How do different supply chain configuration settings impact on performance trade-offs?

Abstract

Abstract:The notion of 'fit' in the supply chain management (SCM) literature has evolved following the adoption of the contingency approach in an endeavour to achieve greater organisational effectiveness. In this paper, we investigate the possible approaches to achieving a state of fit between supply chain configuration settings and performance indicators, while taking into account the contextual factors related to different industry sectors and geographical dispersion levels. This study addresses the pressing issue of the performance trade-offs faced by companies to achieve a higher service level and customer satisfaction (effectiveness) on the one hand, while being costefficient on the other hand (efficiency). The paper contributes to the SCM literature and practice through synthesising a conceptual framework that scrutinises the relationships between six individual configuration settings and nine effectiveness/efficiency indicators. The study's findings explain the motivations behind different configuration decisions, which help in obtaining the most appropriate fit between supply chain configuration and performance. How do different supply chain configuration settings impact on performance 35

Designing global trade and logistics channels: a focus on the Chinese food and beverage market

“…Contingency theory (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) argues that no theory or method can be applied in all instances, and companies have to adapt their structures to maintain fit with changing contextual factors (Ellram and Cooper, 2014;Sabri et al, 2017). First, market-related factors (i.e.…”

“…Zeng and Rossetti, 2003;Lorentz et al, 2013). In today's context characterised by growing demand in speed and flexibility, aligning LC with TC is paramount when shaping companies' global strategy (Sabri et al, 2017;Harris et al, 2018). On the one hand, logistics is a key enabler for company internationalisation (Marchet et al, 2016).…”

Supplier selection and supply chain configuration in the projects environment

“…Since the seminal work of Fisher (1997), there has been a growing interest in customising the configuration so that it suits the supply chain's contextual environment. Hence, it is important to take into account key factors such as level of localisation and globalisation (Ebben and Johnson, 2005;Bhatnagar and Sohal, 2005;Kirca et al, 2012), which was found to have a major influence on supply chain performance (Sabri et al, 2017). Supply chain configuration is usually conceptualised in terms of several structural elements, such as the number of actors within the chain, geographical dispersion level, collaboration and inter-organisational relationships, and supply and distribution network design (Chandra and Grabis, 2007;Sezen, 2008;Chopra and Miendle, 2012;Corominas et al, 2015).…”

“…As such, the configuration deals with the coordination of products, processes, and logistics decisions (Zheng et al, 2010). Supply chain configuration can be developed based on one of three approaches; product characteristics, process, or systems thinking (Sabri et al, 2017).…”

“…Moreover, globalisation (as in Ebben and Johnson, 2005;Bhatnagar and Sohal, 2005;Kirca et al, 2012; with the evidence of the impact of its level on the performance of different supply chains as in Sabri et al, 2017), implies often geographically-dispersed international supply chains with suppliers located in different countries -a feature rather typical for EPC contractors, that operate for global customers in a naturally global geographic dispersion -which, in turn, may involve negative implications for firm performance in terms of service level reduction and cost rise due to increased supply chain complexity (Lorentz et al, 2012; in terms of practical evidence, the preliminary implications of COVID-19 on supply chains, before it has become a global disruption, have been widely debated). Lambert et al, 1996;Matopoulos et al, 2007;Soosay and Hayland, 2015;Kim and Nguyen, 2018 Partnership: Goffin et al, 2006;Lambert et al, 1996;Spekman, 1988;Mentzer et al, 2000;Barratt, 2004;Eriksson, 2015;CII, 1991CII, -2019 Longevity Short-term or Long-term Long-term Collaboration: Goffin et al, 2006;Lambert et al, 1996;Matopoulos et al, 2007;Soosay and Hayland, 2015;Kim and Nguyen, 2018 Partnership: Goffin et al, 2006;Lambert et al, 1996;Spekman, 1988;Mentzer et al, 2000;Nyaga et al, 2010;Koufteros et al, 2012;CII, 1991…”