Research note

Supply chain visibility: lost in translation?

Vernon Francis
Graduate School of Management, University of Dallas, Irving, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe miscommunication about the ubiquitous term supply chain visibility (SCV), to propose a precise
definition for it and identify its salient characteristics.
Design/methodology/approach A literature search was conducted to describe the widespread use of the term SCV and the miscommunication that
occurs surrounding its use. The proposed definition and the salient characteristics of SCV are original conceptual contributions.
Findings The study finds that the term SCV is widely used in the supply chain management and logistics communities Many vendors, third party
logistics providers, transportation and other companies profess to have or provide it, yet SCV remains one of the top issues consistently mentioned in
surveys of supply chain management professionals. This occurs in part because of the confusion surrounding its meaning.
Research limitations/implications Usage of the term SCV is ubiquitous and a complete review of all sources is not possible, revealing over
348,000 sources from internet and academic database searches. Only selected, key results are from these sources are reported. The proposed definition
for and characterization of SCV are the authors conceptual contributions, open to discussion and debate.
Practical implications A precise definition of SCV along with its important attributes helps to promote consistent understanding, interpretation and
to clarify communications, especially between vendors and logistics service providers.
Originality/value The proposed definition is new, as well as the discussion of its important attributes and implications.
Keywords Supply chain management, Integration, Corporate communications
Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Use of the term SCV

Supply chain visibility (SCV) is a commonly used term in

the supply chain management (SCM) and logistics
communities. Most vendors of SCM software, third party
logistics providers (3PLs), transportation companies and
others claim to have or to provide SCV capability. However,
achieving SCV remains an important issue, consistently
ranking near the top of surveys of SCM professionals
uncovered in this research. What causes this difference in
perception? It is due, in part, to miscommunication about
SCV, a concept critically important for effective SCM, for
logistics efficiencies and for customer satisfaction. Lacking
heretofore has been a precise definition of SCV which
captures its salient characteristics. This paper proposes such
a definition for SCV, and explains its implications and its
relationship to other definitions: What are the attributes of
other definitions proffered for SCV and how does the new
definition compare? How can the new definition be used by
both practitioners and vendors to clarify the understanding
of SCV and to help them achieve it?

The use of the term SCV is ubiquitous; a recent internet

search (www.google.com, January 8, 2007) returned over
348,000 entries. A cursory review of these entries shows that
most of the links are to vendors of SCM software, to 3PLs,
and to others touting the SCV capabilities of their software
and/or the services they provide. A search of an extensive
collection of databases, ABI/PROQUEST, containing articles
from academic journals, newspaper and trade publications,
was also completed. The databases contained in the search
are extensive, covering:
.
regional and local business publications;
.
more than 1,800 worldwide business periodicals, and
information on more than 60,000 companies;
.
more than 750 business periodicals and newsletters with a
trade or industry focus;
.
academic dissertations and theses; and
.
in-depth coverage of 195 countries, highlighting over 250
global economic.
This search, conducted on January 8, 2007, yielded the
results shown in the Table I.
Table I illustrates that the term is most commonly used in
magazines, trade journals and newspapers with relatively few
academic journal references. As with the internet search of the
term supply chain visibility, any sample of these sources
confirms that most of the entries are from vendors claiming to
have or to provide SCV, often adding adjectives such as total
SCV, global SCV, end-to-end SCV and real-time SCV.
The widespread use of the term does not imply, however,
that it is easy to define or that there is agreement about the
meaning of SCV. Cecere (2005) noted:

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-8546.htm

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

13/3 (2008) 180 184
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546]
[DOI 10.1108/13598540810871226]

180

Supply chain visibility: lost in translation?

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Vernon Francis

Volume 13 Number 3 2008 180 184

Table I ABI/PROQUEST databases search results

All
Search of:
Document title
Abstract
Citation and abstract
Citation and document text
Document text
Document feature
Image caption
Publication title
Section
Subject

No.

% all

38
209
237
1,303
1,260
0
14
0
2
0

100
100
100
100
100
NA
100
NA
100
NA

Scholarly
journals
No.
% all

Magazines
No.
% all

0
3
3
77
76
0
0
0
0
0

1
11
11
87
87
0
2
0
0
0

0
1
1
6
6
NA
0
NA
0
NA

3
5
5
7
7
NA
86
NA
100
NA

Trade
publications
No.
% all
36
166
193
1,015
974
0
12
0
2
0

95
79
81
78
77
NA
86
NA
100
NA

Newspapers
No.
% all
1
28
29
115
114
0
0
0
0
0

3
13
12
9
9
NA
0
NA
0
NA

Reference/
reports
No.
% all
0
1
1
9
9
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
1
NA
0
NA
0
NA

Source: ABI/Proquest Databases (n.d.)

. . . our shippers found that the biggest pain points faced by them are
uncertainties and lead time in customs and transit, as well as the visibility of
their products en route from origin ports to the destination ports (Lee,
2004).

The term supply chain visibility has very different meanings to different
audiences within an organization. When the project team does not push for
clarity, projects frequently under-deliver on expectations. And many project
managers make a mistake of assuming supply chain visibility is the same as
connectivity its not.

While three out of four companies want to achieve Web-based, real-time data
visibility through their supply chains, 85% are concerned about their ability
to implement it . . . (Schoenthaler, 2003).

Similarly, Briggs and Cecere (2003) pointed out:

While the need for supply chain visibility . . . is increasing, there is no solution
panacea. In fact, many companies find the search for a solution to be
frustrating. Why? The term visibility lacks a common definition. There is
confusion between capabilities of existing supply chain systems and the need
for visibility systems. Likewise, many confuse track and trace with
visibility solutions.

. . . according to a recent survey of supply chain professionals by global

supply chain research group Aberdeen Group, 75% of respondents rate
supply chain visibility as among the most challenging issues they currently
face (Compass on Business, 2006).

A study by Computer Sciences Corporation (2006), showed

that approximately 48 percent of respondents Strongly
Agreed or Agreed with the statement I am concerned
that my supply chain is vulnerable because of visibility into
your [sic. ] trading/outsourcing partner shipments.
There are important factors other than miscommunication
and lack of a clear, commonly accepted definition of SCV that
contribute to the difficulty in achieving SCV. These include
disparate operating systems and lack of a standard global IT
platform (Zuckerman, 2004), poor data quality from supply
chain
participants
(McCrea,
2005),
manual
communications (Bradley, 2002), trust issues, the
complexity of existing procurement processes and lack of
scalable technology (Songini, 2000), the unavailability of
technology and outsourcing services to small and mediumsized companies (Huddleston, 2002).
Each and every survey of SCM professionals uncovered in
this research rank SCV as an important issue that still
confronts them, despite claims to the contrary by those
purporting to have or to provide SCV. Thus, SCV has not
been achieved to the degree desired and required by the SCM
community. Potential reasons for this gulf between hype and
reality are many, and predominant among them are the
miscommunication and lack of clarity of the concept of SCV
the focus of this paper.

Others have also observed the disparity between SCV rhetoric

and reality. Cecere (2005) observed:
By and large, vendors have created their own versions of supply chain
visibility that are typically extensions of their own transaction or planning
systems for alerts, notifications, and monitoring. Every vendor has a visibility
system each is different and unfortunately, the system usually better
meet the vendors needs for marketing than the buyers need to synchronize
multi-tier networks.

Huddleston (2002) said:

Of course all supply chain software vendors have their own models that meet
the presentation needs of the software products they sell. During these multivendor presentations, it becomes very difficult to tell truth from fiction as
sales personnel attempt to obtain new business by trying to meet the clients
needs.

Briggs and Cecere (2003) specifically mention the

miscommunication about SCV between vendors and SCM
professionals desiring their products and services:
To compound the confusion, as the business needs have increased, software
vendors have used the term visibility in many different ways to describe
different supply chain technologies. This has confused the issue and
frustrated business users.

SCV remains a critical issue

Despite the widespread claims of SCV capability, SCM
professionals consistently rank SCV as one of the most
important issues or challenges confronting them today. The
following exemplify this point:

Other definitions of SCV

Others have put forth either a formal definition or have
alluded to a definition of SCV. Vitasak (2005) provided the
following two related definitions:

According to the study, integrated supply network structure with suitable

visibility and usage of real-time data transfer is another area of great
importance (Auramo et al., 2002).

Supply Chain Inventory Visibility: Software applications that permit

monitoring of events across a supply chain. These systems track and trace
inventory globally on a line-item level and notify the user of significant

Survey respondents across the board say supply chain visibility is one of their
top priorities (Bradley, 2002).

181

Supply chain visibility: lost in translation?

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Vernon Francis

Volume 13 Number 3 2008 180 184

A precise definition of SCV

deviations from plan. Companies are provided with realistic estimates of

when materials will arrive.

The following definition is proposed for the term SCV which

captures and unifies these important characteristics:

Visibility: The ability to access or view pertinent data or information as it

relates to logistics and the supply chain, regardless of the point in the supply
chain where the data exists.

Supply chain visibility is the identity, location and status of entities transiting
the supply chain, captured in timely messages about events, along with the
planned and actual dates/times for these events.

Tohamy (2003) precisely defined SCV as capturing and

analyzing supply chain data that informs decision-making,
mitigates risk, and improves processes. Bradley (2002)
mentioned . . . visibility direct insight into the status of
orders, inventory and shipments across the supply chain.
Cecere (2005) states that SCV is more than simply data, and
is focused on process: . . . visibility is a business process, not
just a supply chain process. Schoenthaler (2003) defined
SCV as:

Each of the italicized components of the definition is

important and requires further explanation.
An entity is any object moving through the supply chain. An
entity can be an item (SKU), a form of packaging (e.g.
cartons, packages, or cases), an entire customer order, a form
of encasement for the order (e.g. a pallet, tote, or returnable
plastic container), a shipment (a collection of orders with a
common origin and destination), a lading asset (e.g. a
container, trailer, railcar or uniform load device (ULD) for an
aircraft) or a vehicle (e.g. truck, train, ship, or aircraft).
Entities form a natural hierarchy as illustrated in Figure 1.
This hierarchy implies that items are contained in packages;
one or more packages constitute a customers order; orders
are encased in pallets, totes, returnable plastic containers or
other form of encasement; encasements are often loaded into
lading assets (container, trailer or ULD); lading assets are
transported by vehicles (truck, train, ocean vessel, or aircraft).
The hierarchy is defined through association of pairs of entity
identifiers. This hierarchy and its constituent associations are
not only natural, but necessary. An inquiry about an order in
transit first requires knowledge about the vehicle transporting
the lading asset, the encasements contained in the lading asset
and the orders within the encasements. For example, Figure 1
shows that SKU 89765433 is associated with a carton with
bar code label 99763452; the carton is part of customer order
number KHT-56-03-A-070215; the carton is encased in a
pallet with license plate (bar code label or RFID tag) KHT56-03-A-070215-47653; the pallet is part of the shipment
DFW-PHL-070215-46; the shipment is loaded within trailer
JBH8976; and the trailer mated to the vehicle Truck JBH
DFW-PHL-070215-3. These associations are necessary and
dynamic as the entity transits the supply chain.
The identity of an entity is simply a unique identifier for it.
Examples include a cartons serial number (often encoded
into a bar code or captured on an RFID chip), an order or
shipment number, a trailer serial number and an aircraft tail
number.
Location is the association of an entity to a position.
Location is dependent upon the entity and its position in the

Visibility means that important information is readily available to those who

need it, inside and outside the organization, for monitoring, controlling and
changing supply chain strategy and operations, from service acquisition to
delivery.

Finally, McCrea (2005) says that:

Supply chain visibility is the ability to be alerted to exceptions in supply
chain execution (sense), and enable action based on this information
(respond). In essence, visibility is a sense and respond system for the supply
chain based on what is important in the business.

These definitions, while not totally consistent, do highlight

important attributes of SCV. Some view SCV as primarily
related to software or information technology. Some extend
the meaning to include action and decision making about the
implications of data, thereby extending the domain of SCV to
include another important concept supply chain event
management. Others note the importance of process and
events. Reference is made to pertinent data or supply
chain data, but what these data include is not specified. One
identified the need for realistic estimates of when material
will arrive, implying the existence of a plan as the basis for
these estimates. Table II summarizes the key attributes of
these definitions captured by these authors.
The definition proposed in the next section captures some
of these attributes, but purposefully excludes others. Notably,
it includes the notions of monitoring of events, estimating or
forecasting future events, reference to a plan and deviations
from it, processes, and status. It excludes reference to
information systems or software applications, aiding decision
making, and mitigating risk. The reasons for these exclusions
become apparent when the salient characteristics of the
proposed definition are explained later in this paper.
Table II Attributes of SCV definitions
Attribute
Software, applications, information technology
Track and trace
Monitoring of events
Estimates of future events
Plan, deviations from plan
Data/infor: availability, capture, access or view
Aids decision making
Mitigates risk
Processes, focuses on processes, improves processes
Status of orders, inventory
Monitoring, controlling, changing strategy or operations

Vitasak
(2005)
U
U
U
U
U
U

Tohamy
(2003)

Bradley
(2002)

Cecere
(2005)

Schoenthaler
(2003)

McCrea
(2005)

U
U
U
U

U
U
U
U
U

182

Supply chain visibility: lost in translation?

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Vernon Francis

Volume 13 Number 3 2008 180 184

Figure 1 Entity hierarchy

Characteristics of this definition

hierarchy. As an example, when inquiring about the location

of a customer order, it may be necessary to know the location
of truck associated with the trailer containing the order.
Locations can be static or dynamic. An order waiting loading
into a container is static in warehouse. An order encased in a
pallet within a trailer associated with a truck en-route
exemplifies dynamic location the truck is in motion.
Status describes the state of the entity. An entitys possible
states are dependent on the processes affecting the entity. For
example, status for an order might be waiting to be picked,
picking in progress or picked, packaged, awaiting loading.
Status for a trailer might be parked empty, being
loading, or parked loaded
An event is the specific time when a task within a defined
process is complete and, equivalently, when the next task in a
process begins; it is the specific time when the location or/and
status of an entity changes. Thus, processes define events.
Examples of events are order picking complete, trailer
loaded, truck departed and aircraft parked.
A message is a communication containing the information
about an entity its identity, location and its status. The form
of communication is irrelevant: it can be an EDI transmission,
automatic data capture, automatic or manual updating of a
web page, a telephone call or a fax.
Actual and planned times refer to the times when an event
is planned to occur and when it actually occurs. Without this
information in a message about an event, the inquiring party
has no basis for judging whether occurrence of the event is
problematic or not. Thus, this definition of SCV presupposes
the existence of clearly defined processes that specify events,
and a plan for the entity in question.
In summary, the definition proposed here is all about the
necessary and sufficient information (identity, location and
status) required for entities, stationary or moving, that are
hierarchically organized, making their way through the supply
chain. This requisite information is transmitted in messages
about events, as defined within processes. Date and time of
actual event occurrence are compared to the corresponding
planned date and time to render transparent the implications
for decision making.

The definition of SCV proposed herein captures several

important characteristics of SCV. First, it clarifies that precise
data elements required, specifically identity, location and
status. More or less information is not required. Second, it
highlights the hierarchal nature of supply chain entities and
the necessary associations among them. It is not possible to
achieve SCV without these associations as, for example, an
order that moves via intermodal, transoceanic transportation
is encased in a pallet and transits from a warehouse to a
container to a truck to an ocean vessel to a truck, to a railcar,
to a train, and again back to a truck. Third, SCV depends
upon defined processes to identify the salient events of an
entity as it transits the supply chain. Fourth, the occurrence of
an event generates a message that changes the location and/or
status of the entity of interest. Fifth, the entity at the highest
level of the hierarchy is the entry point for inquiry about it and
the entities with which it is associated. These associations
change as an entity transits the supply chain. Sixth, the means
for and medium of message transmission are not important.
The definition is technologically agnostic. Surely, any
implementation of SCV must contemplate the information
technology to be employed and how it must be integrated
across multiple participants with various levels of technical
sophistication and capabilities. However, the definition of
SCV is independent of the how messages are transmitted,
received and presented. Seventh, actual and planned dates/
times for events are necessary to provide context and the basis
for subsequent evaluation of the implications for SCV, notably
whether the message represents a normal occurrence or an
anomalous event. Eighth, the events that generate messages,
their timing and frequency are not particular to the definition.
These are dependent on the nature of the business and its
customers, the purpose for inquiry and the inquiring party.
Messages need not be real-time for meaningful and useful
SCV. Finally, the definition implies that SCV is a necessary
prerequisite for and input to decisions about operations,
notably supply chain event management (SCEM). The
perspective adopted herein is that SCV is the raw
material required for effective decisions; the act of decision
making and the decisions themselves thus are not included in
the definition of SCV. For example, SCEM, a decision
process, accepts SCV messages, determines their implications
and recommends, or at least provides the basis for, corrective
courses of action.
This new definition and its characteristics distinguish
information for decision making from the process of decision
making itself. The definition also precisely specifies the
information required, and its fundamental relationship to
events which, in turn, dictate the timing of messages
containing the necessary information. It identifies the
hierarchical organization of entities and their linkages which
must be understood to achieve total supply chain visibility.
The definition also makes clear the intimate connection of
events to processes, and the necessity for comparisons of
actual to planned events.
Other definitions include, allude to or imply some of these
characteristics, but none include all of them. Other definitions
do not separate information for decision making from the
decision making process as is done here. This is a subtle but
important observation: it permits clearer communication
about SCV by focusing only on the information required to
foster effective decision making. Thus, the new definition is
183

Supply chain visibility: lost in translation?

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Vernon Francis

Volume 13 Number 3 2008 180 184

parsimonious; it is not encumbered with extra functional or

technological baggage to confuse the concept.

Auramo, J., Aminoff, A. and Punaki, M. (2002), Research

agenda for e-business logistics based on professional
opinions, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 513-31.
Bradley, P. (2002), How far can you see, Logistics
Management, Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 27-34.
Briggs, P. and Cecere, L. (2003), Finding a visibility
solution: answering the question where is my stuff ,
Proceedings of the Council of Supply Chain Management
Professionals Annual Meeting, October.
Cecere, L. (2005), Supply chain visibility: what businesses
need and what vendors offer dont match, AMR Research
Report, June 2.
Compass on Business (2006), Supply chain visibility for the
mid-market, July, available at: www.compassonbusiness.
com/index.php?option com_content&task view&id
341&Itemid 50
Computer Sciences Corporation (2006), Fourth Annual Global
Survey of Supply Chain Progress, white paper, available at: www.
csc.com/solutions/supplychainmanagement/knowledge
library/uploads/1651_1.pdf
Huddleston, J. (2002), Supply Chain Visibility and Valuation,
white paper, eyefortransport, available at www.
eyefortransport.com/ResArticles/SC%20Visibility%20and
%20Valuation1.pdf
Lee, H. (2004), Supply Chain Security Are You Ready?,
Research Report SGSCMF-W1-2004, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA.
McCrea, B. (2005), EMS completes the visibility picture,
Logistics Management, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 57-61.
Schoenthaler, R. (2003), Creating real-time supply chain
visibility, Electronic Business, Vol. 29 No. 8, p. 12.
Songini, M. (2000), Supply chain visibility stalls,
Computerworld, Vol. 34 No. 45, p. 1.
Tohamy, N. (2003), Supply Chain Visibility Defined, Research
Report, Forrester Research, Cambridge, MA.
Vitasak, K. (2005), Supply Chain and Logistics Terms and
Glossary, Council of Supply Chain Management
Professionals, Lombard, IL, available at: www.cscmp.org/
Downloads/Resources/glossary03.pdf
Zuckerman, A. (2004), The coming thing in software is
global supply chain visibility, World Trade, Vol. 17 No. 12,
pp. 24-9.

Conclusion
SCV has been an illusive term. It is widely used but is open to
interpretation; it means different things to different people,
thereby adding to miscommunication and confusion,
especially between vendors and those who seek the SCV
capabilities they provide. While significant progress has been
made, SCV remains an important issue for supply chain
professionals.
The new definition proposed herein can be used to clarify
understanding when discussions occur between the SCM
community and vendors about SCV capabilities. After
presenting the definition, questions such as the following
might be posed during discussions or included in formal
requests for information and requests for proposals:
.
Which entities is your software or service capable of
tracking?
.
How does your SCV capability capture the necessary
hierarchy of these entities and the dynamic relationships
among these entities?
.
When and how are messages generated for SCV? For
which specific entities?
.
What information is included in each message for each
event and for each entity? Does each message clearly
specify the identity, location and status for each entity?
.
Are the messages directly linked to and generated by
events? Which events generate messages?
.
How are comparisons made between planned events and
actual occurrences?
.
How can your software or service accommodate my
unique processes, the specific events defined within them?
From the vendors perspective, the new definition might be
used as a conceptual model for development and integration
of SCV capabilities. It might make it easier to specify and
gather requirements, as well as guide and simplify database
and message design. The definition might also help to define
the necessary interfaces between supply chain participants
and how information is passed between them, thereby aiding
the daunting task of systems integration. Separation of
requisite SCV information, as herein defined, from the
processing of this information for decision making might help
to clarify and delineate specific functional boundaries between
systems or modules.
SCV is a complex concept in need of a clear, precise,
generally accepted definition. However, as with any standard,
it will take much time, effort, discussion and debate for a
definition of SCV to gain universal acceptance. It is hoped
that the definition posed in this paper moves the SCM
community a step closer toward this goal.

Further reading
Cecere, L. (2004), Rocky revenues have SCM vendors
singing the blues, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 8
No. 7, pp. 17-18.
Poiere, C. (2006), The Fourth Annual Global Survey of Supply
Chain Progress, white paper, Computer Science
Corporation, Falls Church, VA, available at www.csc.com/
solutions/supplychainmanagement/knowledgelibrary/2695.
shtml

References
ABI/Proquest Databases (n.d.), University of Dallas Library,
available at: http://proquest.umi.com.dbproxy.udallas.edu/
pqdweb?RQT 302&cfc 1 (accessed January 8, 2007),
subscription only.

Corresponding author
Vernon Francis can be contacted at: vfrancis@gsm.
udallas.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

184