Many theory-testing efforts in our field are made by borrowing theories from other fields (e.g., transaction cost economics or resource-based theory), adapting them to a supply chain context and deriving hypotheses that are eventually tested statistically. By doing so, we have reached a lot! But we also need our own theories. For example, several years ago, Lambert & Cooper (2000) noted: “One of the most significant paradigm shifts of modern business management is that individual businesses no longer compete as solely autonomous entities, but rather as supply chains”. So, part of our theoretical toolkit could be a theory of supply chain vs. supply chain competition which could explain how the supply chains of Apple and Samsung interact. However, surprisingly few attempts have been made towards such a theory. This includes a thought piece by Rice & Hoppe (2001) and, more recently, a case study by Antai & Olson (2013). We need to continue this theory-building process.
Rice, J.B. & Hoppe, R.M. (2001). Supply Chain vs. Supply Chain: The Hype & the Reality. Supply Chain Management Review, 5 (5) http: web.mit.edu/supplychain/repository/scvssc.pdf
Antai, I. & Olson, H. (2013). Interaction: A New Focus for Supply Chain vs Supply Chain Competition. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43 (7), 511-528 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2012-0195
I am very happy to present the 2014 NOFOMA Special Issue, which I have recently co-edited for the International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. It contains some of the best research that has been presented at the 26th NOFOMA Conference, which took place at Copenhagen Business School last year. First, the article by da Mota Pedrosa et al. (2015) is titled Logistics Innovation Development: A Micro-level Perspective; it investigates the micro-foundations of customer knowledge acquisition during logistics innovation development. Second, Gammelgaard’s (2015) article, The Emergence of City Logistics: The Case of Copenhagen’s Citylogistik-kbh, provides a better understanding of the organizational change processes in city logistics projects. Third, in the article about Humanitarian Logistics: The Role of Logistics Service Providers by Vega & Roussat (2015), a new perspective to humanitarian logistics research is brought to us. Finally, Bhakoo et al. (2015), whose research deals with Supply Chain Structures Shaping Portfolio of Technologies, explore impact of integration through the “dual arcs” framework.
da Mota Pedrosa, A., Blazevic, V., & Jasmand, C. (2015). Logistics Innovation Development: A Micro-level Perspective. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45 (4), 313-332 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0289
Gammelgaard, B. (2015). The Emergence of City Logistics: The Case of Copenhagen’s Citylogistik-kbh. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45 (4), 333-351 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0291
Vega, D., & Roussat, C. (2015). Humanitarian Logistics: The Role of Logistics Service Providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45 (4), 352-375 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0309
Bhakoo, V., Singh, P., & Chia, A. (2015). Supply Chain Structures Shaping Portfolio of Technologies: Exploring the Impact of Integration through the “Dual Arcs” Framework. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 45 (4), 376-399 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2014-0298
Recent discussions have demonstrated that supply management organizations should not just focus on price but on total cost of ownership. But what is next? A new report, titled Supply Management’s Next Evolution, has now been published by strategy& (formerly Booz & Company). The authors believe that “the next step is for sourcing organizations to move beyond ‘optimizing the buy’ to ‘maximizing value’ for the enterprise” – a transition that could be challenging for many companies, especially if they lack talents that are able to take part in strategic discussions. The authors find that supply management organizations, who successfully manage this transition, follow four common practices: First, they “participate in (re-)architecting product and service designs and contribute to sourcing-related design changes in clear, quantifiable ways”. Second, they “optimize the supply base by tailoring suppliers to the demand profile”. Third, they “segment suppliers to better engage each distinctly”. Finally, they “demonstrate the bottom-line impact”.