Developing a consensus definitionof supply chain management:

a qualitative studyJames R. Stock

Department of Marketing, College of Business, University of South Florida,Tampa, Florida, USA, and

Stefanie L. BoyerDepartment 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 ofSCM and those practitioners attempting to implement SCM. This paper aims to address these issues.

Design/methodology/approach – Using the qualitative analysis software NVivo, this studyexamines 166 definitions of SCM that have appeared in the literature to determine importantcomponents of an integrated definition of SCM.

Findings – Three broad themes of SCM are identified, including: activities; benefits; andconstituents/components. An encompassing definition of SCM is developed from the qualitativeanalysis of these definitions.

Research limitations/implications – While a large number of SCM definitions have been includedin the research design, there may be additional definitions that are excluded given the very largenumber of SCM publications.

Practical implications – A consensus definition of SCM will allow researchers to more preciselydevelop 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 forthe purpose of developing a consensus definition of the concept. Previous literature has included only asubset of published SCM definitions.

Keywords Qualitative research, Supply chain management, Research work

Paper type Conceptual paper

1. IntroductionMuch confusion has occurred amongst supply chain researchers during the past twodecades by the many supply chain management (SCM) definitions that have beenproposed in the literature. While most scholars have agreed that SCM includescoordination and integration, cooperation among chain members, and the movement ofmaterials to the final customer; there are still varying conceptualizations of how SCMshould be defined (Mentzer et al., 2001b). This confusion exists both in the academic aswell as practitioner communities (New, 1997; Tan, 2001).

The lack of a comprehensive and encompassing SCM definition is significant forseveral important reasons. Without an inclusive or encompassing definition, it will be

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.htm

IJPDLM39,8

690

Received 4 March 2009Revised 7 July 2009Accepted 19 July 2009

International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics ManagementVol. 39 No. 8, 2009pp. 690-711q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0960-0035DOI 10.1108/09600030910996323

difficult for researchers to develop supply chain theory, define and test relationshipsbetween components of SCM, and develop a consistent stream of research that “builds”on what has gone before (at least in a comprehensive way). Without the adoption of auniform definition accepted by researchers, confusion will continue to hinder the studyand further development of SCM; and research will extend in various directions, ratherthan build upon itself (i.e. creating synergy in research). For practitioners, the absenceof a comprehensive SCM definition makes it more difficult for supply chain executivesto claim authority and responsibility for the “right” combination of functions andprocesses. It also makes it more difficult to benchmark against other companies andindustries on supply chain metrics, job responsibilities, and other human resourceissues, because of the differences that exist from one company to the next.

From a theoretical perspective, it is impossible to develop sound SCM theory untilvalid constructs and generally accepted definitions of terms are developed. Sincetheory development is paramount to scientific pursuit, the absence of a consensus SCMdefinition will lead to theoretical ambiguity. The problem becomes amplified as thediscipline searches for the bridge laws that will bridge the gap between potential SCMtheories 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 notultimately predictive. Consequently, a consensus definition of SCM is of significantimportance 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 aneed for a single consensus definition. To address this shortcoming, we explore themultiple definitions of SCM that have been put forth in the literature, by reviewing173 definitions of SCM across a multiplicity of journals and books. Primarily, we focuson common “key concepts” within each definition, which are then combined to form aconsensus 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 consensusdefinition 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 SCMA rapid surge in SCM publications occurred in the middle of the 1990s and thenumbers continue to grow, as illustrated in Table I. Larson and Rogers (1998) firsttabulated the number of SCM articles published from the early 1980s through 1997 andwe extend their calculations through 2008. We also contribute by calculating thenumber of academic articles published on SCM in refereed journals during the sametime period. The number of publications was computed by compiling the number ofcitations that where contained in the ABI/INFORM database with the subject identifiedas “supply chain management,” “supply chain,” or “SCM”.

Additionally, the number of academic dissertations dealing with SCM-related topicshas increased since the 1980s. During the period 1970-1991, no academic dissertationswere cited in Dissertation Abstracts searching on the keywords of “supply chainmanagement,” “supply chain” or “SCM”. From 1992 to 1998, 14 supply chaindissertations were listed, and in the latest period from 1999 to 2004, 65 dissertationsrelating to SCM were identified (Stock, 2001; Stock and Broadus, 2005).

With the growth of SCM, a staggering number of definitions have surfaced in boththe practitioner and the academic literatures, yet a clear understanding of SCM remains

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

691

shrouded in considerable confusion and misconception. This is due in large part to SCMdefinitions that vary widely in their scope and description (New, 1997; Tan, 2001). Somedefinitions concentrate on supply chain participants and activities while others placeemphasis on material flows and inter-organizational collaboration. Some authorsinclude final consumers in their definitions while others exclude them. In earlydefinitions, the term SCM was used, or perhaps misused, synonymously with traditionaldefinitions of logistics management. However, the consensus today seems to be thatSCM 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 ofdefinitions of SCM. Although Lummus and Vokurka (1999) did not propose a unifieddefinition of SCM, they did provide a historical perspective of its development andclearly 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, somethat defined it in general terms of management and control, and others that focused onthe management of interdependent relationships.

Mentzer et al. (2000) reviewed varying definitions of SCM in an effort to categorizeand synthesize them, although only a handful of definitions were examined. In asubsequent study, Mentzer et al. (2001b) presented a more comprehensive definition ofSCM developed from a search of the literature and interviews with executives in20 companies. The authors indicated that SCM definitions could be classified into threecategories: 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 aparticular company and across businesses within the supply chain, for the purposes ofimproving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as awhole.

Year Refereed journal articles Total of all publicationsa

1994 49 2321995 74 3611996 143 5931997 122 9081998 194 1,4111999 310 1,6842000 403 2,0742001 443 2,4212002 515 2,1472003 586 3,3782004 743 2,1132005 796 2,4352006 922 2,4952007 902 2,2932008 1,105 2,892

Note: aTotal of both practitioner trade publications and refereed journal articlesSource: ABI/INFORM

Table I.SCM publications(1994-2008)

IJPDLM39,8

692

Larson and Rogers (1998), in a special issue of the Journal of Marketing Theory andPractice dedicated to SCM development, also proposed a unifying definition of SCM,blending ideas gleaned from a number of published definitions. However, much likeMentzer et al. (2000), Larson and Roger’s definition was based on the examination offewer 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 ofactivities, within and between vertically linked firms, for the purpose of serving endcustomers at a profit.”

There is nothing inherently incorrect about analyzing a limited number of SCMdefinitions. However, such analyses are incomplete in that there is the potential thatkey definitions or concepts may be omitted. Thus, in this research, a census of SCMdefinitions published in the literature was conducted.

3. A logistics perspective of SCMCouncil of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) realized the need tobetter distinguish logistics from SCM in their 1998 definition:

Logistics is that part of the supply chain process that plans, implements, and controls theefficient flow and storage of goods, services, and related information from the point of originto point of consumption in order to meet consumers’ requirements (emphasis added).

Thus, the CSCMP in 1998 differentiated logistics as only one function or componentcontained underneath the umbrella of SCM.

More recently, CSCMP proposed separate definitions for SCM and logisticsmanagement that again reiterated the distinct differences between the two. CSCMPcurrently 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 informationbetween 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 andprocurement, conversion, and all Logistics Management activities. Importantly, it alsoincludes coordination and collaboration with channel partners, which can be suppliers,intermediaries, third-party service providers, and customers. In essence, Supply ChainManagement 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 linkingmajor business functions and business processes within and across companies into acohesive and high-performing business model. It includes all of the Logistics Managementactivities noted above, as well as manufacturing operations, and it drives coordination ofprocesses and activities with and across marketing, sales, product design, finance andinformation technology.

Because of the recognition of CSCMP as the preeminent supply chain professionalorganization, many persons have adopted their definition of SCM.

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

693

Mentzer et al. (2008) have highlighted the confusion that exists within the SCMliterature regarding its definition and boundaries and have asked the question: “Is theCSCMP definition of SCM sufficient, both for academicians and practitioners in thefield?” The premise of their paper was that the CSCMP definition, as well as those thathad been published in recent years, were not completely adequate to optimally describeit and to develop supply chain theory and practice. This view has been taken by anumber of researchers, such as by Larson et al. (2007), who surveyed supply chainexecutives 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 anygiven supply chain is [a] barrier to moving forward with SCM.” They called for moreresearch into the definition and implementation of SCM. Other articles appearing in thelast few years that have dealt with defining SCM (Trent, 2004; Larson et al., 2007) seemto 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, becauseSCM is rightly viewed as a broad, encompassing set of activities, functions andprocesses, there is still disagreement regarding which activities, functions, andprocesses belong within the purview of SCM.

With the previous discussion in mind, this present research was conducted in anattempt to provide a consensus definition of SCM in order to provide researchers andpractitioners with a “common ground” for pursuing theory and practice.

Since its inception as a formal area of investigation in the early-1980s, SCM hasevolved 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 thescope and breadth of the area could be determined for the purpose of identifying howthe concept had evolved over the years and to identify the major themes of thosedefinitions.

4. MethodologyThe purpose of this study was to develop a consensus definition of SCM throughcontent analysis of previously published SCM definitions. Following this approach,key concepts within each SCM definition were identified and clustered into broaderthemes relevant to SCM. These themes were then quantified with the ultimate objectiveof bringing greater clarity to the concept of SCM by developing a consensus definitionthat included the most commonly occurring themes appearing in these publisheddefinitions of SCM.

The ABI/INFORM database was searched for the terms “supply chainmanagement,” “supply chain,” and “SCM.” The results of that search yielded morethan 1,000 articles and other references containing a SCM definition. All sourcescontaining the terms being searched were individually examined to determine thedefinition 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 thedefinition. In a few instances, those sources were journals not included in theABI/INFORM database. No attempt was made to tabulate how many times a specificSCM definition was repeated in the literature, although anecdotally, the CSCMPdefinition was likely the most widely used. Table II shows the refereed journals thatcontained unique definitions of SCM.

IJPDLM39,8

694

Journal Total from journal Year Total year

Benchmarking: An International Journal 2 2002 2British Food Journal 2 1996 1

2000 1Business Process Management Journal 2 2000 1

2001 1Decision Sciences 2 1998 1

2005 1Emerging Issues in Purchasing and Supply ChainManagement 1 1997 1European Journal of Operational Research 1 1997 1Industrial & Commercial Training 1 2001 1Industrial Management & Data Systems 7 1999 1

2000 22001 32002 1

Industrial Marketing Management 3 2000 22001 1

Integrated Manufacturing Systems 5 1995 12000 12001 12002 2

International Journal of Agile Management Systems 1 1999 1International Journal of Clothing Science &Technology 1 2006 1International Journal of Logistics Management 2 1990 1

1998 1International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement 15 1996 2

1998 21999 52000 12001 5

International Journal of Physical Distribution &Logistics Management 21 1994 1

1996 11998 21999 12000 82001 52002 22008 1

International Journal of Quality & ReliabilityManagement 1 2001 1International Journal of Service IndustryManagement 2 2000 2International Marketing Review 1 2001 1Journal of Business Logistics 4 2001 2

2002 12003 1

Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice 1 1998 1Journal of Retailing 1 2000 1

(continued )

Table II.List of journals used

in analysis of SCMdefinitions

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

695

Two researchers independently assessed the definitions to determine if they wereunique and that no other definitions were verbatim replicates. If a definition containedat least one “new” element, it was considered “unique” and was included in theanalysis. Each unique definition became a single entry into the database. Duplicateswere not counted as “unique” definitions. The research methodology only examinedunique definitions. The inclusion of duplicates would have flawed and biased theresearch. When duplicates occurred, the citation containing the earliest SCM definitionwas used.

There were 173 unique definitions of SCM identified from published sourcesthrough 2008. NVivo7, a commonly used qualitative software package, was employedto analyze these SCM definitions (QSR International, 2006). Analysis of qualitative data(i.e. unstructured data that are not appropriately reduced to numbers) requiressensitivity to both detail and context. NVivo facilitates and simplifies this analysis byproviding tools for the rigorous exploration of qualitative datasets and discovery of theunderlying, reoccurring themes. Using NVivo for analysis results in a node tree fixedhierarchical structure, which may be inconsistent with the actual findings and besubjected to the researcher’s subjective interpretations. This hierarchicalrepresentation may lead less independent-minded researches to reflect itunquestioningly in their analysis and related conceptualizations. This disadvantagewas not relevant to this analysis as NVivo was not solely used for textual counting, but

Journal Total from journal Year Total year

Journal of Services Marketing 1 2000 1Journal of Supply Chain Management 2 2002 1

2005 1Logistics Focus 1 1999 1Logistics Information Management 10 1995 2

1996 21999 22000 12001 3

Management Decision 3 1990 12000 2

Management Research News 1 2001 1Management Science 1 2003 1Marketing Intelligence & Planning 1 1996 1Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 20 1996 3

1998 21999 22000 52001 62002 2

Work Study 4 1998 12000 22002 1

Note: Total does not equal 173 since books and reports are not included in this listing which onlyincludes journalsTable II.

IJPDLM39,8

696

rather structured reoccurring concepts that provided a framework for a coherentdefinition of SCM.

To this end, each of the compiled SCM definitions were analyzed using aword-for-word content analysis and the key concepts (or terms) of each definition wereidentified. It is important to note here that content analysis is a form of conceptualanalysis, whereby key concepts or terms are evaluated. In our analysis, these conceptswere placed into free-standing nodes and subsequently used to build broader themes orsets. The researchers initially identified some “key” themes of the SCM definitions andhad NVivo assign cases into these groups. Additionally, the software suggested otherpotential groupings that did not fit into the initial categories or themes. NVivo was thendirected 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 thedefinitions were coded into the appropriate free nodes, the researchers combinedsimilar free nodes into themes (i.e. categories of free nodes). When a key concept wasuncovered that did not fit into one of the previously identified free nodes, a new freenode was created and descriptively labeled. The derived free nodes or major themesare presented in the following paragraphs after a brief example of how the definitionswere coded.

The researchers utilized the Graneheim and Lundman (2004) methodology forconducting the content analysis of SCM definitions and developing the themes andsub-themes. The unit of analysis in this research was each of the published studies thatincluded definitions of SCM. Two researchers involved in conducting this studyindependently read through the definitions several times to get a sense of the totality ofSCM. 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 towhether 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 inthe definition) and developed a comprehensive list of those elements that wereincluded. This procedure was used to develop the overall themes and then the nodeswithin each theme.

In order to ensure that the research findings would be “trustworthy,” the Graneheimand Lundman (2004) methodology was employed to examine the trustworthiness of theresearch results based on credibility, dependability and transferability. Relating tocredibility, the data were all based on published manuscripts dealing with the topic ofSCM where a definition was included. Since a large number of source materials wereevaluated, a variety of aspects relating to the topic were examined, representingthoughts of more than 100 authors. The components or elements of SCM have beengenerally well recognized in terms of what they encompassed and how they weredefined. For example, there is not much difference in how activity or functional termssuch as transportation, warehousing, inventory control are defined by researchers andpractitioners.

The dependability of the findings examines the degree to which data change overtime and how the researchers interpret that data. In this study, the researchers wereexamining the various published definitions during one time interval, even though theactual manuscripts were published over a significant time span. The transferability orextent that the findings can be transferred to other settings or groups is facilitated bythe fact that the researchers used a common approach to collecting and evaluating the

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

697

data, that is, the definitions of SCM. In other words, it can be reasonably assumed thatutilizing the same methodology in another context or situation would produce resultsthat would be reliable.

5. Identification of SCM themesAs a result of the qualitative analysis of the 173 definitions, three major themes wereidentified:

(1) activities;

(2) benefits; and

(3) constituents/components (Figure 1).

Within each theme, some sub-themes were identified. For example, activities includedboth flows of materials, services, finances, and information, and networks of internaland external relationships. Benefits included adding value, creating efficiencies, andcustomer satisfaction. Utilizing these three themes, the definitions of SCM wereexamined to determine what elements or components of the definitions pertained to oneor more of the three major themes.

The development of SCM has been rapid during the previous three decades. In thissection of the paper, this development will be traced with respect to the three majorthemes 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 173definitions, the researchers attempted to discover if there were any trends evident fromthe definitions offered by authors over the years that could result in the creation of aconsensus definition of SCM.

6. ResultsA detailed analysis of the definitions and descriptions resulted in the identification ofseveral themes and sub-themes that occurred repeatedly throughout the dataset. Thesub-themes were labeled as:

Figure 1.Major themes andsub-themes of a consensusSCM definition

Constituents orcomponents

Activities Benefits Themes

Sub-themesMaterial/physical,finances, services,and information

flows

Createsefficiencies

Customersatisfaction

Constituents orcomponents

Valuecreation

Networks ofrelationships(internal and

external)

IJPDLM39,8

698

. material/physical, services, finances and information flows;

. networks of relationships (both internal and external);

. value creation;

. creates efficiencies;

. customer satisfaction; and

. constituents or component parts.

Each was determined to fall into one of the three broad themes constituting the keyactivities, the benefits, or the constituents associated with SCM.

In tracing the development of SCM definitions over time, the number of themes andsub-themes included in SCM definitions generally increased. Typical in the evolution ofa field of study, as an area is examined by more researchers, a greater understanding ofit emerges, resulting in a broader and more encompassing view of the field.In examining SCM definitions over time, the majority included activities such as flowsof materials and networks of external relationships with other supply chain firms. Theearliest definitions averaged about two themes or sub-themes (out of a total of sixpossible) and gradually increased to 3-4. Initially, early SCM definitions only includedmaterials flows, but over the years expanded to include services, financial andinformation flows as well. Similarly, the definitions included networks of relationships,but early definitions typically only considered external networks. Later, both internaland external networks were incorporated into SCM definitions. Additionally, asdefinitions of SCM developed, they began to include various benefits such as addingvalue (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 partswere included in more than three-quarters of all definitions published.

Overall, when examining the SCM definitions published through 2008, it wasunusual to find definitions that included all six sub-themes. Of the 173 uniquedefinitions identified, only a relatively few (eight in total) possessed all sub-themes, andthese appeared in sources published in 1990, 1995, 2000 (three times), and 2001 (threetimes) (Table III).

Stevens (1990, p. 25) was the first author to include all six components in a definitionof SCM:

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

Six 8Five 23Four 34Three 58Two or less 50Total 173

Notes: aTo be considered a complete definition, which includes six sub-themes, each sub-theme mustcontain nodes for network of relationships (internal and external) and flows (information andmaterials)

Table III.Published SCM

definitions containingsub-themes of a

consensus definition

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

699

The supply chain is the flow of both information and material through a manufacturingcompany, from the supplier to the customer. Traditionally the flow of material has beenconsidered only at an operational level, but this approach is no longer adequate. It is nowessential 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 competitiveadvantage. Managers must work to integrate the supply chain;, i.e. to ensure that all thefunctions and activities involved in the chain are working harmoniously together. To developan 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 andsystems 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 boundedby the aggregate demands of the marketplace at one end, and by specific product/servicedelivery at the customer site, at the other end. Integrating the supply chain requiresphilosophical, operational and systems changes. Four categories of operational change mustbe considered:

. Policies, practices and procedures including: management approaches/methodologieswhich define how to perform activities (task, sequence, timing, etc.); balanced performancemetrics which reflect process performance; knowledge of industry best practices thatenable best performance.

. Organization including: organizational structure and degree of cross-functionalintegration; 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 ofmaterial from source of supply to end customer; flow of data from customer tomanufacturer/distributor and back.

. Systems including: the use of systems to enable best practice performance; the effectivemanagement of data and analysis across the supply chain (speed of flow, one touchquality, appropriate access).

The integrated supply chain structure seeks to minimize non-value-add activities and theirassociated structure, because this drives investment cost, operating cost, and time out of thesupply chain process. This serves to inject greater customer responsiveness and flexibilityinto the supply chain, driving costs down and thereby enhancing bottom-line performanceand cost competitiveness (p. 38).

During 2000, three examples of SCM definitions were identified that included all majorthemes 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 adiscussion 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 dealingwith 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 extendedenterprise – working together to provide a common product and service to the marketplacethat the customer desires and is willing to pay for throughout the life cycle of the productand service. This multi-company group, functioning as one extended enterprise, makesoptimum use of shared resources (people, process, technology, and performance

IJPDLM39,8

700

measurements) to achieve operating synergy. The result is a product or service that ishigh-quality, low-cost, delivered quickly to the marketplace, and achieves customersatisfaction.

In a book examining the electronic supply chain, Poirier and Bauer (2000, pp. 3-4)defined SCM as follows:

Supply chain management (SCM) refers to the methods, systems, and leadership thatcontinuously improve an organization’s integrated processes for product and service design,sales forecasting, purchasing, inventory management, manufacturing or production, ordermanagement, logistics, distribution, and customer satisfaction. SCM involves optimizing thecreation and delivery of goods, services, and information from suppliers to businesscustomers and consumers. It is a means to improve the enterprise’s competitive positionwithin 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 andimproving 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 informationflows through the chain from your sources to your customers. The objective of SCM is toreduce or minimize total cost, improve total quality, maximize customer service, and increaseprofit.

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. Lummuset al. (2001) examined the relationship of logistics to SCM in an attempt to develop acommon 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 thecustomer, including sourcing raw materials and parts, manufacturing and assembly,warehousing and inventory tracking, order entry and order management, distribution acrossall channels, delivery to the customer, and the information systems necessary to monitor all ofthese activities.

Towers and Ashford (2001, p. 1) took a marketing approach in defining SCM, givingemphasis to the sustainable customer relationships that SCM could develop:

SCM has sought to create streams of activities linked between producer, customer andsupplier that demanded longer-term partnership links to be developed. The process ofstrategically managing the procurement, movement and storage of materials, parts andfinished inventory (and their related information flows) through the organization and itsmarketing channels in such a way that current and future profitability are maximizedthrough the cost effective fulfillment of orders. It has a focus on the external environment ofthe 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 journalsspecifically focused on the topic of SCM and examined its impact on organizationaleffectiveness. The author offered the following definition:

Supply chain management works to bring the supplier, the distributor, and the customer intoone cohesive process. The manufacturers, suppliers, transporters, warehouses, retailers, andcustomers 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 howeach unit interacts with the others. The suppliers and distributors that were once adversaries

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

701

are now becoming partners for the betterment of both corporations. Managing the chain ofevents in this process is called SCM. Effective management must take into accountcoordinating all the different pieces of this chain as quickly as possible without losing any ofthe quality or customer satisfaction, while still keeping costs down.

The three major themes and sub-themes are briefly discussed in the following sectionsso as to provide readers with an understanding of the development of SCM and itspresent breadth and scope.

6.1 ActivitiesGiven that definitions and detailed descriptions were analyzed in this study, it is notsurprising that the activities associated with SCM occur most often. SCM activities arecomposed of two sub-themes, the material/physical, finances, services and informationflows sub-theme and the networks of relationships (which includes both internal andexternal relationships) sub-theme which occurred in 68 and 70 percent of thedefinitions, respectively.

Material/physical, finances, services and information flows. The effectivemanagement of product and information flows is clearly a key aspect of SCM.Illustrative examples of SCM definitions containing this sub-theme include thefollowing:

[. . .] The supply chain encompasses all activities associated with the flow and transformationof the goods from the raw materials stage (extraction), through to the end-user, as well asassociated information flows. Materials and information flow both up and down the supplychain (Handfield and Nichols, 1999).

[. . .] a set of three of more entities (organizations or individuals) directly involved in theupstream and downstream flows of product, services, finances, and/or information from asource to a customer (Mentzer et al., 2001a).

The processes concerned with moving products from the extraction of natural resources andprocessing all the way to the end consumer (Paulson, 2001).

Most of the SCM definitions cited material/physical, finances, services and/orinformation 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 andinformation from supply sources to the final point of sale.” Likewise, SCM has alsobeen described as the management of raw materials, in-process materials, andfinished-goods inventories from the point of origin to the point of consumption and theplanning 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-wayprocess. Either material flows one-way from the supplier to consumer or informationflows one-way from consumer to supplier. Stevens (1989) stated that SCM involvedestablishing a system for linking together (constituent parts) via the feed forward flowof materials and the feedback flow of information. Similarly, Towill et al. (2000, p. 160)proposed that “information concerning demand flows upstream from the marketplaceand ultimately to the raw material supplier” and “material flows downstream, endingup as a particular physical product.”

IJPDLM39,8

702

However, a few authors have recognized that material and information travels intwo-way flows both up and down the supply chain. Handfield and Nichols (1999) statedthat SCM encompasses all activities associated with the flow and transformation ofgoods . . . as well as all information flows, not only flows traveling in a one-way direction.Svensson (2002, p. 749) recognized a dilemma in the uni-directionality proposed by someprevious definitions arguing that they “ignore the overall bi-directional dependencies ofactivities, actors, and resources between the points-of-consumption and origin.” TheCSCMP (2005) definition of SCM implies the two-way flow of various elements in thesupply chain. If materials and information only flow uni-directionally downstream andupstream, how would one account for the upstream flow of materials resulting fromreverse logistic activities and the downstream flow of information that undoubtedlyoccurs from raw material suppliers, to manufacturers, and then to retailers?

Networks of relationships. Establishing networks of relationships betweeninterrelated and interdependent organizations, as well as across business unitsinternal to an organization, is another sub-theme of the activities theme identified inSCM definitions. Illustrative examples include the following:

Supply chain management as the management of the interface relationships among keystakeholders and enterprise functions that occur in the maximization of value creation whichis 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 partiesinvolved 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 methodof 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 theserelationships as either external to the organization, internal across business units, or both.Morgan and Hunt (1994) identify the need to manage relationships between internalcustomers and suppliers simultaneously with the management of relationships betweenthe organization and its customers and suppliers. SCM has also been described as “themanagement of the interface relationships among key stakeholders and enterprisefunctions” (Walters and Lancaster, 2000, p. 160) and the coordination within and betweenvarious supply chain members (Chandra and Kumar, 2000).

6.2 BenefitsThe benefits resulting from effective implementation of SCM strategies are comprisedof three sub-themes that appear repeatedly throughout the dataset. These sub-themesrelate 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 andcreating efficiencies, thereby increasing customer satisfaction (Groosse, 2000).

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

703

Value creation. Illustrative examples of SCM definitions that include “valuecreation” as a sub-theme include the following:

[. . .] integration of business processes from end use through original suppliers that providesproducts, 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 thehands of the ultimate consumer (Christopher, 1992).

SCM has traditionally been identified closely with logistics because of similaritiesassociated with the flow of materials and services between suppliers and consumers.However, the concept of SCM adding value for consumers and stakeholders highlightsthat the value-added components of SCM, such as technical support and trainingservices, clearly separates it from traditional logistics management ( Jones, 1989).Further, this concept of adding value in the supply chain is becoming even moreimportant. In some industries, additional support features such as 24-hour technicalsupport may carry more weight than price when making the purchase decision (O’Brienand Deans, 1996).

Each supply chain member performs a specific “added value function in relation tothe 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 abasic premise of SCM is that value must increase faster than the costs associated withmanaging the supply chain (Lamming, 1996; Lockamy and Smith, 1997). Despite theobvious 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 thesub-theme of “creating efficiencies” include the following:

The [supply chain], functioning as one extended enterprise, makes optimum use of sharedresources (Groosse, 2000).

Utilized to efficiently integrate suppliers, manufacturers, warehouses and stores (Simchi-Leviet al., 2000).

Supply chain management is the management of the interface relationships among keystakeholders and enterprise functions that occur in the maximization of value creation whichis 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 ofbusiness processes (Horvath, 2001).

Linking the manufacturer, suppliers and customers, SCM makes optimum use ofshared resources, both internal and external to the organization, to achieve operatingsynergy by creating greater efficiencies (Groosse, 2000). Cox (1997, p. 167) describesSCM being dedicated to:

[. . .] discovering tools and techniques that provide for increased operational effectiveness andefficiency throughout the delivery channels that must be created internally and externally tosupport and supply existing corporate product and service offerings to customers.

SCM has developed as a means of improving an organization’s competitive advantagein the marketplace and the competitiveness of its constituent members by creating

IJPDLM39,8

704

mutually beneficial supply chain networks. These networks create greater synergyand efficiencies by allowing organizations to cut costs and improve profits (Poirier andBauer, 2000). Creating efficiencies was included in only a little over one-third(35 percent) of the definitions.

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 thatprovide 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 atimproved 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 away of optimizing value to customers and improving return to all stakeholders in thesupply chain (Mowat and Collins, 2000). According to Kuei et al. (2001, p. 864), SCMpractitioners “must maintain and sustain a customer-driven culture.” Others argue thatthe most basic purpose of SCM is conforming to customer requirements and one of thetwo most important aspects of SCM is that it focuses on customers at the end ofthe chain (Taylor, 1997). Given the fundamental nature of customer satisfaction in theeffective utilization of SCM, it is surprising that this sub-theme of SCM was onlyaddressed in about one-fourth (28 percent) of the definitions examined.

6.3 Constituents or components of SCMMore than three-fourths (76 percent) of the SCM definitions addressed the componentsor 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, andrelated systems (Arthur D. Little, 1991). In the case of identifying the components andconstituent parts, it may suffice to say that SCM is composed of all operations,systems, business functions and organizations involved in the management of aparticular supply chain.

The majority of definitions included mention of constituents or component parts,which could have included functional areas or processes within an organization, orexternal entities such as manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers, distributors, andtransportation companies.

7. An encompassing definition of SCMIn conducting this study, we chose to develop a consensus SCM definition based on thedefinitions of a large number of our predecessors rather than relying on a smallnumber of individuals or the review of only a few, select definitions. By considering alarge sample of definitions from both the academic and practitioner literature weattempted to remove as much of our own SCM biases from the development of aconsensus definition. The definition that has been developed is based solely on ourresearch and analysis of the 173 definitions rather than imposing our own opinions onthe definition we propose. From this analysis, we compiled the most commonly cited

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

705

components (themes and sub-themes) in our dataset of definitions. Each of thesethemes and sub-themes are included in our definition to insure that it includes the mostsalient 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 interdependentorganizations and business units consisting of material suppliers, purchasing, productionfacilities, logistics, marketing, and related systems that facilitate the forward and reverseflow of materials, services, finances and information from the original producer to finalcustomer with the benefits of adding value, maximizing profitability through efficiencies, andachieving 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 haveappeared in print. In that regard, it combines the collective thinking and wisdom ofnumerous individuals with varying perspectives and viewpoints. Thus, the definitiondeveloped is much like taking a census of the population since it includes the SCMdefinitions published. The proposed definition is more encompassing because many ofthe previously published definitions have only included a portion of what is currentlyviewed 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 setforth, but they have failed to encompass the various components or the widelyaccepted models of SCM. To that end, this proposed definition is simply not anotheraddition to the SCM literature, but rather it serves to synthesize SCM thought bytaking into account the most agree upon aspects of SCM while yielding a consensusdefinition of SCM generated from previously published research. A review of the173 definitions revealed that many of the conceptualizations of SCM failed to capturethe most commonly identified themes and sub-themes from our analysis. Suffice it tosay that our definition captures the scope of many researchers and it is broad enoughto accurately portray the accepted models within the SCM discipline.

So, is this consensus definition “the optimal” definition of SCM? Likely, no optimaldefinition may ever be determined because SCM is still developing and evolvingcontinuously. However, we believe the proposed definition is better than thosepreviously published because it is representative of the conceptualizations of bothacademicians and practitioners and relates to earlier definitions of SCM. Moreimportantly, the proposed definition has three themes that have been widely agreedupon 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 avital part of SCM as the area continues to grow and develop. Based on the newlyproposed consensus definition of SCM, there are a number of implications foracademicians and practitioners.

8. Implications and conclusionBy recognizing that enterprises can no longer effectively compete unilaterally orautonomously in today’s business environment, the development of SCM representsone 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 ofparamount importance in the development of a coherent SCM discipline. A consensus

IJPDLM39,8

706

definition can provide opportunities to academicians in terms of guiding futureresearch and to practitioners as they develop and implement more effective SCMpractices.

In order to scientifically study a phenomenon such as SCM, it is necessary to have aclear conceptualization of the phenomenon itself and its associated components andboundaries. Based on our findings, there were three commonly used themes across thevarious SCM definitions identified in the literature. As evidenced from our proposeddefinition, a consensus definition would include all six sub-themes. These concepts canbe employed to spur future research.

The adoption of the proposed consensus definition would provide an agreed uponstarting point and accepted structural framework for additional development andempirical testing of SCM theory, concepts, principles and methods and could aid in theidentification and resolution of SCM-related problems and issues. Research synergy isdifficult when multiple approaches are being taken as is the case without a commonframework for SCM.

Examples of some of the issues in SCM that could be examined include thefollowing conceptual and practical issues:

. Is there a theory or theories of SCM?

. What are the factors that impact the formation and continuation of inter-firmrelationships in the supply chain?

. What are the best ways of obtaining coordination between supply chainmembers?

. 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 proposedby Hunt (2002) could be employed. This theory testing process consists of fiveinterdependent stages, the results of which will either tend to corroborate or undermineSCM theory. The absence of a consensus definition has greatest impact on the theory,bridge laws, and research hypotheses stages of empirical testing. Theory developmentmust be the backbone and at the heart of scientific research endeavors. However, thelack of a definitive conceptualization of the components and activities encompassingSCM phenomenon will lead to theory that is ambiguous and incompletely conceived.

A consensus definition will also assist practitioners in developing a more structuredunderstanding of the activities and processes within and between supply chainmembers that are vital for creating and sustaining superior competitiveness andprofitability in today’s business environment. Given that many resource allocationdecisions within a firm are based on an understanding and interpretation of SCM, anincreased conceptualization also has implications in supply chain strategy,organization and planning, performance measurement, and human resourcemanagement.

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 ofwhether an integrated supply chain exists or not? Or, are the outputs different in asupply chain versus a traditional channel of distribution? Presently, there is debate onthis issue and a consensus definition of SCM would be helpful in framing a response tothat debate. Additionally, practitioners will be able to benchmark other companies and

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

707

industries when they can be more certain that others are visioning SCM in the sameway. At the moment, it is like comparing “apples to oranges” rather than “apples toapples” or “oranges to oranges.”

In sum, there exists too much disagreement as to what SCM is and what functionsand/or processes it includes. A consensus definition of SCM would be helpful ineliminating much of the disagreement. As a result of the qualitative analysis of a largenumber of SCM definitions heretofore published in the academic andtrade/professional press, a consensus definition has been offered which can assist inadvancing the art and science of SCM. Agreement on a definition will allow SCMresearch 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 andThe 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 passingfad 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 newname 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 supplychain 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 organizationaleffectiveness”, 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 asupply chain environment”, International Journal of Operations & ProductionManagement, 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 SaddleRiver, NJ.

IJPDLM39,8

708

Jones, C. (1989), “Supply chain management – the key issues”, BPICS Control,October/November, pp. 23-7.

Kuei, C., Christian, N. and Lin, C. (2001), “The relationship between supply chain qualitymanagement practices and organizational performance”, International Journal of Quality& Reliability Management, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 864-72.

Lambert, D. and Cooper, M. (2000), “Issues in supply chain management”, Industrial MarketingManagement, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83.

Lambert, D., Cooper, M. and Pagh, M. (1998a), “Supply chain management: implementationissues 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”, InternationalJournal 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 Halldorsson, A. (2007), “Perspectives on logistics vs. SCM: a survey ofSCM 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, October26-29, APICS, Washington, DC.

Lummus, R. and Vokurka, R. (1999), “Defining supply chain management: a historicalperspective and practical guidelines”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 99No. 1, pp. 11-17.

Lummus, R., Krumwiede, D. and Vokurka, R. (2001), “The relationship of logistics to supplychain 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 chainmanagement”, 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 relationshipto logistics, marketing, production, and operations management”, Journal of BusinessLogistics, 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 chainmanagement in an emerging industry”, Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal, 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 intertiary education?”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 33-40.

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

709

Paulson, L.D. (2001), “Understanding supply chain management”, IT Professional Magazine,Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 10-13.

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”,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 SupplyChain: 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 ofTechnology, Gothenburg, June.

Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. Jr and Myhr, N. (1998), “An empirical investigation into supplychain management”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement, 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 chainexcellence”, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 38-44.

Stock, J. (2001), “Doctoral research in logistics and logistics-related areas: 1992-1998”, Journal ofBusiness Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 125-256.

Stock, J. and Broadus, C. (2005), “Doctoral research in supply chain management and/orlogistics-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 functionalisttheory of marketing”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & LogisticsManagement, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 734-54.

Tan, K. (2001), “A framework of supply chain management literature”, European Journal ofPurchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 7, pp. 39-48.

Taylor, D. (1997), Global Cases in Logistics and Supply Chain Management, InternationalThompson Business Press, London.

Towers, N. and Ashford, R. (2001), “The supply chain management of production planning andsustainable 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 towardseffective supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An InternationalJournal, 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 inventorymanagement information systems: materializing supply chain management”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No. 6,pp. 16-31.

IJPDLM39,8

710

Walters, D. and Lancaster, G. (2000), “Implementing value strategy through the value chain”,Management Decision, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 160-78.

Zsidisin, G., Jun, M. and Adams, L. (2000), “The relationship between information technology andservice quality in the dual-direction supply chain”, International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 312-28.

Further reading

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

About the authorsJames R. Stock, PhD, The Ohio State University, is the Frank Harvey Endowed Professor ofMarketing at the University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida. His research interests includereverse logistics, product returns, supply chain management, and the marketing/logisticsinterface. He is the author or co-author of more than 150 publications including books, articlesand 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 atBryant University. Her research seeks to improve organizational performance by enhancingsupply chain management, and organizational training and learning. She has published in theJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science and the Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement.

Developinga consensus

definition of SCM

711

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints