Broad span of supply chain integration: theory development

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how theoretical lenses have been used to analyze the supply chain integration (SCI) theory. Furthermore, this paper elaborates theories derived from SCI research, in the form of propositions and a framework to explain the concept of the broader span of SCI. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a systematic review of 194 research articles from Q1 to Q4 international journals over the period 1980–2017. Issues are explored under the integration keywords: “supply chain integration,” “internal integration,” “supplier integration,” “customer integration,” “third party logistics integration” and “logistics service provider integration.” Findings Conceptually, SCI can be interpreted as a span that illustrates the internal integration of the focal organization, and the integration of the focal organization with suppliers, logistics service providers (LSPs) and customers. However, the result from the systematic literature review shows the SCI’s span still neglects LSPs. Based on that gap, a resource-based view (RBV) integrated with the resource dependence theory (RDT) is used to propose a broader SCI span that consists of internal, supplier, LSP and customer. Using both theories, this paper conceptualizes resources, dependence and uncertainty as the antecedents of the broader span of SCI. Originality/value This paper provides a theoretical contribution that integrates the RBV and RDT as a basis for developing the broader span of SCI.

Effect of information technology-enabled supply chain integration on firm's operational performance

“…Theoretical background and hypotheses development Attempting to explain the performance improvements of a particular organization or a whole supply chain through the impact of IT and SCI, a number of studies have grounded their research investigations in a range of organizational theories, including resource-based view (Rai et al, 2006;Devaraj et al, 2007;Byrd et al, 2008;Tan et al, 2010;Saeed et al, 2011;Agan, 2011;Daugherty et al, 2009;Hsu, 2013); transaction cost economics (Vickery et al, 2003;Power and Singh, 2007;Saraf et al, 2007;Sanders, 2008;Li et al, 2009;Tan et al, 2010); resource dependence theory (Power and Singh, 2007;Tan et al,2010); relational view (Devaraj et al, 2007); knowledge-based view (Power and Singh, 2007;Saraf et al, 2007); theory of swift, even flow (Devaraj et al, 2007); relational view (Devaraj et al,2007); socio-technical systems (Power and Singh, 2007), to name just a few. Perdana et al (2019) recently conducted a systematic literature review to investigate the theories and their frequency of use in the SCI literature. Reporting on the results of their literature review, Perdana et al (2019, p. 190) note, "the theory can be used individually and also be integrated with other theories to determine the range of the SCI."…”

Integration quality, value co-creation and resilience in logistics service supply chains: moderating role of digital technology

“…From a RBV perspective, enterprises can develop unique capabilities through supply chain integration and achieve a sustainable competitive advantage (Wu and Barnes, 2012). The existing research generally proposes that supply chain integration can be divided into internal, customer, and supplier integrations (Jajja et al , 2018; Perdana et al , 2019). Some studies focused on the content of supply chain integration, such as decision-making processes (Hearnshaw and Wilson, 2013), information sharing (Sezen, 2008) and organizational coordination (Srinivasan and Swink, 2015).…”

Desafios na gestão logística de uma microempresa fabricante de biscoitos na perspectiva da integração das atividades primárias e de apoio

“…As atividades dos agentes que compõem a rede de abastecimento e as suas relações, em muitos casos, representam as atividades logísticas. Tais atividades devem ser integradas e coordenadas para entregar ao cliente o produto ou serviço no momento desejado (Adamczak et al, 2016;Ballou, 2006;Christopher, 2018;Perdana, Ciptono & Setiawan, 2019;Prajogo, Oke & Olhager, 2016;Titah, Shuraida & Rekik, 2016). Para Novaes (2015), no caso de bens duráveis, é comum no Brasil a MPE prometer a entrega de um produto em uma data e não conseguir cumprir a promessa, devido às várias deficiências na manutenção de informação, nas operações do depósito ou no transporte até o cliente.…”