Toward the Theory of the Supply Chain

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12073
• Date: 01 April 2015
• Author: Craig R. Carter,Dale S. Rogers,Thomas Y. Choi
• Published date: 01 April 2015

TOWARD THE THEORY OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN

CRAIG R. CARTER, DALE S. ROGERS, AND THOMAS Y. CHOI

Arizona State University

As our discipline has matured, we have begun to develop theories of

supply chain management. However, we submit that a major omission of

theory development in the supply chain management discipline is that we

have failed to develop a theory of what we are managing—a theory of the

supply chain. Using a conceptual theory building approach, we introduce

foundational premises about the structure and boundary of the supply

chain, which can serve as the basis for much needed, additional

development of the theory of the supply chain.

Keywords: theory of the supply chain; conceptual theory building; networks;

complex adaptive systems; boundaries

INTRODUCTION

The term supply chain management (SCM) is cred-

ited to consultants (Oliver & Webber, 1982), was

quickly introduced into academia (Ellram & Cooper,

1990; Jones & Riley, 1987), and has helped to unite

procurement, operations, and distribution into the

more unified discipline of SCM. As our discipline has

matured, we have seen the emergence of theories of

SCM. For example, Chen and Paulraj (2004), Cooper,

Lambert and Pagh (1997), and Croxton, Garcia-Dastu-

gue, Lambert and Rogers (2001) use a conceptual the-

ory building approach to develop frameworks and

identify the key constructs and processes surrounding

SCM; and Lambert, Cooper and Pagh (1998) and

Mena, Humphries and Choi (2013) use an inductive,

multiple case study approach to develop theories of

SCM.

The development of such overarching theories, as

well as more granular theories and frameworks, is a

natural outcome of the evolution of a discipline

(Smith & Hitt, 2005). And indeed, we have seen

increasing calls for developing theories within the

SCM discipline, when appropriate, rather than solely

relying upon theories from other disciplines (Cousins,

Lawson & Squire, 2006; Carter, 2011; Fawcett & Wal-

ler, 2011). Considering the current state of theory

development, we begin with an observation that there

may be a rather large omission and oversight in the

conceptualization, and emerging theories, of SCM:

Before we continue to build theories of SCM, we must

first develop a theory of the supply chain—the phe-

nomenon that we purport to manage. We propose

that to have meaningful theories about managing the

supply chain, and we need to have a theory of the

supply chain itself.

Our discipline’s current perspective of the supply

chain may be oversimplified—whether we think of it

as a chain or even a broader network. In particular,

one major omission in our conceptualization is that

we tend to think of the members of the supply

chain through which products physically flow and

generally fail to explicitly take into account the many

additional members of the supply chain that play a

vital but indirect, supportive role in the movement,

storage, and transformation of product across organi-

zations. Another significant omission is that we do

not have a clearly defined yet nuanced means by

which to assess the boundaries of the supply chain.

Instead, we tend to conceptualize the supply chain

in either an overly simplified (e.g., a supplier–

manufacturer–distributor triad) or overly complex

(e.g., vast networks of companies) manner that does

not allow a reasonable balance between realism and

pragmatism.

Our purpose in writing this article is to present a

preliminary effort toward the development of a theory

of the supply chain. Our hope is that this initial con-

ceptualization will provide a foundation for contin-

uing efforts both to refine this theory building effort

and to develop additional, ancillary theories of the

Acknowledgments: We thank the anonymous JSCM reviewers

and Co-Editor-in-Chief Lisa Ellram for their constructive com-

ments during the review process. We also thank Kevin Dooley,

Tom Kull, and Doug Lambert for their insightful, provocative,

and value-adding feedback on earlier versions of this manu-

script.

April 2015 89