-

main and Iyer 2006). Nevertheless, inconsistency and noticeable

variation in the empirical findings are pervasive in the extant litera-

ture. For instance, while the results of various studies suggest a

positive and direct association between integration and perfor-

mance (Germain and Iyer 2006; Flynn et al. 2010; Wong et al.

2011), the results from other studies do not find such an associa-

tion (Gimenez and Ventura 2005; Koufteros et al. 2005, 2010).

Such empirical inconsistencies reveal the need for meta-analytical

studies on various aspects of this important, complex, and multi-

faceted supply chain practice. Thus, the main goal of our research

is to investigate, meta-analytically, the actual relationship between

dimensions of strategic supply chain integration and performance,

while also investigating the nature of any such relationships (direct

or through unidentified moderators). This affords a quantitative

summary of the available evidence, which is a better base for

resolving empirical inconsistencies. As such, the results of our

meta-analysis provide a clearer picture of the actual relationships

between strategic dimensions of supply chain integration and per-

formance. These are highly relevant issues, because they can clarify

where the area of study currently stands, indicate actual relation-

ships that are context independent, and suggest where future efforts

should concentrate, while also informing managerial practice.

Consistent with most conceptualizations of supply chain inte-

gration (e.g., Flynn et al. 2010; Wong et al. 2011; Zhao et al.

2011; Schoenherr and Swink 2012), we assess supplier, internal,

and customer integration efforts. However, combining all extant

literature on supply chain integration with respect to both scope

(information sharing, process, technology, relations, etc.) and uti-

lization level (operational, tactical, and strategic) in a single

meta-analysis would weaken the practical value of the results.

For this methodological and empirical reason, we chose to focus

the analysis on the “strategic”aspect of supply chain integration,

which encompasses all potential integration scopes. Accordingly,

we follow the widely accepted definition of strategic integration

(Frohlich and Westbrook 2001; Rosenzweig et al. 2003; Vickery

et al. 2003) which is “the combination of efforts to integrate sup-

plier and customer information and inputs into internal planning

and capabilities through cross business relationships and internal

cross-functional teams”(Narasimhan et al. 2010, 356).

Meta-analytic studies can provide insights that are difficult to

achieve from single studies. Thus, there have been several recent

calls for additional meta-analytic research in the Journal of

Business Logistics (Goldsby and Autry 2011; Rabinovich and

Cheon 2011). These calls have cautioned about costs to the

Corresponding author: Alan W. Mackelprang, PhD, Assistant Profes-

sor of Operations Management, Department of Management, College

of Business Administration, Georgia Southern University, P.O. Office

Box 8151, Statesboro, GA 30460, USA; E-mail: amackelprang@

georgiasouthern.edu

Journal of Business Logistics, 2014, 35(1): 71–96

© Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals

supply chain management community of not replicating studies

and reconciling research findings more frequently. Indeed, the

meta-analytic approach is widely recognized as a necessary and

important component in scientific inquiry and developing theory

(Rosenthal and Rosnow 1991; Hunter and Schmidt 2004; Mac-

kelprang and Nair 2010). Specifically, our meta-analysis synthe-

sizes the empirical results from extant research evaluating

internal, supplier, and customer integrations on a number of per-

formance outcomes. Through the meta-analysis of correlations

method, we correct measurement and sampling errors, and thus

provide generalizable results about the actual relationships. In

addition, our results highlight areas where we need additional

research to advance theory and inform managerial practice.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: We first

discuss the findings from the review of the relevant literature.

We then explain the meta-analytical procedure adopted in this

study, followed by a discussion of the findings, and the implica-

tions for research and practice. Finally, we conclude with a

discussion of promising areas for future research.

SUPPLY CHAIN INTEGRATION, PERFORMANCE, AND

THEIR LINKAGE

Although coordination to facilitate the achievement of superior

performance has long been a focus of research efforts (e.g., Lam-

bert et al. 1978; Farmer 1981a,b), over the last few decades,

there has been a shift toward a more strategic and systematic

approach to business process alignment. Both research and

practice have increasingly recognized that strategic integration of

processes across functional and organizational boundaries was a

new frontier for competitive success. In this context, Frohlich

and Westbrook (2001) are very influential in advancing the con-

cept of arcs of integration and the notion that firms with the

greatest extent of upstream and downstream supply chain integra-

tion would have higher levels of performance. Subsequent

research has been empirically exploring this general insight by

examining the performance-enhancing effects of different strate-

gic positions in the integration continuum.

Integration

The numerous studies that followed Frohlich and Westbrook’s

(2001) notion of arcs of integration have advanced a wide variety

of conceptualizations and dimensions to characterize the phe-

nomenon. Some studies have proposed unidimensional conceptu-

alizations (Rosenzweig et al. 2003; Vickery et al. 2003; Marquez

et al. 2004; Cousins and Menguc 2006; Kim 2009; Lau et al.

2010), while others describe the concept as comprising multidi-

mensional component terms (Dr€

oge et al. 2004; Campbell and

Sankaran 2005; Koufteros et al. 2005; Petersen et al. 2005; Dev-

araj et al. 2007). Studies beginning with Fawcett and Magnan

(2002) and articles that are more recent have conceptualized inte-

gration as consisting of supplier integration, internal integration,

and customer integration (Flynn et al. 2010; Wong et al. 2011;

Zhao et al. 2011; Schoenherr and Swink 2012).

Reflecting the diverse conceptualizations and dimensions

advanced in the literature, there has been a rich body of empirical

studies examining the relationship between supply chain integra-

tion and performance. While some studies focused on the aggre-

gate association of integration with performance (e.g., Vickery

et al. 2003), others have examined only a single dimension (e.g.,

Handfield et al. 2009), the effect of internal and aggregated exter-

nal dimensions (e.g., Narayanan et al. 2011), or have focused on

the effect of internal and one external dimension (e.g., Germain

and Iyer 2006). Conversely, many studies have explored the indi-

vidual effects of the three commonly accepted dimensions of inte-

gration (internal, customer, supplier) jointly (e.g., Kim 2009;

Koufteros et al. 2010). These latter studies accommodate the

insight that different forms of strategic integration can confer

advantage and be harmful (Swink et al. 2007).

Prior studies have examined supply chain integration from

either an operational–tactical (e.g., Sahin and Robinson 2002) or

strategic perspective (e.g., Vickery et al. 2003; Swink et al.

2007). While tactical or operational integration of supply chain

activities focuses on information sharing for the short-term coor-

dination of physical flows, strategic integration entails long-term

partnership based on shared risks and rewards. Acknowledging

this strategic nature, Flynn et al. (2010) define supply chain inte-

gration as the extent to which a firm “strategically collaborates

with its supply chain partners and collaboratively manages intra-

and interorganizational processes”(p. 59) Joint commitments,

dedicated relationships, joint improvement of interorganizational

processes, colocation, knowledge sharing, and codeveloped prod-

ucts and systems are typically associated with higher levels of

strategic supply chain integration (Swink et al. 2007; Zhao et al.

2008). A key aspect of strategic integration described in the liter-

ature is that it can confer both operational and strategic benefits,

while operational integration can only confer operational benefits

(Sanders 2008; Flynn et al. 2010).

Internal integration

The empirical evidence about whether more supply chain integra-

tion is associated with higher performance varies based on the

type of the performance selected, dimensions of integration, and

nature of the linkage. In terms of business performance, some

studies find that internal integration is directly and positively

associated with business performance (e.g., Dr€

oge et al. 2004;

Flynn et al. 2010; Narayanan et al. 2011), while others fail to

substantiate this relationship (e.g., Germain and Iyer 2006; Swink

et al. 2007). However, another set of studies indicate a positive

and indirect association between internal integration and business

performance (e.g., Rosenzweig et al. 2003; Vickery et al. 2003;

Koufteros et al. 2005).

Customer integration

For the customer-facing component of integration, the literature

indicates that this dimension is directly (e.g., Homburg and Stock

2004; Germain and Iyer 2006; Flynn et al. 2010; Wong et al.

2011) and indirectly (e.g., Koufteros et al. 2005; Devaraj et al.

2007) associated with improved operational performance.

However, other studies contradict the customer-facing to

operational performance association (e.g., Swink et al. 2007;

Koufteros et al. 2010; Boon-itt and Wong 2011). As for business

72 A. W. Mackelprang et al.