Supply Chain Integration

SCI has been viewed as a performance-oriented effort to generate tangible or

intangible values (i.e. efficient flows of products). Under this characteristic,
researchers have defined SCI as the extent to which a company strategically
cooperates with others, in order to obtain effective flow of data, information, and
goods (Flynn et al., 2010; Zhao et al., 2011). Therefore, the level of SCI has been
used illustrate the success and potential of a supply chain partnership. However,
empirical studies examining the impact of SCI intensity on organizational
performance, have generally examined SCI as either a one-dimensional (Cao et al.,
2010; Danese and Romano, 2013; Gimenez et al., 2012; Kim, 2009; Li et al., 2009;
Liu et al., 2012) or multiple dimension construct (e.g. Cao et al., 2015; Schoenherr
and Swink, 2012; Thun, 2010; Villena et al., 2009; Wong et al., 2013). In doing so,
some studies have broken down external integration into customer and supplier (He
et al., 2014; Koufteros et al., 2010; MoyanoFuentes et al., 2012; Swink et al., 2007;
Vallet-Bellmunt and Rivera-Torres, 2013) others have just used the term external
integration (Bernon et al., 2013; Danese et al., 2013; Das et al., 2006; Gimenez and
Ventura, 2005; Saeed et al., 2005). Based on the review it was also argued that
empirical research on the effect of SCI intensity and organizational performance has
also overlooked the role of internal integration (e.g. Danese and Romano, 2011;
Devaraj et al., 2007; Droge et al., 2012; Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001).
Furthermore, authors have reported mixed outcomes on the relationship between
SCI and organizational performance. These could be as a result of the limited
number of studies exploring both internal and external integration under one
conceptual framework (Danese and Romano, 2012; Liu et al., 2012; MoyanoFuentes
et al., 2012; Prajogo et al., 2012; Swink et al., 2007), and also the several
terminologies used to conceptualize SCI dimensions. For example Narasimhan and
Kim (2002) referred to it as levels, Kim (2006) described them as stages and Swink
et al. (2007) called them SCI types. Likewise, the strength of integration has been
referred to both as degree and intensity (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2002) or arc
(Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001) of integration.
As argued previously SCI is a developing concept. There are numerous and
sometimes different opinions on SCI (Bernon et al., 2013; Terjesen et al., 2012; van
der Vaart and van Donk, 2008). Some authors have focused on individual
dimensions of SCI (Lockstrom et al., 2010; Sezen, 2008; Shub and Stonebraker,
2009; Vachon and Klassen, 2006; Williams et al., 2013), while others have examined
the effects of multiple dimensions of SCI on performance outcomes (Cousins and
Menguc, 2006; Flynn et al., 2010; Koufteros et al., 2007a; Saeed et al., 2011). This
could lead to poor application of SCI policies by organization managers and business
owners (Bagchi et al., 2005; Fawcett and Magnan, 2002; Jin et al., 2013; Vallet-
Bellmunt and Rivera-Torres, 2013). In order to explain some of the inconsistent on
SCI outcomes, Van der Vaart and Van Donk (2008) conducted a systematic review of
SCI.
The authors classified SCI into three general groups of practices, patterns and
attitudes. From the 46 papers reviewed, the majority of the studies examined the
practices or the tangible SCI activities in SCs. A small number of research measured
integration in terms of patterns in SCs, and similarly a few study explored the
attitudes of supply chain partners in relation to SCI initiatives. Therefore each
categorization would need a different form of measurement. In other words, while
certain features of SCI can be measured using hard and quantifiable items, other
features might need softer relational items to measure SCI (Jayaram et al., 2010;
Shub and Stonebraker, 2009). For this reason, this research argues that a more
vigorous conceptualization of SCI should include both softer relational drivers and
hard measures of integration to enhance the quality of empirical findings.
Accordingly this research will attempt to extend the review by Luque et. al (2008)
by providing a more up-to-date and systematic investigation on the dimensions and
intensity of SCI. This is because SCI is a developing field of research that has
resulted in several different conceptualizations of SCI, resulting in mixed research
outcomes.