The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm
IJPDLM
39,8
690
Received 4 March 2009
Revised 7 July 2009
Accepted 19 July 2009
International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management
Vol. 39 No. 8, 2009
pp. 690-711
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0960-0035
DOI 10.1108/09600030910996323
Developing a consensus definition
of supply chain management:
a qualitative study
James R. Stock
Department of Marketing, College of Business, University of South Florida,
Tampa, Florida, USA, and
Stefanie L. Boyer
Department of Marketing, Bryant University, Smithfield,
Rhode Island, USA
Abstract
Purpose – Without the adoption of a uniform agreed upon definition of supply chain management
(SCM), researchers and practitioners will not be able to “advance the theory and practice” of the discipline.
An integrated definition of SCM would greatly benefit researchers’ efforts to study the phenomenon of
SCM and those practitioners attempting to implement SCM. This paper aims to address these issues.
Design/methodology/approach – Using the qualitative analysis software NVivo, this study
examines 166 definitions of SCM that have appeared in the literature to determine important
components of an integrated definition of SCM.
Findings – Three broad themes of SCM are identified, including: activities; benefits; and
constituents/components. An encompassing definition of SCM is developed from the qualitative
analysis of these definitions.
Research limitations/implications – While a large number of SCM definitions have been included
in the research design, there may be additional definitions that are excluded given the very large
number of SCM publications.
Practical implications – A consensus definition of SCM will allow researchers to more precisely
develop theory and practitioners to identify the scope and boundaries of SCM.
Originality/value – This paper is the first attempt to include a large number of SCM definitions for
the purpose of developing a consensus definition of the concept. Previous literature has included only a
subset of published SCM definitions.
Keywords Qualitative research, Supply chain management, Research work
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Much confusion has occurred amongst supply chain researchers during the past two
decades by the many supply chain management (SCM) definitions that have been
proposed in the literature. While most scholars have agreed that SCM includes
coordination and integration, cooperation among chain members, and the movement of
materials to the final customer; there are still varying conceptualizations of how SCM
should be defined (Mentzer et al., 2001b). This confusion exists both in the academic as
well as practitioner communities (New, 1997; Tan, 2001).
The lack of a comprehensive and encompassing SCM definition is significant for
several important reasons. Without an inclusive or encompassing definition, it will be
difficult for researchers to develop supply chain theory, define and test relationships Developing
between components of SCM, and develop a consistent stream of research that “builds” a consensus
on what has gone before (at least in a comprehensive way). Without the adoption of a
uniform definition accepted by researchers, confusion will continue to hinder the study definition of SCM
and further development of SCM; and research will extend in various directions, rather
than build upon itself (i.e. creating synergy in research). For practitioners, the absence
of a comprehensive SCM definition makes it more difficult for supply chain executives 691
to claim authority and responsibility for the “right” combination of functions and
processes. It also makes it more difficult to benchmark against other companies and
industries on supply chain metrics, job responsibilities, and other human resource
issues, because of the differences that exist from one company to the next.
From a theoretical perspective, it is impossible to develop sound SCM theory until
valid constructs and generally accepted definitions of terms are developed. Since
theory development is paramount to scientific pursuit, the absence of a consensus SCM
definition will lead to theoretical ambiguity. The problem becomes amplified as the
discipline searches for the bridge laws that will bridge the gap between potential SCM
theories and the specific areas of SCM phenomena researchers choose to investigate.
The end result will be the development and testing of research hypotheses that are not
ultimately predictive. Consequently, a consensus definition of SCM is of significant
importance in the advancement of SCM theory and practice.
In this paper, we argue that there are too many definitions of SCM and that there is a
need for a single consensus definition. To address this shortcoming, we explore the
multiple definitions of SCM that have been put forth in the literature, by reviewing
173 definitions of SCM across a multiplicity of journals and books. Primarily, we focus
on common “key concepts” within each definition, which are then combined to form a
consensus definition of SCM. Next, we examine why SCM has been so difficult to define.
Definitions of SCM are then reviewed, content analyzed and coded. A consensus
definition of SCM is offered that addresses the encompassing nature of SCM.
This definition is accompanied with implications for both researchers and practitioners.

2. The difficulties in defining SCM

A rapid surge in SCM publications occurred in the middle of the 1990s and the
numbers continue to grow, as illustrated in Table I. Larson and Rogers (1998) first
tabulated the number of SCM articles published from the early 1980s through 1997 and
we extend their calculations through 2008. We also contribute by calculating the
number of academic articles published on SCM in refereed journals during the same
time period. The number of publications was computed by compiling the number of
citations that where contained in the ABI/INFORM database with the subject identified
as “supply chain management,” “supply chain,” or “SCM”.
Additionally, the number of academic dissertations dealing with SCM-related topics
has increased since the 1980s. During the period 1970-1991, no academic dissertations
were cited in Dissertation Abstracts searching on the keywords of “supply chain
management,” “supply chain” or “SCM”. From 1992 to 1998, 14 supply chain
dissertations were listed, and in the latest period from 1999 to 2004, 65 dissertations
relating to SCM were identified (Stock, 2001; Stock and Broadus, 2005).
With the growth of SCM, a staggering number of definitions have surfaced in both
the practitioner and the academic literatures, yet a clear understanding of SCM remains
IJPDLM
Year Refereed journal articles Total of all publicationsa
39,8
1994 49 232
1995 74 361
1996 143 593
1997 122 908
692 1998 194 1,411
1999 310 1,684
2000 403 2,074
2001 443 2,421
2002 515 2,147
2003 586 3,378
2004 743 2,113
2005 796 2,435
2006 922 2,495
2007 902 2,293
2008 1,105 2,892
Table I.
SCM publications Note: aTotal of both practitioner trade publications and refereed journal articles
(1994-2008) Source: ABI/INFORM

shrouded in considerable confusion and misconception. This is due in large part to SCM
definitions that vary widely in their scope and description (New, 1997; Tan, 2001). Some
definitions concentrate on supply chain participants and activities while others place
emphasis on material flows and inter-organizational collaboration. Some authors
include final consumers in their definitions while others exclude them. In early
definitions, the term SCM was used, or perhaps misused, synonymously with traditional
definitions of logistics management. However, the consensus today seems to be that
SCM is somewhat more than logistics (Johnson and Wood, 1996; Lambert et al., 1998a, b).
Several articles have taken on the challenge of bringing clarity to the multiplicity of
definitions of SCM. Although Lummus and Vokurka (1999) did not propose a unified
definition of SCM, they did provide a historical perspective of its development and
clearly described the processes that should constitute its definition. Skjoett-Larsen
(1994) proposed that the SCM concept was comprised of many different definitions.
He identified definitions that equated SCM with the traditional logistics concept, some
that defined it in general terms of management and control, and others that focused on
the management of interdependent relationships.
Mentzer et al. (2000) reviewed varying definitions of SCM in an effort to categorize
and synthesize them, although only a handful of definitions were examined. In a
subsequent study, Mentzer et al. (2001b) presented a more comprehensive definition of
SCM developed from a search of the literature and interviews with executives in
20 companies. The authors indicated that SCM definitions could be classified into three
categories: management philosophy; implementation of a management philosophy;
and a set of management processes (Mentzer et al., 2001b, p. 9). Mentzer et al. (2001b,
p. 22) defined SCM as:
[. . .] the systematic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions within a
particular company and across businesses within the supply chain, for the purposes of
improving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a
whole.
Larson and Rogers (1998), in a special issue of the Journal of Marketing Theory and Developing
Practice dedicated to SCM development, also proposed a unifying definition of SCM, a consensus
blending ideas gleaned from a number of published definitions. However, much like
Mentzer et al. (2000), Larson and Roger’s definition was based on the examination of definition of SCM
fewer than ten definitions out of the hundreds of definitions proposed in the literature.
Larson and Rogers’ (1998, p. 2) definition described SCM as: “the coordination of
activities, within and between vertically linked firms, for the purpose of serving end 693
customers at a profit.”
There is nothing inherently incorrect about analyzing a limited number of SCM
definitions. However, such analyses are incomplete in that there is the potential that
key definitions or concepts may be omitted. Thus, in this research, a census of SCM
definitions published in the literature was conducted.

3. A logistics perspective of SCM

Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) realized the need to
better distinguish logistics from SCM in their 1998 definition:
Logistics is that part of the supply chain process that plans, implements, and controls the
efficient flow and storage of goods, services, and related information from the point of origin
to point of consumption in order to meet consumers’ requirements (emphasis added).
Thus, the CSCMP in 1998 differentiated logistics as only one function or component
contained underneath the umbrella of SCM.
More recently, CSCMP proposed separate definitions for SCM and logistics
management that again reiterated the distinct differences between the two. CSCMP
currently defines logistics management as:
[. . .] that part of Supply Chain Management that plans, implements, and controls the efficient,
effective forward and reverse flow and storage of goods, services and related information
between the point-of-origin and the point-of-consumption in order to meet customers’
requirements (www.cscmp.org).
CSCMP has also proposed a definition for SCM, stating that it:
[. . .] encompasses the planning and management of all activities involved in sourcing and
procurement, conversion, and all Logistics Management activities. Importantly, it also
includes coordination and collaboration with channel partners, which can be suppliers,
intermediaries, third-party service providers, and customers. In essence, Supply Chain
Management integrates supply and demand management within and across companies
(www.cscmp.org).
CSCMP (2005) also provides a brief description of the boundaries of SCM:
Supply Chain Management is an integrating function with primary responsibility for linking
major business functions and business processes within and across companies into a
cohesive and high-performing business model. It includes all of the Logistics Management
activities noted above, as well as manufacturing operations, and it drives coordination of
processes and activities with and across marketing, sales, product design, finance and
information technology.
Because of the recognition of CSCMP as the preeminent supply chain professional
organization, many persons have adopted their definition of SCM.
IJPDLM Mentzer et al. (2008) have highlighted the confusion that exists within the SCM
39,8 literature regarding its definition and boundaries and have asked the question: “Is the
CSCMP definition of SCM sufficient, both for academicians and practitioners in the
field?” The premise of their paper was that the CSCMP definition, as well as those that
had been published in recent years, were not completely adequate to optimally describe
it and to develop supply chain theory and practice. This view has been taken by a
694 number of researchers, such as by Larson et al. (2007), who surveyed supply chain
executives regarding their perspectives of SCM and its implementation. Larson et al.
(2007, p. 18) found that the “lack of a common SCM perspective across members of any
given supply chain is [a] barrier to moving forward with SCM.” They called for more
research into the definition and implementation of SCM. Other articles appearing in the
last few years that have dealt with defining SCM (Trent, 2004; Larson et al., 2007) seem
to indicate anecdotally that a definition of SCM is not a “settled” issue.
Also, when examining the definitions proposed by authors researching this issue,
there are consistencies in several components of a SCM definition. However, because
SCM is rightly viewed as a broad, encompassing set of activities, functions and
processes, there is still disagreement regarding which activities, functions, and
processes belong within the purview of SCM.
With the previous discussion in mind, this present research was conducted in an
attempt to provide a consensus definition of SCM in order to provide researchers and
practitioners with a “common ground” for pursuing theory and practice.
Since its inception as a formal area of investigation in the early-1980s, SCM has
evolved from a more narrow focus to one that today is broad and encompassing. Thus,
as a first step in this research, a census of SCM definitions was conducted so that the
scope and breadth of the area could be determined for the purpose of identifying how
the concept had evolved over the years and to identify the major themes of those
definitions.

4. Methodology
The purpose of this study was to develop a consensus definition of SCM through
content analysis of previously published SCM definitions. Following this approach,
key concepts within each SCM definition were identified and clustered into broader
themes relevant to SCM. These themes were then quantified with the ultimate objective
of bringing greater clarity to the concept of SCM by developing a consensus definition
that included the most commonly occurring themes appearing in these published
definitions of SCM.
The ABI/INFORM database was searched for the terms “supply chain
management,” “supply chain,” and “SCM.” The results of that search yielded more
than 1,000 articles and other references containing a SCM definition. All sources
containing the terms being searched were individually examined to determine the
definition of SCM being used. If a definition of SCM was provided which the author(s)
obtained from another source, that original source was recognized as the basis of the
definition. In a few instances, those sources were journals not included in the
ABI/INFORM database. No attempt was made to tabulate how many times a specific
SCM definition was repeated in the literature, although anecdotally, the CSCMP
definition was likely the most widely used. Table II shows the refereed journals that
contained unique definitions of SCM.
 Developing
Journal Total from journal Year Total year
a consensus
Benchmarking: An International Journal 2 2002 2 definition of SCM
British Food Journal 2 1996 1
2000 1
Business Process Management Journal 2 2000 1
2001 1 695
Decision Sciences 2 1998 1
2005 1
Emerging Issues in Purchasing and Supply Chain
Management 1 1997 1
European Journal of Operational Research 1 1997 1
Industrial & Commercial Training 1 2001 1
Industrial Management & Data Systems 7 1999 1
2000 2
2001 3
2002 1
Industrial Marketing Management 3 2000 2
2001 1
Integrated Manufacturing Systems 5 1995 1
2000 1
2001 1
2002 2
International Journal of Agile Management Systems 1 1999 1
International Journal of Clothing Science & Technology 1 2006 1
International Journal of Logistics Management 2 1990 1
1998 1
International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 15 1996 2
1998 2
1999 5
2000 1
2001 5
International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 21 1994 1
1996 1
1998 2
1999 1
2000 8
2001 5
2002 2
2008 1
International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management 1 2001 1
International Journal of Service Industry
Management 2 2000 2
International Marketing Review 1 2001 1
Journal of Business Logistics 4 2001 2
2002 1
2003 1 Table II.
Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice 1 1998 1 List of journals used
Journal of Retailing 1 2000 1 in analysis of SCM
(continued) definitions
IJPDLM Journal Total from journal Year Total year
39,8
Journal of Services Marketing 1 2000 1
Journal of Supply Chain Management 2 2002 1
2005 1
Logistics Focus 1 1999 1
Logistics Information Management 10 1995 2
696 1996 2
1999 2
2000 1
2001 3
Management Decision 3 1990 1
2000 2
Management Research News 1 2001 1
Management Science 1 2003 1
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 1 1996 1
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20 1996 3
1998 2
1999 2
2000 5
2001 6
2002 2
Work Study 4 1998 1
2000 2
2002 1

Note: Total does not equal 173 since books and reports are not included in this listing which only
Table II. includes journals

Two researchers independently assessed the definitions to determine if they were

unique and that no other definitions were verbatim replicates. If a definition contained
at least one “new” element, it was considered “unique” and was included in the
analysis. Each unique definition became a single entry into the database. Duplicates
were not counted as “unique” definitions. The research methodology only examined
unique definitions. The inclusion of duplicates would have flawed and biased the
research. When duplicates occurred, the citation containing the earliest SCM definition
was used.
There were 173 unique definitions of SCM identified from published sources
through 2008. NVivo7, a commonly used qualitative software package, was employed
to analyze these SCM definitions (QSR International, 2006). Analysis of qualitative data
(i.e. unstructured data that are not appropriately reduced to numbers) requires
sensitivity to both detail and context. NVivo facilitates and simplifies this analysis by
providing tools for the rigorous exploration of qualitative datasets and discovery of the
underlying, reoccurring themes. Using NVivo for analysis results in a node tree fixed
hierarchical structure, which may be inconsistent with the actual findings and be
subjected to the researcher’s subjective interpretations. This hierarchical
representation may lead less independent-minded researches to reflect it
unquestioningly in their analysis and related conceptualizations. This disadvantage
was not relevant to this analysis as NVivo was not solely used for textual counting, but
rather structured reoccurring concepts that provided a framework for a coherent Developing
definition of SCM. a consensus
To this end, each of the compiled SCM definitions were analyzed using a
word-for-word content analysis and the key concepts (or terms) of each definition were definition of SCM
identified. It is important to note here that content analysis is a form of conceptual
analysis, whereby key concepts or terms are evaluated. In our analysis, these concepts
were placed into free-standing nodes and subsequently used to build broader themes or 697
sets. The researchers initially identified some “key” themes of the SCM definitions and
had NVivo assign cases into these groups. Additionally, the software suggested other
potential groupings that did not fit into the initial categories or themes. NVivo was then
directed to code each of these key concepts into a specific free node, or sub-theme,
which was then identified by the researchers. Once all of the key aspects of the
definitions were coded into the appropriate free nodes, the researchers combined
similar free nodes into themes (i.e. categories of free nodes). When a key concept was
uncovered that did not fit into one of the previously identified free nodes, a new free
node was created and descriptively labeled. The derived free nodes or major themes
are presented in the following paragraphs after a brief example of how the definitions
were coded.
The researchers utilized the Graneheim and Lundman (2004) methodology for
conducting the content analysis of SCM definitions and developing the themes and
sub-themes. The unit of analysis in this research was each of the published studies that
included definitions of SCM. Two researchers involved in conducting this study
independently read through the definitions several times to get a sense of the totality of
SCM. The definitions were then placed into a single data base for analysis using NVivo.
The researchers examined each definition and discussed each one with respect to
whether or not they felt that the definition was different or similar to other definitions.
They discussed how each definition was configured (i.e. the components included in
the definition) and developed a comprehensive list of those elements that were
included. This procedure was used to develop the overall themes and then the nodes
within each theme.
In order to ensure that the research findings would be “trustworthy,” the Graneheim
and Lundman (2004) methodology was employed to examine the trustworthiness of the
research results based on credibility, dependability and transferability. Relating to
credibility, the data were all based on published manuscripts dealing with the topic of
SCM where a definition was included. Since a large number of source materials were
evaluated, a variety of aspects relating to the topic were examined, representing
thoughts of more than 100 authors. The components or elements of SCM have been
generally well recognized in terms of what they encompassed and how they were
defined. For example, there is not much difference in how activity or functional terms
such as transportation, warehousing, inventory control are defined by researchers and
practitioners.
The dependability of the findings examines the degree to which data change over
time and how the researchers interpret that data. In this study, the researchers were
examining the various published definitions during one time interval, even though the
actual manuscripts were published over a significant time span. The transferability or
extent that the findings can be transferred to other settings or groups is facilitated by
the fact that the researchers used a common approach to collecting and evaluating the
IJPDLM data, that is, the definitions of SCM. In other words, it can be reasonably assumed that
39,8 utilizing the same methodology in another context or situation would produce results
that would be reliable.

5. Identification of SCM themes

As a result of the qualitative analysis of the 173 definitions, three major themes were
698 identified:
(1) activities;
(2) benefits; and
(3) constituents/components (Figure 1).

Within each theme, some sub-themes were identified. For example, activities included
both flows of materials, services, finances, and information, and networks of internal
and external relationships. Benefits included adding value, creating efficiencies, and
customer satisfaction. Utilizing these three themes, the definitions of SCM were
examined to determine what elements or components of the definitions pertained to one
or more of the three major themes.
The development of SCM has been rapid during the previous three decades. In this
section of the paper, this development will be traced with respect to the three major
themes identified from the qualitative analysis, namely, the:
(1) activities;
(2) benefits; and
(3) constituents/components.

Utilizing the themes and nodes identified from the qualitative analysis of the 173
definitions, the researchers attempted to discover if there were any trends evident from
the definitions offered by authors over the years that could result in the creation of a
consensus definition of SCM.

6. Results
A detailed analysis of the definitions and descriptions resulted in the identification of
several themes and sub-themes that occurred repeatedly throughout the dataset. The
sub-themes were labeled as:

Constituents or
Activities Benefits Themes
components

Figure 1.
Major themes and Material/physical, Networks of Value Creates Customer Constituents or Sub-themes
sub-themes of a consensus finances, services, relationships creation efficiencies satisfaction components
SCM definition and information (internal and
flows external)
 .
material/physical, services, finances and information flows; Developing
.
networks of relationships (both internal and external); a consensus
.
value creation; definition of SCM
.
creates efficiencies;
.
customer satisfaction; and
.
constituents or component parts. 699
Each was determined to fall into one of the three broad themes constituting the key
activities, the benefits, or the constituents associated with SCM.
In tracing the development of SCM definitions over time, the number of themes and
sub-themes included in SCM definitions generally increased. Typical in the evolution of
a field of study, as an area is examined by more researchers, a greater understanding of
it emerges, resulting in a broader and more encompassing view of the field.
In examining SCM definitions over time, the majority included activities such as flows
of materials and networks of external relationships with other supply chain firms. The
earliest definitions averaged about two themes or sub-themes (out of a total of six
possible) and gradually increased to 3-4. Initially, early SCM definitions only included
materials flows, but over the years expanded to include services, financial and
information flows as well. Similarly, the definitions included networks of relationships,
but early definitions typically only considered external networks. Later, both internal
and external networks were incorporated into SCM definitions. Additionally, as
definitions of SCM developed, they began to include various benefits such as adding
value (47 percent), creating efficiencies (35 percent), and customer satisfaction
(28 percent), although these benefits were included less than one-half of the time.
Finally, throughout the evolution of SCM definitions, constituents/component parts
were included in more than three-quarters of all definitions published.
Overall, when examining the SCM definitions published through 2008, it was
unusual to find definitions that included all six sub-themes. Of the 173 unique
definitions identified, only a relatively few (eight in total) possessed all sub-themes, and
these appeared in sources published in 1990, 1995, 2000 (three times), and 2001 (three
times) (Table III).
Stevens (1990, p. 25) was the first author to include all six components in a definition
of SCM:

Number of sub-themes contained in definitiona Number of SCM definitions

Six 8
Five 23
Four 34
Three 58
Two or less 50
Total 173 Table III.
Published SCM
Notes: aTo be considered a complete definition, which includes six sub-themes, each sub-theme must definitions containing
contain nodes for network of relationships (internal and external) and flows (information and sub-themes of a
materials) consensus definition
IJPDLM The supply chain is the flow of both information and material through a manufacturing
company, from the supplier to the customer. Traditionally the flow of material has been
39,8 considered only at an operational level, but this approach is no longer adequate. It is now
essential for business to manage the supply chain in order to improve customer service,
achieve a balance between costs and services, and thereby give a company a competitive
advantage. Managers must work to integrate the supply chain;, i.e. to ensure that all the
functions and activities involved in the chain are working harmoniously together. To develop
700 an integrated supply chain means managing material flow from three perspectives: strategic,
tactical and operational. At each of these levels, the use of facilities, people, finance and
systems must be coordinated and harmonized as a whole.
Stewart (1995) included all six themes in his discussion of SCM:
The supply chain consists of those logistical and informational elements which are bounded
by the aggregate demands of the marketplace at one end, and by specific product/service
delivery at the customer site, at the other end. Integrating the supply chain requires
philosophical, operational and systems changes. Four categories of operational change must
be considered:
.
Policies, practices and procedures including: management approaches/methodologies
which define how to perform activities (task, sequence, timing, etc.); balanced performance
metrics which reflect process performance; knowledge of industry best practices that
enable best performance.
.
Organization including: organizational structure and degree of cross-functional
integration; roles and responsibilities for each policy, practice or procedure;
skills/training available as well as required to perform activities.
.
Structure including: assembly value add or distribution centre rationalization; flow of
material from source of supply to end customer; flow of data from customer to
manufacturer/distributor and back.
.
Systems including: the use of systems to enable best practice performance; the effective
management of data and analysis across the supply chain (speed of flow, one touch
quality, appropriate access).

The integrated supply chain structure seeks to minimize non-value-add activities and their
associated structure, because this drives investment cost, operating cost, and time out of the
supply chain process. This serves to inject greater customer responsiveness and flexibility
into the supply chain, driving costs down and thereby enhancing bottom-line performance
and cost competitiveness (p. 38).
During 2000, three examples of SCM definitions were identified that included all major
themes and sub-themes. Interestingly, all three definitions were published in books,
rather than journal articles. Groosse (2000, pp. 173-4) included a definition of SCM in a
discussion of global business strategies as follows:
Supply chain management is designing and controlling the entire system of procurement,
logistics, and supplier relationships. [It is] an integrative end-to-end approach to dealing
with the planning and control of materials and information from suppliers to end customers.
The manufacturer and its suppliers, and customers – that is, all links in the extended
enterprise – working together to provide a common product and service to the marketplace
that the customer desires and is willing to pay for throughout the life cycle of the product
and service. This multi-company group, functioning as one extended enterprise, makes
optimum use of shared resources (people, process, technology, and performance
 measurements) to achieve operating synergy. The result is a product or service that is Developing
high-quality, low-cost, delivered quickly to the marketplace, and achieves customer
satisfaction. a consensus
In a book examining the electronic supply chain, Poirier and Bauer (2000, pp. 3-4)
definition of SCM
defined SCM as follows:
Supply chain management (SCM) refers to the methods, systems, and leadership that 701
continuously improve an organization’s integrated processes for product and service design,
sales forecasting, purchasing, inventory management, manufacturing or production, order
management, logistics, distribution, and customer satisfaction. SCM involves optimizing the
creation and delivery of goods, services, and information from suppliers to business
customers and consumers. It is a means to improve the enterprise’s competitive position
within the market served by itself and the constituent members of its supply chain network.
Typically, early SCM efforts are internally focused and dedicated to cutting cost and
improving profits only for the company.
In another book, Schonsleben (2000, p. 2) defined SCM using all six components as:
Supply chain management enables the coordinated management of material and information
flows through the chain from your sources to your customers. The objective of SCM is to
reduce or minimize total cost, improve total quality, maximize customer service, and increase
profit.
The following year, Lummus et al. (2001), Towers and Ashford (2001) and Elmuti
(2002) offered their own definitions of SCM that included all six components. Lummus
et al. (2001) examined the relationship of logistics to SCM in an attempt to develop a
common definition of SCM. Lummus et al. (2001, p. 428) defined SCM as:
[. . .] all the activities involved in delivering a product from raw material through to the
customer, including sourcing raw materials and parts, manufacturing and assembly,
warehousing and inventory tracking, order entry and order management, distribution across
all channels, delivery to the customer, and the information systems necessary to monitor all of
these activities.
Towers and Ashford (2001, p. 1) took a marketing approach in defining SCM, giving
emphasis to the sustainable customer relationships that SCM could develop:
SCM has sought to create streams of activities linked between producer, customer and
supplier that demanded longer-term partnership links to be developed. The process of
strategically managing the procurement, movement and storage of materials, parts and
finished inventory (and their related information flows) through the organization and its
marketing channels in such a way that current and future profitability are maximized
through the cost effective fulfillment of orders. It has a focus on the external environment of
the enterprise with the boundaries defined by the legal entity of the enterprise.
Finally, Elmuti (2002, p. 49) presented a definition of SCM in one of the journals
specifically focused on the topic of SCM and examined its impact on organizational
effectiveness. The author offered the following definition:
Supply chain management works to bring the supplier, the distributor, and the customer into
one cohesive process. The manufacturers, suppliers, transporters, warehouses, retailers, and
customers are involved in a dynamic but constant flow of information, products, and funds.
SCM has also become know as the supply network or the supply web because they show how
each unit interacts with the others. The suppliers and distributors that were once adversaries
IJPDLM are now becoming partners for the betterment of both corporations. Managing the chain of
events in this process is called SCM. Effective management must take into account
39,8 coordinating all the different pieces of this chain as quickly as possible without losing any of
the quality or customer satisfaction, while still keeping costs down.
The three major themes and sub-themes are briefly discussed in the following sections
so as to provide readers with an understanding of the development of SCM and its
702 present breadth and scope.

6.1 Activities
Given that definitions and detailed descriptions were analyzed in this study, it is not
surprising that the activities associated with SCM occur most often. SCM activities are
composed of two sub-themes, the material/physical, finances, services and information
flows sub-theme and the networks of relationships (which includes both internal and
external relationships) sub-theme which occurred in 68 and 70 percent of the
definitions, respectively.
Material/physical, finances, services and information flows. The effective
management of product and information flows is clearly a key aspect of SCM.
Illustrative examples of SCM definitions containing this sub-theme include the
following:
[. . .] The supply chain encompasses all activities associated with the flow and transformation
of the goods from the raw materials stage (extraction), through to the end-user, as well as
associated information flows. Materials and information flow both up and down the supply
chain (Handfield and Nichols, 1999).
[. . .] a set of three of more entities (organizations or individuals) directly involved in the
upstream and downstream flows of product, services, finances, and/or information from a
source to a customer (Mentzer et al., 2001a).
The processes concerned with moving products from the extraction of natural resources and
processing all the way to the end consumer (Paulson, 2001).
Most of the SCM definitions cited material/physical, finances, services and/or
information flow as key concepts of activities. For example, Zsidisin et al. (2000, p. 312)
describe the primary goal of SCM as “effectively managing the flow of materials and
information from supply sources to the final point of sale.” Likewise, SCM has also
been described as the management of raw materials, in-process materials, and
finished-goods inventories from the point of origin to the point of consumption and the
planning and control of materials and information from suppliers to end customers
(Arthur D. Little, 1991).
Interestingly, the vast majority of definitions identified flow only as a one-way
process. Either material flows one-way from the supplier to consumer or information
flows one-way from consumer to supplier. Stevens (1989) stated that SCM involved
establishing a system for linking together (constituent parts) via the feed forward flow
of materials and the feedback flow of information. Similarly, Towill et al. (2000, p. 160)
proposed that “information concerning demand flows upstream from the marketplace
and ultimately to the raw material supplier” and “material flows downstream, ending
up as a particular physical product.”
 However, a few authors have recognized that material and information travels in Developing
two-way flows both up and down the supply chain. Handfield and Nichols (1999) stated a consensus
that SCM encompasses all activities associated with the flow and transformation of
goods . . . as well as all information flows, not only flows traveling in a one-way direction. definition of SCM
Svensson (2002, p. 749) recognized a dilemma in the uni-directionality proposed by some
previous definitions arguing that they “ignore the overall bi-directional dependencies of
activities, actors, and resources between the points-of-consumption and origin.” The 703
CSCMP (2005) definition of SCM implies the two-way flow of various elements in the
supply chain. If materials and information only flow uni-directionally downstream and
upstream, how would one account for the upstream flow of materials resulting from
reverse logistic activities and the downstream flow of information that undoubtedly
occurs from raw material suppliers, to manufacturers, and then to retailers?
Networks of relationships. Establishing networks of relationships between
interrelated and interdependent organizations, as well as across business units
internal to an organization, is another sub-theme of the activities theme identified in
SCM definitions. Illustrative examples include the following:
Supply chain management as the management of the interface relationships among key
stakeholders and enterprise functions that occur in the maximization of value creation which
is driven by customer needs satisfaction and facilitated by efficient logistics management
(Walters and Lancaster, 2000).
SCM works to bring the supplier, the distributor, and the customer into one cohesive process
(Elmuti, 2002).
Supply chain management has recently concentrated on closer relationships between parties
involved in the flow of goods from the supplier to the end-user (Dainty et al., 2001).
Occurring in 123 (70 percent) of the 173 definitions examined, the idea of SCM as a method
of managing a system of interrelationships was the most frequently occurring sub-theme.
Definitions citing the networks of relationships as a key aspect of SCM refer to these
relationships as either external to the organization, internal across business units, or both.
Morgan and Hunt (1994) identify the need to manage relationships between internal
customers and suppliers simultaneously with the management of relationships between
the organization and its customers and suppliers. SCM has also been described as “the
management of the interface relationships among key stakeholders and enterprise
functions” (Walters and Lancaster, 2000, p. 160) and the coordination within and between
various supply chain members (Chandra and Kumar, 2000).

6.2 Benefits
The benefits resulting from effective implementation of SCM strategies are comprised
of three sub-themes that appear repeatedly throughout the dataset. These sub-themes
relate to various aspects of SCM benefits:
(1) value creation;
(2) creates efficiencies; or
(3) customer satisfaction.

Ultimately, the goal of SCM is to achieve greater profitability by adding value and
creating efficiencies, thereby increasing customer satisfaction (Groosse, 2000).
IJPDLM Value creation. Illustrative examples of SCM definitions that include “value
39,8 creation” as a sub-theme include the following:
[. . .] integration of business processes from end use through original suppliers that provides
products, services, and information that add value for customers (Cooper et al., 1997).
[. . .] processes and activities that produce value in the form of products and services in the
704 hands of the ultimate consumer (Christopher, 1992).
SCM has traditionally been identified closely with logistics because of similarities
associated with the flow of materials and services between suppliers and consumers.
However, the concept of SCM adding value for consumers and stakeholders highlights
that the value-added components of SCM, such as technical support and training
services, clearly separates it from traditional logistics management ( Jones, 1989).
Further, this concept of adding value in the supply chain is becoming even more
important. In some industries, additional support features such as 24-hour technical
support may carry more weight than price when making the purchase decision (O’Brien
and Deans, 1996).
Each supply chain member performs a specific “added value function in relation to
the product/service as it progresses towards the final consumer” (Ritchie and Brindley,
2002, p. 110). Although SCM adds value to the process, it is important to note that a
basic premise of SCM is that value must increase faster than the costs associated with
managing the supply chain (Lamming, 1996; Lockamy and Smith, 1997). Despite the
obvious importance of value added concepts in SCM, they were cited in less than half
(47 percent) of the definitions.
Creates efficiencies. Illustrative examples of SCM definitions that include the
sub-theme of “creating efficiencies” include the following:
The [supply chain], functioning as one extended enterprise, makes optimum use of shared
resources (Groosse, 2000).
Utilized to efficiently integrate suppliers, manufacturers, warehouses and stores (Simchi-Levi
et al., 2000).
Supply chain management is the management of the interface relationships among key
stakeholders and enterprise functions that occur in the maximization of value creation which
is driven by customer needs satisfaction and facilitated by efficient logistics management
(Walters and Lancaster, 2000).
Enhanced SCM capabilities can create efficiencies and cost savings across a wide range of
business processes (Horvath, 2001).
Linking the manufacturer, suppliers and customers, SCM makes optimum use of
shared resources, both internal and external to the organization, to achieve operating
synergy by creating greater efficiencies (Groosse, 2000). Cox (1997, p. 167) describes
SCM being dedicated to:
[. . .] discovering tools and techniques that provide for increased operational effectiveness and
efficiency throughout the delivery channels that must be created internally and externally to
support and supply existing corporate product and service offerings to customers.
SCM has developed as a means of improving an organization’s competitive advantage
in the marketplace and the competitiveness of its constituent members by creating
mutually beneficial supply chain networks. These networks create greater synergy Developing
and efficiencies by allowing organizations to cut costs and improve profits (Poirier and a consensus
Bauer, 2000). Creating efficiencies was included in only a little over one-third
(35 percent) of the definitions. definition of SCM
Customer satisfaction. Illustrative examples of SCM definitions that include
“customer satisfaction” as a sub-theme are:
[. . .] the integration of business processes from end-users through original suppliers that 705
provide products, services and information that add value for customers (Cooper et al., 1997).
[. . .] manage inventory throughout the channel, from source of supply to end-user aiming at
improved customer service (Verwijmeren et al., 1996).
[. . .] reducing investment without sacrificing customer satisfaction (Spekman et al., 1998).
Understanding and meeting consumer needs is of paramount importance in SCM as a
way of optimizing value to customers and improving return to all stakeholders in the
supply chain (Mowat and Collins, 2000). According to Kuei et al. (2001, p. 864), SCM
practitioners “must maintain and sustain a customer-driven culture.” Others argue that
the most basic purpose of SCM is conforming to customer requirements and one of the
two most important aspects of SCM is that it focuses on customers at the end of
the chain (Taylor, 1997). Given the fundamental nature of customer satisfaction in the
effective utilization of SCM, it is surprising that this sub-theme of SCM was only
addressed in about one-fourth (28 percent) of the definitions examined.

6.3 Constituents or components of SCM

More than three-fourths (76 percent) of the SCM definitions addressed the components
or the constituent parts of SCM. However, they consist of a plethora of constituencies,
systems and functions ranging from “material suppliers, production facilities,
distribution services and customers” (Gunasekaran et al., 2001, p. 71) to purchasing,
transportation, inventory control, materials handling, manufacturing, distribution, and
related systems (Arthur D. Little, 1991). In the case of identifying the components and
constituent parts, it may suffice to say that SCM is composed of all operations,
systems, business functions and organizations involved in the management of a
particular supply chain.
The majority of definitions included mention of constituents or component parts,
which could have included functional areas or processes within an organization, or
external entities such as manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors, and
transportation companies.

7. An encompassing definition of SCM

In conducting this study, we chose to develop a consensus SCM definition based on the
definitions of a large number of our predecessors rather than relying on a small
number of individuals or the review of only a few, select definitions. By considering a
large sample of definitions from both the academic and practitioner literature we
attempted to remove as much of our own SCM biases from the development of a
consensus definition. The definition that has been developed is based solely on our
research and analysis of the 173 definitions rather than imposing our own opinions on
the definition we propose. From this analysis, we compiled the most commonly cited
IJPDLM components (themes and sub-themes) in our dataset of definitions. Each of these
39,8 themes and sub-themes are included in our definition to insure that it includes the most
salient aspects of each previously published definition. By integrating these disparate,
yet encompassing aspects, we propose the following encompassing definition of SCM:
The management of a network of relationships within a firm and between interdependent
organizations and business units consisting of material suppliers, purchasing, production
706 facilities, logistics, marketing, and related systems that facilitate the forward and reverse
flow of materials, services, finances and information from the original producer to final
customer with the benefits of adding value, maximizing profitability through efficiencies, and
achieving customer satisfaction.
Is the above definition better? The answer, of course, depends on one’s perspective.
This definition is inclusive of a large number of previous definitions that have
appeared in print. In that regard, it combines the collective thinking and wisdom of
numerous individuals with varying perspectives and viewpoints. Thus, the definition
developed is much like taking a census of the population since it includes the SCM
definitions published. The proposed definition is more encompassing because many of
the previously published definitions have only included a portion of what is currently
viewed as SCM by SCOR, Version 9.0 (Supply Chain Council, 2009) and Lambert et al.
(1998a, b) models of SCM.
This is an important finding as many definitions of SCM have been previously set
forth, but they have failed to encompass the various components or the widely
accepted models of SCM. To that end, this proposed definition is simply not another
addition to the SCM literature, but rather it serves to synthesize SCM thought by
taking into account the most agree upon aspects of SCM while yielding a consensus
definition of SCM generated from previously published research. A review of the
173 definitions revealed that many of the conceptualizations of SCM failed to capture
the most commonly identified themes and sub-themes from our analysis. Suffice it to
say that our definition captures the scope of many researchers and it is broad enough
to accurately portray the accepted models within the SCM discipline.
So, is this consensus definition “the optimal” definition of SCM? Likely, no optimal
definition may ever be determined because SCM is still developing and evolving
continuously. However, we believe the proposed definition is better than those
previously published because it is representative of the conceptualizations of both
academicians and practitioners and relates to earlier definitions of SCM. More
importantly, the proposed definition has three themes that have been widely agreed
upon in the SCM literature: activities, benefits, and SCM constituents or components.
Thus, although the field is still developing these core SCM themes, they will remain a
vital part of SCM as the area continues to grow and develop. Based on the newly
proposed consensus definition of SCM, there are a number of implications for
academicians and practitioners.

8. Implications and conclusion

By recognizing that enterprises can no longer effectively compete unilaterally or
autonomously in today’s business environment, the development of SCM represents
one of the most significant paradigm shifts in modern business management practice
(Lambert and Cooper, 2000). Hence, the adoption of a consensus definition of SCM is of
paramount importance in the development of a coherent SCM discipline. A consensus
definition can provide opportunities to academicians in terms of guiding future Developing
research and to practitioners as they develop and implement more effective SCM a consensus
practices.
In order to scientifically study a phenomenon such as SCM, it is necessary to have a definition of SCM
clear conceptualization of the phenomenon itself and its associated components and
boundaries. Based on our findings, there were three commonly used themes across the
various SCM definitions identified in the literature. As evidenced from our proposed 707
definition, a consensus definition would include all six sub-themes. These concepts can
be employed to spur future research.
The adoption of the proposed consensus definition would provide an agreed upon
starting point and accepted structural framework for additional development and
empirical testing of SCM theory, concepts, principles and methods and could aid in the
identification and resolution of SCM-related problems and issues. Research synergy is
difficult when multiple approaches are being taken as is the case without a common
framework for SCM.
Examples of some of the issues in SCM that could be examined include the
following conceptual and practical issues:
.
Is there a theory or theories of SCM?
.
What are the factors that impact the formation and continuation of inter-firm
relationships in the supply chain?
.
What are the best ways of obtaining coordination between supply chain
members?
.
What are the outputs of a supply chain and how should they be measured?

With specific regard to the development of supply chain theories, the process proposed
by Hunt (2002) could be employed. This theory testing process consists of five
interdependent stages, the results of which will either tend to corroborate or undermine
SCM theory. The absence of a consensus definition has greatest impact on the theory,
bridge laws, and research hypotheses stages of empirical testing. Theory development
must be the backbone and at the heart of scientific research endeavors. However, the
lack of a definitive conceptualization of the components and activities encompassing
SCM phenomenon will lead to theory that is ambiguous and incompletely conceived.
A consensus definition will also assist practitioners in developing a more structured
understanding of the activities and processes within and between supply chain
members that are vital for creating and sustaining superior competitiveness and
profitability in today’s business environment. Given that many resource allocation
decisions within a firm are based on an understanding and interpretation of SCM, an
increased conceptualization also has implications in supply chain strategy,
organization and planning, performance measurement, and human resource
management.
Concerning the outputs of a supply chain and how they should they be measured,
researchers and practitioners might ask: Are the outputs the same, irrespective of
whether an integrated supply chain exists or not? Or, are the outputs different in a
supply chain versus a traditional channel of distribution? Presently, there is debate on
this issue and a consensus definition of SCM would be helpful in framing a response to
that debate. Additionally, practitioners will be able to benchmark other companies and
IJPDLM industries when they can be more certain that others are visioning SCM in the same
39,8 way. At the moment, it is like comparing “apples to oranges” rather than “apples to
apples” or “oranges to oranges.”
In sum, there exists too much disagreement as to what SCM is and what functions
and/or processes it includes. A consensus definition of SCM would be helpful in
eliminating much of the disagreement. As a result of the qualitative analysis of a large
708 number of SCM definitions heretofore published in the academic and
trade/professional press, a consensus definition has been offered which can assist in
advancing the art and science of SCM. Agreement on a definition will allow SCM
research and practice to move forward from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

References
Arthur D. Little (1991), Logistics in Service Industries, Prepared by Arthur D. Little and
The Pennsylvania State University for the Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook,
IL, pp. 10-31.
Chandra, C. and Kumar, S. (2000), “Supply chain management in theory and practice: a passing
fad or a fundamental change?”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 100 No. 3,
pp. 100-14.
Christopher, M.L. (1992), Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Pitman Publishing, London.
Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), “Supply chain management: more than a new
name for logistics”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 1-13.
Cox, A. (1997), Business Success, Earlsgate Press, Boston, MA.
CSCMP (2005), Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, available at: www.
cscmporg/AboutCSCMP/Definitions/Definitions asp (accessed March 2005).
Dainty, A.R.J., Millett, S.J. and Briscoe, G.H. (2001), “New perspectives on construction supply
chain integration”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4,
pp. 163-73.
Elmuti, D. (2002), “The perceived impact of supply chain management on organizational
effectiveness”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 49-57.
Graneheim, U. and Lundman, B. (2004), “Qualitative content analysis in nursing research:
concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness”, Nurse Education Today,
Vol. 24, pp. 105-12.
Groosse, R. (2000), Thunderbird on Global Business Strategy, Wiley, New York, NY.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001), “Performance measures and metrics in a
supply chain environment”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 71-87.
Handfield, R. and Nichols, E. (1999), Introduction to Supply Chain Management, Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Horvath, L. (2001), “Collaboration: the key to value creation in supply chain management”,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 205-7.
Hunt, S. (2002), Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing,
M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 212-5.
Johnson, J. and Wood, D. (1996), Contemporary Logistics, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
River, NJ.
Jones, C. (1989), “Supply chain management – the key issues”, BPICS Control, Developing
October/November, pp. 23-7.
a consensus
Kuei, C., Christian, N. and Lin, C. (2001), “The relationship between supply chain quality
management practices and organizational performance”, International Journal of Quality definition of SCM
& Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 864-72.
Lambert, D. and Cooper, M. (2000), “Issues in supply chain management”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83. 709
Lambert, D., Cooper, M. and Pagh, M. (1998a), “Supply chain management: implementation
issues and research opportunities”, The International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Lambert, D., Stock, J. and Ellram, L. (1998b), Fundamentals of Logistics Management,
Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.
Lamming, R. (1996), “Squaring the lean supply with supply chain management”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-91.
Larson, P. and Rogers, D. (1998), “Supply chain management: definition growth and approaches”,
Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 1-5.
Larson, P., Poist, R. and Halldórsson, Á. (2007), “Perspectives on logistics vs. SCM: a survey of
SCM professionals”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Lockamy, A. and Smith, W. (1997), “Managing the supply chain: a value-based approach”,
The 40th International Conference Proceedings: Target Breakthrough Ideas, October
26-29, APICS, Washington, DC.
Lummus, R. and Vokurka, R. (1999), “Defining supply chain management: a historical
perspective and practical guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 99
No. 1, pp. 11-17.
Lummus, R., Krumwiede, D. and Vokurka, R. (2001), “The relationship of logistics to supply
chain management: developing a common industry definition”, Industrial Management &
Data Systems, Vol. 101 No. 8, pp. 426-32.
Mentzer, J.T., Min, S. and Zacharia, Z. (2000), “The nature of interfirm partnering in supply chain
management”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 4, pp. 549-68.
Mentzer, J.T., Stank, T.P. and Esper, T.L. (2008), “Supply chain management and its relationship
to logistics, marketing, production, and operations management”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001a),
“Defining supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001b),
“What is supply chain management”, in Mentzer, J.T. (Ed.), Supply Chain Management,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 1-25.
Morgan, R. and Hunt, S. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Mowat, A. and Collins, R. (2000), “Consumer behaviour and fruit quality: supply chain
management in an emerging industry”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 45-54.
New, S. (1997), “The scope of supply chain management research”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 15-22.
O’Brien, E. and Deans, K. (1996), “Educational supply chain: a tool for strategic planning in
tertiary education?”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 33-40.
IJPDLM Paulson, L.D. (2001), “Understanding supply chain management”, IT Professional Magazine,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 10-13.
39,8
Poirier, C. and Bauer, M. (2000), E-Supply Chain, Berrett-Koehker, San Francisco, CA.
QSR International (2006), NVivo7: An Overview, QSR International, available at: www.
qsrinternational.com
Ritchie, B. and Brindley, C. (2002), “Reassessing the management of the global supply chain”,
710 Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 110-6.
Schonsleben, P. (2000), Integral Logistics Management, St Lucie Press and APICS, Alexandria, VA.
Simchi-Levi, D., Daminski, P. and Simchi-Levi, E. (2000), Designing and Managing the Supply
Chain: Concepts, Strategies and Case Studies, Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.
Skjoett-Larsen, T. (1994), “Third-party logistics – from an interorganizational point of view”,
paper presented at the 6th Nordic Logistics Conference, Chalmers University of
Technology, Gothenburg, June.
Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. Jr and Myhr, N. (1998), “An empirical investigation into supply
chain management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 630-50.
Stevens, G. (1989), “Integrating the supply chain”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Materials Management, Vol. 19 No. 8, pp. 3-8.
Stevens, G. (1990), “Successful supply-chain management”, Management Decision, Vol. 28 No. 8,
pp. 25-30.
Stewart, G. (1995), “Supply chain performance benchmarking study reveals keys to supply chain
excellence”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 38-44.
Stock, J. (2001), “Doctoral research in logistics and logistics-related areas: 1992-1998”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 125-256.
Stock, J. and Broadus, C. (2005), “Doctoral research in supply chain management and/or
logistics-related areas: 1999-2004”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 139-496.
Supply Chain Council (2009), SCOR Version 9.0, Supply Chain Council, available at: www.
supply-chain org (accessed 17 February 2009).
Svensson, G. (2002), “The theoretical foundation of supply chain management: a functionalist
theory of marketing”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 734-54.
Tan, K. (2001), “A framework of supply chain management literature”, European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 7, pp. 39-48.
Taylor, D. (1997), Global Cases in Logistics and Supply Chain Management, International
Thompson Business Press, London.
Towers, N. and Ashford, R. (2001), “The supply chain management of production planning and
sustainable customer relationships”, Management Research News, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 1-6.
Towill, D., Childerhouse, P. and Disney, S. (2000), “Speeding up the progress curve towards
effective supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 122-30.
Trent, R. (2004), “What everyone needs to know about SCM”, Supply Chain Management Review,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 52-60.
Verwijmeren, M., van der Vlist, P. and van Donselaar, K. (1996), “Networked inventory
management information systems: materializing supply chain management”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No. 6,
pp. 16-31.
Walters, D. and Lancaster, G. (2000), “Implementing value strategy through the value chain”, Developing
Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 160-78.
Zsidisin, G., Jun, M. and Adams, L. (2000), “The relationship between information technology and
a consensus
service quality in the dual-direction supply chain”, International Journal of Service definition of SCM
Industry Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 312-28.

Further reading 711

Gibson, B., Mentzer, J. and Cook, R. (2005), “Supply chain management: pursuit of a consensus
definition”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 17-25.

About the authors

James R. Stock, PhD, The Ohio State University, is the Frank Harvey Endowed Professor of
Marketing at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. His research interests include
reverse logistics, product returns, supply chain management, and the marketing/logistics
interface. He is the author or co-author of more than 150 publications including books, articles
and conference proceedings. He presently serves as Editor of the Journal of Business Logistics.
James R. Stock is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jstock@coba.usf.edu
Stefanie L. Boyer, PhD, University of South Florida, is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at
Bryant University. Her research seeks to improve organizational performance by enhancing
supply chain management, and organizational training and learning. She has published in the
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science and the Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management.

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

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