168 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 65, NO.
1, FEBRUARY 2018
The Fit Between Supply Chain Strategies and
Practices: A Contingency Approach and
Comparative Analysis
Daniel Prajogo , Carlos Mena
Abstract—This paper presents a contingency model that exam-
ines the external links between the business environment and sup-
ply chain strategies, and the internal links between supply chain
strategies and supplier management practices. The research model
theorizes that flexibility and low-cost oriented supply chain strate-
gies should fit with the underlying business environments, and, in
turn, supplier management practices (i.e., long-term relationships,
supplier assessment, and integration) should fit with the chosen
supply chain strategies. The dataset to test the research model
was drawn from a survey of managers from 232 Australian manu-
facturing firms, and comparative path analyses were employed to
assess the fit among different business environments, supply chain
strategies, and supply chain practices. The findings show that dy-
namic environment has a better fit with flexibility strategy than
low-cost strategy, while competitive environment surprisingly does
not show a stronger fit to low-cost strategy than flexibility strat-
egy. Additionally, the results show that while supplier assessment is
important for both flexibility and low-cost oriented strategies, long-
term relationship and logistics integration are more important for
flexibility strategy than for low-cost strategy. The implications for
theory and practice are discussed in the paper.
Index Terms—Business environments, contingency theory,
supply chain strategies, supplier management practices.
I. INTRODUCTION
ANY STUDIES have examined the relationship be-
M tween supplier management practices and firm (buyer)
performance. These studies consider long-term relationships
[1]–[3], supplier assessment [5], [6], and logistics integration
[7]–[10] as important elements of supplier management. While
these streams of research have provided important theoretical
and practical insights, they often adopt a deterministic approach
which assumes a “one best way” perspective, overlooking the
complexities of supply chains. An alternative perspective, which
has received less attention in the literature, involves evaluating
Manuscript received July 11, 2016; revised March 5, 2017 and July 12, 2017;
accepted September 2, 2017. Date of publication October 17, 2017; date of
current version January 18, 2018. Review of this manuscript was arranged by
Department Editor J. Sarkis. (Corresponding author: Daniel Prajogo.)
D. Prajogo is with the Department of Management, Monash University,
Caulfield East, VIC 3145, Australia (e-mai: daniel.prajogo@monash.edu).
C. Mena and A. Nair are with the Department of Supply Chain Management,
Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
48824 USA (e-mail: cmena@broad.msu.edu; nair@broad.msu.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2017.2756982
0018-9391 © 2017 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
, and Anand Nair
how the relationships among supplier management strategies,
practices, and performance are influenced by contextual vari-
ables. This perspective implies that organizations need to adapt
their strategies and practices to maintain their fit with changing
contextual variables so as to attain higher performance [11]. This
contingency perspective allows the investigation of the complex
set of relationships among a firm’s strategy, its environment, and
its supply base, which is the main focus of this study.
Burns and Stalker [12] theorized that the fit between an or-
ganization and its environment depends on the nature of the
environment. The paper proposed that structures that maximize
efficiency fit a stable and predictable environment while or-
ganic structures that sacrifice efficiency for flexibility fit better
in an environment characterized by rapid change. Fisher [13]
extended this thinking to the supply chain area and proposed
that functional products, characterized by predictable demand,
fit with an efficient supply chain while innovative products,
characterized by unpredictable demand, fit with a responsive
and flexible supply chain. Lee [14] further developed this con-
tingency view of supply chain strategies by adding supply un-
certainty to Fisher’s [13] demand uncertainty model.
The conceptual pieces by Fisher [13] and Lee [14] have in-
spired a stream of contingency research in the supply chain.
Some researchers have focused on the external fit between envi-
ronmental contingencies and supply chain strategies (e.g., [15],
[16]), others have centered their efforts on the internal fit be-
tween supply chain strategies and practices (e.g., [9], [17], [18])
while a third group has concentrated on the fit between external
contingencies and internal practices [19]. However, a question
that remains unaddressed is: What drives firms to engage in cer-
tain supply chain strategies and supplier management practices?
This paper examines a contingency model of supply chain
strategies and supplier management practices. In this model, we
theorize that the business environment (in terms of dynamism
and competitiveness) affects the choice of supply chain strate-
gies (in terms of flexibility and low-cost) and these strategies,
in turn, influence the choice of supplier management practices.
Understanding the contingency aspects of supply chain strate-
gies and practices is important given the various kinds that have
been introduced in the past two decades. The accumulation of
supply chain management (SCM) concepts might lead firms to
think that they have to adopt all of these strategies and practices
without recognizing the unique fit between the two elements
PRAJOGO et al.: FIT BETWEEN SUPPLY CHAIN STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES: A CONTINGENCY APPROACH AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
and the context where they are implemented, resulting in a sit-
uation where firms implement practices that do not deliver up
to their promise and at the same time also put dent on firms’
limited resources. Although there has been a growing recog-
nition of the importance of examining the fit between supply
chain strategies and practices, very few studies have addressed
this issue [22]–[25]. For example, in their study, Hoejmose
et al. [22] showed that differentiation strategies are significantly
more engaged with socially responsible SCM practices than
are low-cost strategies. The exploratory study by Nakano [23]
among Japanese firms shows that different supply chain strate-
gies (efficient, responsive, efficient/responsive, and traditional)
will produce variations on internal and external supply chain
structures. In their study, Qrunfleh et al. [24] examined the
alignment between supplier management practices (lean ver-
sus agile) and information systems strategies (low-cost versus
flexibility). The study by Raymond and Croteau [25] among
150 Canadian firms showed how the alignment between dif-
ferent business strategies (prospector, analyzer, and defender)
and different manufacturing strategies (product design, process
technologies, and logistics planning) had an impact on produc-
tivity and profitability. None of these studies, however, have
provided a comparative analysis of fit, contrasting between two
different supply chain strategies in relation to their driver (i.e.,
business environment) and their deployment (supply chain prac-
tices). Our study, therefore, addresses this gap and contributes
to the literature by undertaking a focused examination of this
notion of fit that exists between the environment context and
supply chain strategy, and between supply chain strategies and
practices.
This study contributes to the SCM literature in two ways.
First, it shows the relationship among business environment,
supply chain strategy, and supplier management practices. Most
studies have focused on the effect of supply chain practices on
performance (e.g., [7], [8], [16], [17], [27]–[30]), but few of
them asked questions pertaining to the driving factors of those
practices from internal (strategy) and external (business environ-
ments) perspectives or examined the level of congruence across
them. Our paper seeks to fill this gap. Specifically, we examine
whether various supplier management practices are contingent
upon the type of business environment and, consequently, on
the type of supply chain strategy. Second, by contrasting the
need for creating a strategy-practice fit for two distinct supply
chain strategies, this study sheds light on how organizations can
effectively orchestrate their resources to gain maximal business
benefits. Since the development of the body of knowledge per-
taining to SCM practices (see, for example, [32], [33]), studies
have typically argued for an equivocal impact of these prac-
tices irrespective of the underlying context. From a practical
standpoint, this creates implementation issues since firms have
limited resources and adoption of all practices at the same level
of intensity is, at times, practically difficult, if not impossi-
ble. Additionally, certain practices could be antagonistic to each
other, making it difficult for firms to simultaneously adopt them.
In this regard, we suggest a contingency perspective in adopt-
ing different SCM practices by considering the driving strategic
and environmental factors. In doing so we do not seek to find a
“dichotomous” (yes/no) notion where certain practices are only
169
applicable for certain strategies and not for the others. Instead,
we posit that while the SCM practices we examine could serve
different strategies, their level of importance is different. This
means that firms that adopt certain supply chain strategies will
put more emphasis on certain supply chain practices, hence cre-
ating trade-off between different SCM practices. To the best
of our knowledge, previous studies have not undertaken such a
comparative analysis we do in this paper.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
A. Theoretical Underpinnings of the Research
This research is grounded in contingency theory [4], [11],
[12], which contends that, to be effective, organizations and their
strategies should fit their environmental circumstances. This
implies that there is no single best way of organizing and that
managers should be able to identify the contingency variables
in their environment and steer their organizations to achieve a
good fit [18].
Contingency theory has found acceptance in the operations
management literature [21] as a way of linking operations’
strategies and practices to performance. Two main focal areas
of research can be found in the operations management litera-
ture: the external fit between environment and strategies [17],
[18], [25], and the internal fit between strategies and practices
[22]–[24]. In this research, we seek to combine these two
streams of research by proposing a contingency model involving
both external and internal fit.
Environmental uncertainty has long been considered a key
contingency for supply chain strategies [26]. We build on this
notion and consider the need for congruence between two types
of environmental contexts—dynamism and competitiveness—
and supply chain strategies of flexibility and low-cost. In exam-
ining the strategic choice between flexibility and low-cost, this
study contrasts responsive versus efficient supply chain strate-
gies as suggested by Fisher [13]. We consider the fit between
these supply chain strategies and three key supplier management
practices that are widely adopted in the industry: 1) supplier as-
sessment; 2) strategic long-term relationship; and 3) logistics
integration [2], [3]. These three supplier management practices
capture two important aspects [31]: 1) finding the right sup-
ply chain partner (supplier assessment); 2) building the right
relationship with the partner in terms of social and strategic as-
pects (long-term relationship); and 3) technical and operational
aspects (logistics integration).
We argue that the choice and value of these practices are
contingent upon the supply chain strategy and the characteristics
of the business environment in which the firms operate. The
research model, illustrated in Fig. 1, indicates two contingencies.
1) External contingency—supply chain strategies are contin-
gent on business environments.
2) Internal contingency—supplier management practices are
contingent on supply chain strategies.
Sousa and Voss [21] in their critique of the current state of
contingency research in operations management develop a clas-
sification of forms of fit based on the work of Venkatraman
[20] and Drazin and van de Ven [82]: fit as matching, fit as
interaction, and system fit. The matching approach looks for
170 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 65, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2018
Fig. 1. Research model.
congruence between the contingency variable (context) and the
response variable; the interaction approach looks for modera-
tion and mediation effects between pairs of contingency and
response variables and their effect on performance; and the
system fit approach focuses on the internal consistency of mul-
tiple contingencies and multiple response variables affecting
performance [21]. For this research, we consider the “match-
ing” perspective [20], [21], where fit is based on a theoretically
defined relationship between variables, and the measure of fit
is independent of performance anchors [20]. The benefit of this
approach is that it allows us to test the congruence among con-
text, strategies, and practices, without relying on performance
data. This is in line with our research questions which seek
for congruence in the selection of supply chain strategies and
supplier management practices.
In addition to contingency theory, we build on two ex-
tensions of resource-based theory: resource orchestration
[84]–[87], and the relational view [63]. Resource orchestra-
tion argues that it is not resources alone that create competitive
advantage, but the appropriate management of those resources
[85], [86]. This theoretical lens is particularly relevant to our re-
search because, as Sirmon and Hitt [87] argue, managers must
deploy resources in ways that match the strategies being imple-
mented by the firm. This means that management practices need
to be congruent with the strategies being pursued by the firms
[86], [87]. The relational view [63] extends the resource-based
perspective in a different direction, by arguing that relationships
among firms can help them create relational rents, by investing
in relationship-specific assets, establishing knowledge sharing
routines, aligning complementary resources and capabilities,
and deploying effective governance mechanisms for the rela-
tionship. These two perspectives are synergistic because they
allow the examination of both management practices and in-
terorganizational relationships from a resource-based view.
In the following two sections, we elaborate on the contingent
and response variables used in the research and propose a set of
hypotheses in relation to the external and internal notions of fit.
B. External Contingency: Business Environments and Supply
Chain Strategies
Business environment has long been recognized as a critical
contingent factor in SCM research [34]. This is because business
environments entail various driving forces that are outside the
control of organizations, yet they could provide both opportuni-
ties and threats which could have a significant impact on firms’
performance. In this study, we focus on two environmental char-
acteristics: 1) competitiveness; and 2) dynamism. A competitive
environment refers to the degree of price competition in the
marketplace, which is often found in functional products [13].
This environment is characterized by well-established products,
predictable demand patterns, high levels of commoditization,
and promotional wars [15]. A dynamic environment, on the
other hand, refers to the degree of turbulence in products and
technology unpredictability in the marketplace [34]. This is
often reflected by innovative products, unpredictable demand,
short lifecycles of products, and high rates of obsolescence
[13], [15].
The choice of competitiveness and dynamism is grounded
on two main arguments. First, these two characteristics have
received most attention in the previous studies and are consid-
ered as reflecting antagonistic conditions [13]–[15]. Second, and
more importantly, when proposing the concepts of an efficient
versus responsive supply chain, Fisher [13] considered these
two strategies in relation to competitive and dynamic market
conditions. He proposed two models of a supply chain, which
are required to serve two different types of products: functional
and innovative. The functional products are to be served by
an efficient supply chain while the innovative products are to
be served by a responsive supply chain. Drawing from Fisher’s
supply chain models [13], we consider that the demand for func-
tional products reflects competitive business environments with
tight profit margins, low product variety, and low demand un-
certainty. The efficient supply chain has a better fit with such an
environment since it refers to low-cost strategies which focus on
creating the highest cost efficiencies in the supply chain through
improvements in assets, materials, and labor utilization [14]. On
the other hand, the demand for innovative products would fit the
characteristics of dynamic markets where customers’ demands
change rapidly and products become obsolete in a relatively
short time. A responsive supply chain that aims to focus on a
flexibility strategy fits well with such an environment since it
focuses on being responsive to customer needs by offering a
large product variety with multiple product features and being
able to adjust capacity quickly [14].
While Fisher [13] has suggested the match (fit) between de-
mand characteristics of the products and the specific supply
chain strategies for serving the demand, we also consulted the
SCM literature to find the arguments for the fit. For example,
service level, which requires flexibility, is a market winner in
a dynamic environment [15]. Studies have emphasized that re-
sponsive and agile strategies are most appropriate in a dynamic
environment [14], and processes should be geared toward flex-
ibility in a dynamic environment [64]. On the other hand, in a
competitive environment, service level and lead times, which
are linked to flexibility, are market qualifiers [15], and Lee [14]
recommends a risk hedging approach for markets which are
competitive and where supply uncertainty is high. From a re-
source orchestration perspective, organizations in a competitive
environment should invest in resources that produce efficiency
and minimize investments in other resources that do not match
their efficiency goals [86], [87]. Conversely, organizations in
a dynamic environment should seek differentiation through
flexibility, and this requires investment in dynamic capabili-
ties [86]. Overall, the literature suggests that flexibility strategy
would better fit a dynamic environment while low-cost strategy
PRAJOGO et al.: FIT BETWEEN SUPPLY CHAIN STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES: A CONTINGENCY APPROACH AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
would better fit a competitive environment. Accordingly, we
pose the following comparative hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: The dynamic environment has a stronger relationship
with flexibility strategy than with low-cost strategy.
Hypothesis 2: The competitive environment has a stronger relation-
ship with low-cost strategy than with flexibility strategy.
Despite the relative acceptance of Fisher’s model [13] and
many of the conceptual developments that have followed it, a
number of researchers have questioned its validity [76]–[79].
Some have found limited support for the link between respon-
sive supply chains and innovative products [78] while others
have questioned the link between functional products and effi-
cient processes [79]. Selldin and Olhager [78] found that com-
panies often mix flexibility and cost efficiency capabilities, i.e.,
try to obtain “the best of both worlds,” and proposed the idea
of a supply chain frontier, in which companies attempt to find
the best mix rather than choosing between the two. Other au-
thors have found Fisher’s model too simplistic for the current
business environment and call for a more comprehensive un-
derstanding of the relationship between product characteristics
and supply chains’ strategies [76], [77]. This context presents
an opportunity for confirmatory research, but also a challenge
to extend this field of research by gaining greater depth and
specificity concerning the fit between supply chain strategies
and practices.
C. Internal Contingency: Supply Chain Strategies and
Supplier Management Practices
The importance of the link between strategies and practices
and the use of contingency approach have been prominent in the
strategic management field. The way firms translate and imple-
ment their business strategies and the level of internal fit between
strategies and practices are important considerations for firms
because these practices will determine how resources are de-
ployed [87] and ultimately influence performance [20], [35]. In
the light of this perspective, it is important to understand how
different strategies should be translated into management prac-
tices; in the case of this research, supplier management practices.
Since the era of total quality management, the role of supplier
management in supporting competitive strategies (quality, cost,
delivery were among the most popular ones) has been recog-
nized. Indeed, supplier management could be used as the ex-
tended component of firms’ competitive capabilities [36]. This
study extends the contingency approach by investigating the in-
ternal fit between supply chain strategies (low-cost versus flex-
ibility) and supplier management practices, where the strategy
is the contingency variable and management practices are the
response variables.
While acknowledging the importance of various supplier
management practices, in this study, we decided to choose three
specific supplier management practices: supplier assessment,
long-term relationships, and logistics integration. There are two
main reasons for our choice of these supplier management prac-
tices. First, we believe that these three practices reflect the
essential aspects of supplier management, namely, identifying
and choosing the reliable suppliers (supplier assessment), and
171
relating to the suppliers in both a social aspect (long-term rela-
tionship) and a technical aspect (logistics integration). Finding
good suppliers is the starting point for having good incoming
materials that are required for achieving high operational perfor-
mance. In this regard, it is important for firms not only to obtain
clear information on the operational system and performance of
the suppliers but also continuously monitor them to ensure their
sustainability [5]. At the same time, building a good relationship
with suppliers has become a strong foundation for maximizing
the potential of suppliers in supporting firms’ performance [32].
In this case, building long-term relationships rather than trans-
actional relationships with suppliers will allow firms to tap into
“deeper” resources and capabilities of suppliers, rather than just
focusing on the outputs delivered by suppliers. This is because
long-term relationships based on mutual trust will open opportu-
nities for both parties to explore strategic collaborations, rather
than simply maintaining operational (supply) collaborations.
On the other hand, with higher complexity and dynamism in the
competitive environment, interfirm logistics integration has also
developed into a key aspect of SCM such that interfirm seamless
connections and flows of both information (upstream) and mate-
rials (downstream) have been increasingly demanded by organi-
zations [88]. This logistics integration will not be possible unless
there are strong capabilities and ties between the two interested
parties, suggesting the interconnection between these three prac-
tices. Second, we assert that these three supplier management
practices would reflect the deployment of the two different sup-
ply strategies examined in this study as we will elaborate in
more detail in the next sections. While we do not postulate that
the supplier management practices required for a low-cost or a
flexibility strategy would be mutually exclusive, we believe that
due to the different characteristics and orientations between the
two strategies, one might place more emphasis on certain prac-
tices over the other which could lead to different configurations
(orchestrations) of practices driven by different strategies.
As a low-cost strategy aims to minimize costs, we can expect
that supplier management practices will require a comparable
emphasis focused on economizing. Similarly, we hypothesize
that a flexibility strategy will require certain emphasis in relation
to supplier management practices that will allow firms to adapt
to a changing environment. The following sections discuss the
specific relationships between the two supply chain strategies
and the three supplier management practices.
D. Supply Chain Strategies and Supplier Assessment
Supplier assessment practices are those that refer to the eval-
uation of supplier capabilities, resources, and performance, as
compared to other similar companies for the purpose of provid-
ing the necessary input to the buyer firm in the long run and
to improve the buyer firm’s performance [5]. In this definition,
supplier performance means a supplier’s demonstrated ability
to meet the buyer’s requirements and supplier capability refers
to a supplier’s potential that can be leveraged to the buyer’s
advantage in the long run [37].
As competition has shifted from firm level to supply chain
level, the role that suppliers play in the overall performance
of the supply chain has grown in importance. In this regard,
172
monitoring supplier performance and capability is critically
important to the buying firm [38]. An important part of this
assessment process is to provide evaluation feedback to sup-
pliers since the feedback clarifies the buyer’s expectation and
directs suppliers toward further improvements [39]. Having the
right suppliers is the foundation of supplier management and
could serve different strategies, including low-cost and flexibil-
ity. For example, the literature suggests that the role of suppli-
ers is central to low-cost strategy and waste removal in supply
chain processes [28], [65]. Similarly, Lamming [28] recom-
mends a formal relationship assessment program involving both
buyer and supplier as best practice for lean and efficient supply
strategies. At the same time, in a responsive or flexible supply
chain, supplier selection is also paramount, especially in terms
of speed, flexibility, and quality [13], and competence of sup-
pliers positively influences agility and flexibility [73]. While
supplier assessment and monitoring are relevant to both strate-
gies, there are some differences in emphasis. Low-cost strate-
gies emphasize suppliers’ price as the market winning criterion,
with quality as a qualifying criterion [13], [15]. Costs are easier
to measure and monitor and tend to dominate over other per-
formance metrics, particularly under a low-cost strategy [40].
Conversely, flexibility strategies require a more complex set of
metrics, which involve not only flexibility but also speed in
terms of lead times and product development as well as metrics
for quality and cost [13], [15]. Furthermore, supply chains that
emphasize flexibility require intensive information sharing, col-
laborative planning, and joint product design [41], [42], which
include evaluating “soft” performance dimensions that are more
difficult to measure [40]. This suggests that supplier assessment
would be more congruent with a low-cost strategy than with a
flexibility strategy. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following.
Hypothesis 3: The association of supplier assessment and monitoring
with low cost strategy is stronger than with flexibility strategy.
E. Supply Chain Strategies and Long-Term Relationship With
Suppliers
Strategic long-term relationship with suppliers refers to the
long-term relationship between a firm and its supplier [3]. It
provides the foundation to improve the relational characteristics
between supply chain members and aims to create a win-win sit-
uation for the buyer and its suppliers [48]. Close buyer–supplier
relationships encourage the buyer to share risk and reward, mu-
tual planning and problem-solving efforts, and maintain the
relationship over a longer period of time [1], [32], leading to
what Dyer and Singh term the collaborative advantage [63].
Firms build long-term and strategic relationships with key
suppliers as part of their competitive strategies, with one of
the key objectives being to achieve the reduction of inventory
cost, which ultimately reduces the overall product cost [49]. In
addition, working closely with few suppliers also helps improve
quality of and delivery from suppliers, which in turn would
impact on the reduction of the total cost of procurement.
The literature concerning the management of supplier rela-
tionship in a competitive environment reveals some contradic-
tions. On the one hand, the arguments presented within the
relational view [63] suggest that firms seeking a cost advantage
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 65, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2018
rely predominantly on arm’s length relationships because they
allow firms to use market forces to maintain competition among
suppliers and hence help in lowering costs. However, the theory
also implies that distant market relationships cannot help firms
to generate relational rents because there is nothing idiosyn-
cratic about these relationships that would allow one pair of
companies to generate supranormal profits over any other pair.
Common advice for high-cost inputs in a low complexity
supply market is for the buyer to exploit its purchasing power,
focusing on product substitution, target pricing, tough negotia-
tions, and a combination of contract and spot buying to achieve
the lowest price possible [50], [51]. Such an approach can lead to
switching suppliers in search for more favorable prices [53]. On
the other hand, long-term relationships are advocated by propo-
nents of a lean management approach as a way to remove waste
and improve efficiencies in the supply chain [28], [49]. However,
research by Richardson [74] reveals that many so-called “lean”
manufacturers follow a parallel sourcing approach, which com-
bines long-term relationships with a credible threat to switch
suppliers as a way to reduce the costs of opportunistic behavior.
Cousins [18] investigates the link between strategies and
collaboration practices, focusing on two competitive strate-
gies (cost and differentiation) and three different collaboration
approaches:
1) operational collaboration (which involves operational
practices such as joint planning and sharing of fore-
cast/order information);
2) marketing collaboration (which involves marketing prac-
tices, merchandising, cobranding, joint selling); and
3) strategic collaboration (which involves higher level prac-
tices such as alignment with customer requirements, joint
investment, shared technology and engineering, and joint
product development).
Cousins’ [18] study shows that cost-focused strategies are
strongly associated with operational and marketing collabora-
tions while differentiation strategies are linked to strategic col-
laborations and relationship development. This finding marks an
important distinction in the depth and breadth of collaboration
that is suitable under different environment conditions.
Building long-term relationships with suppliers also plays
an important role in enabling the firm to respond to dynamic
and unpredictable changes occurring in the business environ-
ment [71]. In particular, it has a positive impact on purchas-
ing performance in terms of acquisition cost when the level
of uncertainty is relatively high [72]. The study by De Toni
et al. [70] shows that building long-term relationships with sup-
pliers helps firms to achieve superior performance in terms of
reducing cost and improving customer responsiveness. A further
review of the literature suggests that lean systems, with a focus
on waste removal and cost efficiency, should place a strong em-
phasis on long-term partnerships [28], [47]. At the same time,
the ability to influence suppliers’ flexibility (i.e., capacity and
ability to instigate changes in volume allocation, quantity, and
delivery times) is linked to long-term relationships [21], [52].
Also, long-term relationships with suppliers help to respond to
unpredictable changes [74].
Another argument concerning the suitability of long-term
relationships relates to resource orchestration theory. As
PRAJOGO et al.: FIT BETWEEN SUPPLY CHAIN STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES: A CONTINGENCY APPROACH AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Sirmon and Hitt [87] argue, complex and dynamic markets re-
quire more sophisticated offerings, which need investments in
human (knowledge-sharing routines, effective governance) and
physical capital (relation-specific assets), to facilitate the ap-
propriate deployment of resources. These investments require
time and effort to be expended by firms in collaboration with
suppliers, which calls for a long-term perspective on interorga-
nizational relationships.
While both strategies benefit from long-term relationships
with suppliers, we argue that companies pursuing flexibility
strategy will put more emphasis on this practice than those
adopting low-cost strategy. The strength of the contingency re-
lationships differs because companies following low-cost strat-
egy can rely on market forces to reduce prices, and are willing
to sacrifice relationships with suppliers at the expense of lower
costs [50]. Moreover, developing collaborative relationships re-
quires investments in human capital and physical assets [63],
and this runs counter to the economizing efforts of compa-
nies following a low-cost strategy. As Cousins’ [18] research
reveals, cost-focused strategies tend to be associated with sim-
ple forms of collaboration (operational and marketing), rather
than strategic collaboration. Conversely, a flexibility strategy
requires more sophisticated interfirm connections, which can
only be built over a longer period of time [41], [42], as well
as strategic collaborations [18]. Furthermore, a long-term rela-
tionship strategy has been linked to a broader set of benefits for
companies pursuing a flexibility strategy as it allows them to
have a greater influence on issues such as capacity management
at the supplier, volume allocation, and delivery times [29], [51],
as well as relationship building [18].
Accordingly, we hypothesize the following.
Hypothesis 4: Long-term relationships is more strongly related with
flexibility strategy than with low-cost strategy.
F. Supply Chain Strategies and Logistics Integration
In this study, logistics integration with suppliers is defined as a
well-coordinated flow of materials from suppliers, which allows
firms to have a smooth (seamless) production process [7]. Higher
levels of integration are characterized by increased logistics-
related communication, greater coordination of the firm’s lo-
gistics activities with those of its suppliers and customers, and
more blurred organizational distinctions between the firm’s lo-
gistics activities and those of its suppliers and customers [9].
This involves orchestration of resources across multiple supply
chain tiers [85] and requires investments in specific resources,
including relation-specific assets and knowledge sharing rou-
tines [63]. Logistics integration allows firms and their suppliers
to act as a single entity which would result in improved per-
formance throughout the chain [10], and create relational rents,
allowing firms to exploit their complementary resources more
effectively [63].
Logistics provides place utility by moving raw material from
supplier to manufacturing plant, time utility by providing ma-
terial at the right time it is required and quantity utility by
providing the exact amount and right quality of raw mate-
rial [46]. Integrated logistics has been credited with achiev-
ing cost reduction while increasing efficiency and productivity
173
[7], [44]. It allows firms to adopt lean production system which
is characterized by reliable order cycles and inventory reduc-
tion [28], [45]–[47]. It has also been recognized as a critical
element of just-in-time and other time-based competitive strate-
gies [53]. Anecdotal or company-specific evidence also suggests
that it provides benefits in terms of inventory reduction, shorter
lead time, and improved forecasting and scheduling [43], [48].
Paulraj and Chen [88] also found support for the hypothesis
that external logistics integration has a significant influence on
the agility performance of both buyer and supplier which in-
cludes volume flexibility, scheduling flexibility, on-time deliv-
ery, reliability, and prompt response. A further review of the
literature suggests that logistics integration (both internal and
external) is positively associated with cost performance [9],
[17] as it can lead to cost reductions and efficiency improve-
ments [7], [44] as well as the development of a lean approach
[43]–[46]. At the same time, logistics integration with suppliers
has also been found to be positively associated with flexibility
[17], [48] and with delivery performance [9]. Specifically, logis-
tics integration can help improve forecasting and scheduling as
well as shortening lead times [43]; all of which support greater
flexibility.
Based on the above-mentioned arguments, supplier logistics
integration can support both flexibility and low-cost strategies,
but the strength of the contingency relationship is different and
companies following a flexibility strategy are more likely to
emphasize this practice. This is because a flexibility strategy
would draw more benefits from logistics integration in terms of
smooth delivery of materials, improved forecasting and schedul-
ing, shorter lead times, and the readiness of suppliers in dealing
with sudden changes in volume and variety [9], [17], [43], [48];
benefits that would be difficult to achieve without integration. A
low-cost strategy, on the other hand, would employ logistics in-
tegration mainly for improving efficiency and cost; benefits that
could be outweighed by cost reductions obtained from switch-
ing suppliers [54]. Furthermore, logistics integration requires
up-front investments [55], [56] and companies following a low-
cost strategy are likely to be more reluctant to spend money
on logistics integration without some reassurance of return on
investment. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following.
Hypothesis 5: The association of supplier logistics integration with
flexibility strategy is stronger than with low-cost strategy.
III. METHOD
This investigation seeks to expand knowledge in the relatively
mature field of operations management strategy. Edmondson
and McManus [80] recommend that empirical research in such
mature fields follows a hypothetico-deductive approach using
quantitative data collection methods and statistical models for
analysis. In line with this argument, this research follows a
deductive approach by using established theories and constructs
to justify the hypotheses presented in the preceding section. A
survey using previously validated measures was then used to
collect empirical data, and a structural equation model helped
to test the hypotheses. This section provides a more detailed
description of the methods used for data collection and analysis.
174 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 65, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2018
A. Sample and Procedures
We collected the empirical data for this study from managers
of Australian manufacturing firms. The respondents were ran-
domly selected from a list of manufacturing firms purchased
from a mailing list company. We mailed out a total of 1800 sur-
vey questionnaires and received 232 usable responses, attaining
a 13.1% response rate. The data were checked for potential bias
by using correlations of responses between early respondents
and late respondents based on industry sector and organizational
size. The chi-square tests on both categories did not indicate any
significant differences between the two groups of respondents.
In terms of industry sectors, 16% of the respondents came
from electronic/electrical, 25% from machinery, 8% from au-
tomotive, 11% from chemical, 4% from food processing, 7%
from construction, and 12% from other manufacturing sectors.
The remaining sectors identified as “others” included medical
equipment, wood, printing and paper, and defense. In terms of
organizational size (based on number of employees), 46% of the
respondents came from firms with fewer than 100 employees,
35% of the firms have between 100 and 500 employees, and
the remaining 19% of the respondents came from large man-
ufacturing firms with more than 500 employees. Nearly half
of the respondents (45%) held a position as operations man-
ager, 27% as supply chain/logistics manager, 18% in procure-
ment/purchasing, and 3% as a customer services manager.
B. Measures
All measures for this study were adapted from established
scales in the previous studies to ensure their content validity.
The measures for environmental dynamism and competitiveness
were derived from the studies by Ward et al. [57], [58]. We used
a Likert-scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree) to measure the perception of managers with regard to the
business environment in which their firms operate. The measures
for low-cost and flexibility strategies were adapted from Boyer
and Lewis [59]. We also used a Likert-scale ranging from 1
(low) to 7 (very high) to measure the relative importance of
those strategies. To measure strategic long-term relationships
and logistics integration, we adopted the scales of Chen and
Paulraj [2]. For supplier assessment, we adapted items from
previous empirical studies, including Kannan and Tan [40], and
Krause et al. [39]. We again used a Likert-scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) to measure the degree
of implementation of these supplier management practices.
C. Pilot Testing
Since, as mentioned above, all measures in this study were
adapted from established scales on the previous studies, we had
good confidence in our survey instrument. However, we still
conducted a small pilot testing by sending the final draft of
the survey to a few academics as well as industry practitioners,
to check if there were any sentences or wording which were
not clear and might hinder the respondents in providing accu-
rate answers. We also wanted to check if the time needed for
completing the survey was longer than what was deemed to be
convenient for the respondents. The overall feedback from the
pilot test suggested that the survey had no major issues in terms
of both clarity and length.
IV. RESULTS
A. Scale Validity and Reliability
We performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to simul-
taneously validate the measures for all the variables (constructs)
considered in this study. Table I presents the results of the CFA
and the Cronbach’s alphas. All the items are loaded strongly
on their corresponding latent constructs. The item loadings and
the overall model fit suggest acceptable unidimensionality and
convergent validity of the measures [60].
The Cronbach’s alphas show satisfactory reliability of the
seven constructs [83] as they all exceed the 0.7 threshold level.
B. Common Method Bias Test
We used Harman’s single-factor test to check for common
method variance [61]. The procedure involved testing a one-
factor measurement model where all 27 items were loaded onto
a single latent construct. The test checks if one single factor
would emerge from factor analysis, which would point toward
the presence of common method bias. The results of this test
showed that the one-factor model was a poor fit for the data
(χ2 = 2789.28; df = 323; root mean square error of approx-
imation (RMSEA) = 0.183; normed fit index (NFI) = 0.613;
non-normed fit index (NNFI) = 0.616; comparative fit index
(CFI) = 0.649) and more than half of the items suffered from
poor path loadings (<0.5). We, therefore, conclude that common
method bias was unlikely to be present in our dataset.
C. Discriminant Validity
As an additional check, we conducted a discriminant validity
analysis to examine if the explanatory and dependent constructs
significantly overlap. Following Venkatraman [62], we estab-
lished discriminant validity by conducting a CFA on each pair
of constructs in this study. For each pair, we performed the
CFA twice. In the first CFA, we allowed the two constructs to
be freely correlated and estimated the chi-square value of the
model. In the second CFA, we fixed the correlation between
the two constructs at 1.0 and estimated the chi-square value of
the model. If the difference between the chi-squares obtained
from the first and second CFA (i.e., Δχ2 ) is greater than the
chi-square value at the degree of freedom of 1 and significance
level of p < 0.01 (i.e., 6.64), there is reasonable evidence of
discriminant validity of the constructs. With seven constructs
incorporated in this study, we conducted 21 chi-square tests.
The Δχ2 values for all the tests confirmed the discriminant va-
lidity of the constructs and provided further evidence on the
absence of common method variance.
D. Structural Relationships
We began the analysis of the structural relationships to test the
five comparative hypotheses by examining the baseline model
of the relationships among business environments, supply chain
strategies, and supplier management practices as presented in
PRAJOGO et al.: FIT BETWEEN SUPPLY CHAIN STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES: A CONTINGENCY APPROACH AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 175

TABLE I
SCALE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Scales Items Loading Cronbach’s

paths alphas

Environmental dynamism The life cycle of products is relatively short 0.72 0.77
The rate at which products become obsolete is high 0.83
The rate of innovation of new products is high 0.46
Products change rapidly and/or unpredictably 0.67
Environmental competitiveness Competition in this industry is cut-throat 0.59 0.71
There are many “promotion wars” in this industry 0.55
Anything that one competitor can offer, others can match readily 0.61
Price competition is a hallmark of this industry 0.72
Low-cost strategy Increase capacity utilization 0.72 0.77
Reduce production costs 0.75
Increase labor utility 0.72
Flexibility strategy Adjust capacity quickly 0.59 0.71
Offer a large number of product features 0.82
Offer a large degree of product variety 0.63
Supplier assessment We have a formal supplier assessment system to determine their 0.87 0.90
capabilities
We set a clear metric for measuring performance of our suppliers 0.94
We monitor closely the performance of our suppliers 0.85
We compare our supplier performance with other similar companies 0.69
Strategic long-term relationship We expect our relationships with key suppliers to last a long time 0.70 0.88
We collaborate with key suppliers to improve their quality in the 0.79
long run
The suppliers see our relationships as a long-term alliance 0.86
We view our suppliers as an extension of our company 0.86
Logistics integration Interorganizational logistic activities are closely coordinated 0.79 0.93
Our logistics activities are well integrated with suppliers’ logistics 0.91
activities
We have a seamless integration of logistics activities with our key 0.88
suppliers
Our logistics integration is characterized by excellent distribution, 0.84
transportation, and/or warehousing facilities
The inbound and outbound distribution of goods with our suppliers 0.75
is well integrated

χ 2 = 516.48, df = 302, RMSEA = 0.056, NFI = 0.904, NNFI = 0.949, and CFI = 0.956.

In order to test the comparative hypotheses, we created five

Fig. 2. Baseline research model. χ 2 = 721.14, df = 352, RMSEA = 0.068,
NFI = 0.872, NNFI = 0.918, and CFI = 0.929. †p < 0.1; ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗p <
0.01.
Fig. 2. We included two control variables: organizational size
(based on number of employees) and production system, which
ranges from make-to-stock, make-to-order, and engineering-to-
order. Neither of these two control variables had a significant
effect on either supply chain strategies or supplier management
practices. The overall model shows an acceptable fit based on
several indices with normed chi-square being slightly above 2,
RMSEA below 0.08, and three fit indices (NFI, NNFI, and CFI)
hovering around 0.9.
competing models where we fixed the two paths that were com-
pared to be equal. We then compared the difference of the chi-
square value (Δχ2 ) of the competing model with that of the
baseline (original) model. If the value of Δχ2 between the two
models is greater than 3.84, we can conclude that the competing
model has a significantly better fit than the original model at the
p < 0.05 level. This method is superior and more robust when
comparing two path relationships than by simply comparing the
coefficients of the two paths which does not take into account
the variance of the coefficients. The results of the comparative
path analysis are presented in Table II.
Our comparative tests show a significant difference between
the effect of a dynamic environment on flexibility strategy (0.35
at p < 0.01) and low-cost strategy (–0.12 at p > 0.1) lending
support for H1. The competitive business environment, on the
other hand, surprisingly does not show a significantly different
(i.e., stronger) relationship to low-cost strategy than to flexibil-
ity strategy, despite the two paths showing different magnitude
and significance levels (0.33 at p < 0.01 and 0.13 at p > 0.1,
respectively); therefore, H2 is not supported.
Low-cost strategy does not show a stronger relationship with
supplier assessment and monitoring (0.20 at p < 0.01) than
176 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 65, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2018

TABLE II competitive environment and flexibility strategy (0.33 at p <

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE HYPOTHESES TESTING
0.01 versus 0.13 at p > 0.1, respectively), the comparative test
does not show a statistically significant difference. This result
Competing models χ2 Δχ 2 Hypotheses is unexpected because it runs counter to the traditional mod-
(df) (df)
els from Fisher [13], Lee [14], and Mason-Jones et al. [15],
Baseline model (all paths are freely 721.14 – – which imply that low-cost strategy should have a closer fit with
estimated) (352) a competitive environment while flexibility and responsiveness
Set the paths of dynamism → 738.61 17.47 H1: Supported
flexibility and dynamism → low-cost (353) (1)
should have a closer fit with a dynamic environment. The re-
to be equal sult also contradicts the resource orchestration argument that
Set the paths of competitiveness → 723.29 2.15 H2: Not firms in a competitive environment should minimize investment
flexibility and competitiveness → (353) (1) supported in resources that do not fit with their resource efficiency goals
low-cost to be equal
while firms in a dynamic environment should invest in dynamic
Set the paths of flexibility → 721.01 –0.13 H3: Not
assessment and low-cost → assessment (353) (1) supported capabilities that allow flexibility [86]. However, a few studies
to be equal have shown that in a competitive environment, firms could still
Set the paths of flexibility → long-term 728.68 7.54 H4: supported pursue flexibility strategy (to create differentiation advantage)
relationship and low-cost → long-term (353) (1)
relationship to be equal
in combination with low-cost strategy [75], [79]. Our finding is
Set the paths of flexibility → logistics 725.39 4.25 H5: supported also consistent with Selldin and Olhager’s [78] concept of the
integration and low-cost → logistics (353) (1) supply chain frontier, which proposes that companies attempt to
integration to be equal create a balanced mix of flexibility and cost efficiency capabili-
ties. To assess if firms are trying to strike this strategic balance,
it is possible to look at the specific practices being deployed as
does flexibility strategy (0.18 at p < 0.05); therefore, H3 is not we do when considering the notion of internal contingency.
supported. On the other hand, flexibility strategy does show a From the perspective of internal contingency, we evaluate
stronger relationship with supplier long-term relationship (0.35 the link between strategies and practices. Here, we find that
at p < 0.01) than low-cost strategy (0.11 at p > 0.1) thereby both supply chain strategies (low-cost and flexibility) are sig-
lending support for H4. Finally, flexibility strategy also shows nificantly associated with supplier assessment practice (H3).
a stronger relationship with logistics integration with suppliers The results suggest that both flexibility and low-cost strategies
(0.26 at p < 0.01) than does low-cost strategy (0.13 at p < 0.1); equally require firms to carefully select their suppliers by con-
hence, H5 is also supported. tinuously assessing and monitoring their performance. This is
contrary to our original hypothesis that low-cost strategies would
have a stronger relationship with supplier assessment than do
V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND LIMITATIONS flexibility strategies. The argument was built on the notion that
This research proposes a model that considers external and firms pursuing low-cost strategy emphasize pricing and quality
internal contingencies faced by firms. External contingency is metrics from suppliers while firms following a flexibility strat-
considered by evaluating the fit between supply chain strate- egy focus more on socialization and relationship building and
gies and the business environment, and internal contingency is have a more complex set of “soft metrics” related to issues such
considered by assessing the fit between supplier management as collaborative planning and joint product design [41], [42].
practices and supply chain strategies. This approach is original However, the results indicate that companies pursuing flexibil-
in its own right as most contingency models tend to focus on ity strategy rely on both “soft” relational approaches, and “hard”
the external link between environment and strategies, and to a metrics in their approach toward suppliers. While these results
lesser extent on the link between strategies and practices, but were surprising when contrasting the two strategies, there is
not on both links simultaneously. also evidence in the literature of the importance of supplier as-
From the perspective of external contingency, our findings sessment capabilities to deliver agility and flexibility across the
revealed mixed results. On the one hand, the results con- supply chain [13], [66]–[69], [73]. This result also lends support
firmed a link between different characteristics of the business to the supply chain frontier argument [78] that organizations try
environment and different supply chain strategies. As predicted, to strike a balance between flexibility and cost by emphasiz-
a dynamic environment has a better match (fit) with flexibility ing both collaborative approaches to relationship building and
strategy than low-cost strategy (H1). Therefore, this study sup- coercive approaches through supplier assessment and control.
ports the findings by Ward et al. [57], [58] and Selldin and The results also indicate that flexibility strategy has a stronger
Olhager [78], as well as models presented by Fisher [13], relationship with long-term relationship and logistics integration
Mason-Jones et al. [15], and Lee [14]. than low-cost strategy (H4 and H5, respectively). As Sirmon and
On the other hand, the results do not support our prediction Hitt [87] argue, a flexibility strategy will require a greater invest-
that a competitive environment will drive firms to emphasize ment in human and physical capital to facilitate the appropriate
more low-cost strategy than flexibility strategy (H2). This re- deployment of resources. Similarly, this result aligns with the
sult is surprising and deserves greater attention. Even though relational view [63] which argues that buyers and suppliers need
the path coefficient (magnitude and significance level) between to invest in knowledge sharing routines, relationships specific
a competitive environment and low-cost strategy is stronger assets, and alignment of complementary resources in order to
than the corresponding value for the relationship between generate relational rents. This result is also consistent with the
PRAJOGO et al.: FIT BETWEEN SUPPLY CHAIN STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES: A CONTINGENCY APPROACH AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
work of Cousins [18], who found that cost-focused strategies
tend to be associated with simple forms of collaboration (oper-
ational and marketing), rather than strategic collaboration and
strong relationship building.
This study responds to Sousa and Voss’s [21] call for more
contingency-based research to evaluate the technical fit among
environment, strategies, and practices. In doing so, we consider
both external and internal notions of contingency. Specifically,
we build on the framework by Fisher [13], which shows the con-
tingency perspective between business environment and strate-
gies, and expand it to investigate the impact of these strategies
on the supply base. Our results show that contingencies cascade
from strategies into practices and from focal firm into suppli-
ers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study which
examines the relative fit among the business environment, sup-
ply chain strategy, and supplier management practices using
comparative analysis.
From a managerial perspective, this study demonstrates the
importance of understanding the right supply chain strategies
with respect to the business environment and the practices for
supporting the strategies. Managers need not only understand
the external fit between the business environment and supply
chain strategy but also the internal fit between supply chain
strategies and supplier management practices. The findings
suggest that companies following low-cost strategy are less
concerned with building long-term strategic relationships and
might be prepared to switch suppliers more frequently—
primarily based on the price offered by the suppliers. This is
particularly true when firms adopt an arm’s length approach in
their relationship with suppliers, which is aimed at maintaining
competition in the supply base by putting pressure on suppliers
to keep their prices low or even reducing them [63]. A closer
observation of the findings confirms this point as they show that
low-cost strategy only has a weak (marginal) relationship with
logistics integration, and even no association with long-term re-
lationship. Flexibility strategy, on the other hand, is linked with
more advanced steps in supplier management by incorporating
177
both logistics integration and long-term relationship, which
reflect the technical and social aspects of SCM [18], [41], [42].
As with any study, our research is subject to several lim-
itations. First, this study is only focused on two dimensions
of the business environment and supply chain strategies and
three types of supplier management practices. While they
represent two contrasting strategies and key supplier manage-
ment practices, we acknowledge that there are other strategies
and practices which are no less important for achieving compet-
itive supply chain capabilities. Similarly, there are other dimen-
sions of the business environment which could affect a firm’s
choice of supply chain strategies, including munificence, indus-
try clockspeed, and technological turbulence, which are good
avenues for future research. Second, the study focuses on the
level of fit among the environment, supply chain strategies, and
supplier management practices. The importance of this align-
ment on operational and business performance could be an im-
portant extension in future studies. Specifically, it would be in-
sightful to understand the relative performance gains achieved
by organizations that have high levels of fit. An investigation fo-
cusing on the performance implications of external and internal
notions of fit would be a natural next step for this research. Third,
future studies can examine the mediating effects of supply chain
strategies and supplier management practices to gain a fuller
understanding of partial and overall effects on performance. Fi-
nally, our study was constrained by using cross-sectional survey
data from Australia, which is a relatively smaller market com-
pared to the US, European, or Asian markets. Future studies can
consider replicating the contingency perspective using data from
other parts of the world. Additionally, analyses using objective
and longitudinal datasets may also provide further insights into
the phenomenon.
APPENDIX
Company Profile
178 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 65, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2018
REFERENCES
[1] M. C. Cooper and L. M. Ellram, “Characteristics of supply chain man-
agement and the implication for purchasing and logistics strategy,” Int. J.
Log. Manage., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 13–24, 1993.
[2] I. J. Chen and A. Paulraj, “Towards a theory of supply chain management:
The constructs and measurements,” J. Oper. Manage., vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 119–150, 2004.
[3] F. J. Acedo, C. Barroso, and J. L. Galan, “The resource-based theory:
Dissemination and main trends,” Strategic Manage. J., vol. 27, no. 7,
pp. 621–636, 2006.
[4] P. R. Lawrence and J. W. Lorsch, Organization and Environment. Cam-
bridge, MA, USA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1967.
[5] S. Talluri and J. Sarkis, “A model for performance monitoring of suppli-
ers,” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 40, no. 16, pp. 4257–4269, 2002.
[6] F. P. Buffa and A. D. Ross, “Measuring the consequences of using diverse
supplier evaluation teams: A performance frontier perspective,” J. Bus.
Log., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 55–68, 2011.
[7] M. T. Frohlich and R. Westbrook, “Arcs of integration: An interna-
tional study of supply chain strategies,” J. Oper. Manage., vol. 19, no. 2,
pp. 185–200, 2001.
[8] A. W. Mackelprang, J. L. Robinson, E. Bernardes, and G. S. Webb, "The
relationship between strategic supply chain integration and performance:
A meta-analytic evaluation and implications for supply chain management
research,” J. Bus. Log., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 71–96, 2014.
[9] G. Stock, N. Greis, and J. Kasarda, “Logistics, strategy and structure,” Int.
J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 37–52, 1998.
[10] K. C. Tan, V. Kannan, and R. Handfield, “Supply chain management,
supplier performance, and firm performance,” Int. J. Purchase Mater.
Manage., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 2–9, 1998.
[11] L. Donaldson, The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks,
CA, USA: Sage, 2001.
[12] T. E. Burns and G. M. Stalker, The Management of Innovation. London,
U.K.: Tavistock, 1961.
[13] M. Fisher, “What is the right supply chain for your product?” Harv. Bus.
Rev., vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 105–116, 1997.
[14] H. L. Lee, “Aligning supply chain strategies with product un-
certainties,” Calif. Manage. Rev., vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 105–119,
2002.
[15] R. Mason-Jones, B. Naylor, and D. R. Towill, “Lean, agile or leag-
ile? Matching your supply chain to the marketplace,” Int. J. Prod. Res.,
vol. 38, no. 17, pp. 4061–4070, 2000.
[16] S. E. Fawcett, G. M. Magnan, and M. W. McCarter, “A three-stage im-
plementation model for supply chain collaboration,” J. Bus. Log., vol. 29,
no. 1, pp. 93–112, 2008.
[17] B. B. Flynn, B. Huo, and X. Zhao, “The impact of supply chain integration
on performance: A contingency and configuration approach,” J. Oper.
Manage., vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 58–71, 2010.
[18] P. D. Cousins, “The alignment of appropriate firm and supply strategies
for competitive advantage,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 25, no. 5,
pp. 403–428, 2005.
[19] M. S. Garver and J. T. Mentzer, “Salesperson logistics expertise: A pro-
posed contingency framework,” J. Bus. Log., vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 113–132,
2000.
[20] N. Venkatraman, “The concept of fit in strategy research: Toward ver-
bal and statistical correspondence,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 14, no. 3,
pp. 423–444, 1989.
[21] R. Sousa and C. A. Voss, “Contingency research in operations management
practices,” J. Oper. Manage., vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 697–713, 2008.
[22] S. Hoejmose, S. Brammer, and A. Millington, “An empirical examination
of the relationship between business strategy and socially responsible
supply chain management,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 33, no. 5,
pp. 589–621, 2013.
PRAJOGO et al.: FIT BETWEEN SUPPLY CHAIN STRATEGIES AND PRACTICES: A CONTINGENCY APPROACH AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
[23] M. Nakano, “Exploratory analysis on the relationship between strategy
and structure/ processes in supply chains,” Int. J. Log. Manage., vol. 26,
no. 2, pp. 381–400, 2015.
[24] S. Qrunfleh, M. Tarafdar, and T. S. Ragu-Nathan, “Examining alignment
between supplier management practices and information systems strat-
egy,” Int. J. Benchmarking, vol. 19, no. 4/5, pp. 604–617, 2012.
[25] L. Raymond and A. Croteau, “Manufacturing strategy and business strat-
egy in medium-sized enterprises: Performance effects of strategic align-
ment,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 192–202, May 2009.
[26] M. Cao, M. A. Vonderembse, Q. Zhang, and T. S. Ragu-Nathan, “Supply
chain collaboration: Conceptualisation and instrument development,” Int.
J. Prod. Res., vol. 48, no. 22, pp. 6613–6635, 2010.
[27] M. Hallgren and J. Olhager, “Lean and agile manufacturing: External and
internal drivers and performance outcomes,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage.,
vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 976–999, 2009.
[28] R. Lamming, “Squaring lean supply with supply chain management,” Int.
J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 183–196, 1996.
[29] R. Narasimhan and A. Das, “An empirical investigation of the contribu-
tion of strategic sourcing to manufacturing flexibilities and performance,”
Decis. Sci., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 683–718, 1999.
[30] T. P. Stank, S. B. Keller, and P. J. Daugherty, “Supply chain collabo-
ration and logistical service performance,” J. Bus. Log., vol. 22, no. 1,
pp. 29–48, 2001.
[31] D. Prajogo, M. Chowdhury, A. C. Yeung, and T. Cheng, “The relation-
ship between supplier management and firm’s operational performance:
A multi-dimensional perspective,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 136, no. 1,
pp. 123–130, 2012.
[32] I. J. Chen, A. Paulraj, and A. A. Lado, “Strategic purchasing, supply
management, and firm performance,” J. Oper. Manage., vol. 22, no. 5,
pp. 505–523, 2004.
[33] S. Li, S. S. Rao, T. Ragu-Nathan, and B. Ragu-Nathan, “Development
and validation of a measurement instrument for studying supply chain
management practices,” J. Oper. Manage., vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 618–641,
2005.
[34] P. T. Ward and R. Duray, “Manufacturing strategy in context: Environ-
ment, competitive strategy and manufacturing strategy,” J. Oper. Manage.,
vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 123–138, 2000.
[35] J. D. Thompson, Organizations in Action. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-
Hill, 1967.
[36] R. Narasimhan and J. R. Carter, “Linking business unit and material
sourcing strategies,” J. Bus. Log., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 155–171, 1998.
[37] A. Sarkar and P. K. J. Mohapatra, “Evaluation of supplier capability and
performance: A method for supply base reduction,” J. Purchase Supply
Manage., vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 148–163, 2006.
[38] S. H. Huang and H. Keskar, “Comprehensive and configurable metrics for
supplier selection,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 510–523, 2007.
[39] D. R. Krause, T. V. Scannell, and R. J. Calantone, “A structural anal-
ysis of the effectiveness of buying firms’ strategies to improve supplier
performance,” Decis. Sci., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 33–55, 2000.
[40] V. R. Kannan and K. C. Tan, “Supplier selection and assessment: Their
impact on business performance,” J. Supply Chain Manage., vol. 38,
no. 3, pp. 11–21, 2002.
[41] A. Harrison, M. Christopher, and R. van Hoek, Creating the Agile Supply
Chain. London, U.K.: Inst. Log. Transp., 1999.
[42] M. Christopher, R. Lowson, and H. Peck, “Creating agile supply chains
in the fashion industry,” Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manage., vol. 32, no. 8,
pp. 367–376, 2004.
[43] P. J. Daugherty, A. E. Ellinger, and C. M. Gustin, “Integrated logistics:
Achieving logistics performance improvements,” Supply Chain Manage.,
Int. J., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 25–33, 1996.
[44] R. Cagliano, F. Caniato, and G. Spina, “The linkage between supply chain
integration and manufacturing improvement programmes,” Int. J. Oper.
Prod. Manage., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 282–299, 2006.
[45] B. Huo, X. Zhao, and F. Lai, “Supply chain quality integration: An-
tecedents and consequences,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 61, no. 1,
pp. 38–51, Feb. 2014.
[46] R. J. Schonberger, “Japanese production management: An evolution - with
mixed success,” J. Oper. Manage., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 403–419, 2007.
[47] J. P. Womack, D. T. Jones, and D. Roos, The Machine That Changed the
World. New York, NY, USA: Simon and Schuster, 1990.
[48] A. Paulraj and I. J. Chen, “Strategic supply management and dyadic quality
performance: A path analytical model,” J. Supply Chain Manage., vol. 41,
no. 3, pp. 4–18, 2005.
[49] M. Treleven, “Single sourcing: A management tool for the quality sup-
plier,” J. Purchace Mater. Manage., vol. 23, pp. 19–24, 1987.
179
[50] P. Kraljic, “Purchasing must become supply management,” Harv. Bus.
Rev., vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 109–117, 1983.
[51] A. Mensendiek and R. Mitri, “Contracting a development supplier in the
face of a cost-competitive second source of supply,” IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manage., vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 438–449, Aug. 2014.
[52] A. K. Sethi and S. P. Sethi, “Flexibllity in manufacturing: A survey,” Int.
J. Flex. Manuf. Syst., vol. 2, pp. 289–328, 1990.
[53] M. Mcgrath and R. Hoole, “Manufacturing’s new economies of scale,”
Harv. Bus. Rev., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 94–102, 1992.
[54] G. Friedl and S. M. Wagner, “Supplier development or supplier switch-
ing?” Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 3066–3079, 2012.
[55] V. Turkulainen and M. Ketokivi, “Cross-functional integration and perfor-
mance: What are the real benefits?” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 32,
no. 4, pp. 447–467, 2012.
[56] N. Fabbe-Costes and M. Jahre, “Supply chain integration and perfor-
mance: A review of the evidence,” Int. J. Log. Manage., vol. 19, no. 2, pp.
130–154, 2008.
[57] P. T. Ward, R. Duray, G. K. Leong, and C. C. Sum, “Business environment,
operations strategy, and performance: An empirical study of Singapore
manufacturers,” J. Oper. Manage., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 99–115, 1995.
[58] P. T. Ward, J. K. McCreery, L. P. Ritzman, and D. Sharma, “Compet-
itive priorities in operations management,” Decis. Sci., vol. 29, no. 4,
pp. 1035–1046, 1998.
[59] K. K. Boyer and M. W. Lewis, “Competitive priorities: Investigating the
need for trade-offs in operations strategy,” Prod. Oper. Manage., vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 9–20, 2002.
[60] K. Bollen, Structural Equations With Latent Variables. New York, NY,
USA: Wiley, 1989.
[61] P. M. Podsakoff, S. B. Mackenzie, L. Jeong-Yeon, and N. P. Podsakoff,
“Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 88, no. 5,
pp. 879–903, 2003.
[62] N. Venkatraman, “Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The con-
struct, dimensionality, and measurement,” Manage. Sci., vol. 35, no. 8,
pp. 942–962, 1989.
[63] J. H. Dyer and H. Singh, “The relational view: Cooperative strategy and
sources of interorganizational competitive advantage,” Acad. Manage.
Rev., vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 660–679, 1998.
[64] E. Stavrulaki and M. Davis, “Aligning products with supply chain pro-
cesses and strategy,” Int. J. Log. Manage., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 127–151,
2010.
[65] H. M. Wee and S. Wu, “Lean supply chain and its effect on product
cost and quality: A case study on Ford Motor Company,” Supply Chain
Manage., Int. J., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 335–341, 2009.
[66] K. A. Khan and R. K. Pillania, “Strategic sourcing for supply chain agility
and firms’ performance: A study of Indian manufacturing sector,” Manage.
Decis., vol. 46, no. 10, pp. 1508–1530, 2008.
[67] E. Prater, M. Biehl, and M. A. Smith, “International supply chain agility:
Tradeoffs between flexibility and uncertainty,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage.,
vol. 21, no. 5/6, pp. 823–839, 2001.
[68] P. M. Swafford, S. Ghosh, and N. Murthy, “The antecedents of supply
chain agility of a firm: Scale development and model testing,” J. Oper.
Manage., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 170–188, 2006.
[69] P. M. Swafford, S. Ghosh, and N. Murthy, “Achieving supply chain agility
through IT integration and flexibility,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 116, no. 2,
pp. 288–297, 2008.
[70] A. De Toni, G. Nassimbeni, and S. Tonchia, “New trends in the supply
environment,” Log. Inf. Manage., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 41–50, 1994.
[71] J. Hoyt and F. Huq, “From arms-length to collaborative relationships in
supply chain,” Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Log., vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 750–764, 2000.
[72] T. Noordewier, G. John, and J. Nevin, “Performance outcomes of purchas-
ing arrangements in industrial buyer-vendor relationships,” J. Market.,
vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 80–93, 1990.
[73] C. Blome, T. Schoenherr, and D. Rexhausen, “Antecedents and enablers
of supply chain agility and its effect on performance,” Int. J. Prod. Res.,
vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 1295–1318, 2013.
[74] J. Richardson, “Parallel sourcing and supplier performance in the Japanese
automobile industry,” Strategic Manage. J., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 339–350,
1993.
[75] K. Amoako-Gyampah and S. S. Boye, “Operations strategy in an emerging
economy: The case of the Ghanaian manufacturing industry,” J. Oper.
Manage., vol. 19, pp. 59–79, 2001
[76] S. M. Lo and D. Power, “An empirical investigation of the relationship
between product nature and supply chain strategy,” Int. J. Supply Chain
Manage., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 139–153, 2010.
180 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 65, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2018
[77] C. Y. Wong, J. Stentoft Arlbjørn, H.-H. Hvolby, and J. Johansen, “Assess-
ing responsiveness of a volatile and seasonal supply chain: A case study,”
Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 709–721, 2006.
[78] E. Selldin and J. Olhager, “Linking products with supply chains: Testing
Fisher’s model,” Int. J. Supply Chain Manage., vol. 12 no. 1, pp. 42–51,
2007.
[79] D. Li and C. O’Brien, “A quantitative analysis of relationships between
product types and supply chain strategies,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 73,
no. 1, pp. 29–39, 2001.
[80] A. C. Edmondson and S. E. McManus, “Methodological fit in management
field research,” Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 1246–1264, 2007.
[81] G. Morgan, Images of Organization. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage,
2007
[82] R. Drazin and A. H. Van de Ven, “Alternative forms of fit in contingency
theory,” Admin. Sci. Quart., vol. 30, pp. 514–539, 1985.
[83] J. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (Auflage). New York, NY, USA:
McGraw-Hill, 1978.
[84] D. G. Sirmon, M. A. Hitt, and R. D. Ireland, “Managing firm resources
in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box, ”
Acad. Manage. Rev., vol. l, no. 32, pp. 273–292, 2007.
[85] M. A. Hitt, “Relevance of strategic management theory and research for
supply chain management,” J. Supply Chain Manage., vol. 47, no. 1,
pp. 9–13, 2011.
[86] D. G. Sirmon, M. A. Hitt, R. D. Ireland, and B. A. Gilbert, “Resource
orchestration to create competitive advantage: Breadth, depth, and life
cycle effects,” J. Manage., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1390–1412, 2011.
[87] D. G. Sirmon and M. A. Hitt, “Contingencies within dynamic manage-
rial capabilities: Interdependent effects of resource investment and de-
ployment on firm performance,” Strategic Manage. J., vol. 30, no. 13,
pp. 1375–1394, 2009.
[88] A. Paulraj and I. J. Chen, “Strategic buyer–supplier relationships, infor-
mation technology and external logistics integration,” J. Supply Chain
Manage., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 2–14, 2007.
Daniel Prajogo received the Ph.D. degree in business
management from Monash University, Melbourne,
VIC, Australia, in 2003.
He is an Associate Professor with the Department
of Management, Monash University, Caulfield East,
VIC. His areas of research interests mainly include
operations and supply chain, quality, and innovation
management, and he has produced more than 100
publications, including refereed journal articles, con-
ference papers, research books, book chapters, and
industry reports. He has successfully developed re-
search collaborations with a number of industry associations in Australia, which
have funded his research projects, including the Joint Accreditation System of
Australia and New Zealand and GS1 Australia.
Carlos Mena received the B.Eng. degree in industrial
engineering from Iberoamericana University, Mexico
City, Mexico, in 1994, and the M.Sc. and doctorate
degrees in engineering business management from
the University of Warwick, Coventry, U.K., in 1999
and 2003, respectively.
He is an Assistant Professor with the Department
of Supply Chain Management, Michigan State Uni-
versity (MSU), East Lansing, MI, USA. Prior to join-
ing MSU, he was at Cranfield University, Cranfield,
U.K. The focus of his research is the impact of pro-
curement and supply chain management practices on economic, social, and
environmental performance. He has more than 20 refereed publications, as well
as the two books Leading Procurement Strategy (Kogan Page, 2014) and Deliv-
ering Performance in Food Supply Chains (Elsevier, 2010).
Anand Nair received the Ph.D. degree from Michi-
gan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, in
2003.
He is a Professor with the Department of Supply
Chain Management, Eli Broad College of Business,
Michigan State University. As a part of his research,
he examines the ways in which manufacturing and
service firms can manage complexity, risk, and rela-
tionships inherent in operational, supply chain, and
innovation activities so as to improve cost, quality, de-
livery, flexibility, innovation, and sustainability per-
formance. His research articles have been published in leading operations and
supply chain management journals.
Mr. Nair holds the title of Certified Fellow in Production and Inventory Man-
agement Designation from the Association for Operations Management and the
Certified Quality Engineer designation from the American Society of Quality.
He serves on the editorial boards of various journals and is currently serving as a
Department Editor for the Journal of Operations Management and an Associate
Editor for Decision Sciences.