supply chain management practices and capabilities: …

SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND CAPABILITIES: A CASE OF

AN APPAREL SUPPLY CHAIN

Maqsood Memon

International Graduate School of Business, Division of Business, University of South Australia

[email protected].

Bruce Gurd

International Graduate School of Business Division of Business, University of South Australia

[email protected]

Sev Nagalingam

School of Advanced Manufacturing and Mechanical Engineering, Division of Information

Technology, Engineering and the Environment, University of South Australia

[email protected]

of 19 ANZAM 2010

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

1

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the relationship between supply chain management (SCM) practices, supply chain

(SC) capabilities and competitive advantage from a resource-based perspective. Evidence from a single

company named Orangi suggests that SCM practices helps in the development of organizational resources

and SC capabilities of flexibility, responsiveness and coordination. Capabilities of SC processes and

activities assist achieving the objectives of profitability and customer service through valued services of

quick response (QR), vendor managed inventory (VMI) program, short lead time delivery, dedicated

production lines and warehousing services. It benefits customers for reduction of forecasting periods and

costs of markdowns, stock outs and inventories and also helped Orangi company for gaining competitive

advantage.

Keywords: Supply Chain Management, Capabilities, Competitive Advantage.

INTRODUCTION

Free trade and globalization not only has enhanced the competition for reaching the right market, at the

right time and with the right price but also provided opportunities for sourcing materials, semifinished

parts, skills, resources, technologies and capabilities at the optimum cost. SCM has emerged as strategic

tool to help organizations form inter-firm cooperative arrangements as they can share and combine

resources and capabilities for creation of value that each partner could not achieve if they acted alone

(Inkpen & Ross, 2001). Sharing of resources and capabilities in the form of material, information, funds,

finished and semifinished goods with engineered and organized activities are named as SCM practices.

The resource-based theory of strategy assumes that firms develop and control unique strategic resources

that help them sustain their competitive advantage (Widener, 2006).

This study uses a definition of competitive advantage based on the resource based view (RBV) of the

firm. SCM practices, partnership, collaborations and alliances are sources of competitive advantage

(Boddy, Macbeth & Wagner 2000; Cooper, Lambert & Pagh 1997; Lambert, Knemeyer & Gardner 2004;

Whipple, Frankel & Daugherty 2002). It is argued that organizations involved in such activities and

practices develop SC capabilities which help them to retain and sustain SCM partnership for long term

competitive advantage. This study identifies a company embedding structural resources of SC activities,

of 19ANZAM 2010

2

processes, routines, and human resources’ skills, knowledge and coordination for development of SC

capabilities flexibility, responsiveness and coordination in order to deliver value to customer. The

customer receives this value in terms of maximizing profitability by reducing stock outs, markdowns,

high inventory costs at their distribution centre and point of sale. The purpose of this study is to explore

the relationship of SCM practices, SC capabilities and competitive advantage in an operational situation

of a firm. A qualitative case study research method is used for data collection from an apparel

manufacturing firm and its suppliers. In the past two decades many UK, Europe and US apparel

manufacturers relocated their facilities and operations to low labour cost countries and others shifted to a

combination of wholesaling or retailing with outsourcing becoming a competitive strategy for apparel

companies in UK, Europe and USA for gaining their market share (Agrawal & Farrell 2003; Appelbaum

& Christerson 1997). Apparel buyers are now looking beyond price, quality and delivery; these can only

help to qualify as a supplier. To be a long term partner of choice, apparel manufacturers need to be

capable to meet changing market needs and deliver long term valued service. This paper explores the SC

practices and capabilities of apparel manufacturing in a competitive situation. The unit of analysis of this

study is Orangi, and apparel manufacturer and examines capabilities and competitive advantage in a SCM

context.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Supply Chain Management (SCM)

Interest in SCM is immense but there is little consensus on the definition of SCM (New 1997; Lummus,

Krumwiede & Vokurka 2001; Mentzer et al 2001). Mentzer et al. (2001) attempted to overcome this

state of affairs by proposing a definition that is broad, not confined to any specific discipline area and

adequately reflecting the breadth of issues that are usually covered under this term:

“SCM is defined as systemic, strategic coordination of traditional business functions and the

tactics across these business functions within a particular company and across business within

the supply chain, for the purpose of improving the long term performance of the individual

companies and the supply chain as a whole” (Mentzer et al., 2001)

of 19 ANZAM 2010

3

The effective use of this philosophy requires that functional and supply chain partner activities are

integrated, aligned with company strategy and harmonized with organizational structure, process, culture,

incentives and people (Abell, 1999)

SCM Practices

SCM practices are organized groups of activities in an organization to promote effective management of

its supply chain (Koh, Demirbag, Bayraktar , Tatoglu & Zaim 2007; Li, Bhano Ragu-Nathan, Ragu-

Nathan & Subba Rao 2006). Activities in an organization are means of operational excellence and

customer satisfaction which can be sources of competitive advantage (Porter 1985; Hines 1993).

Koh et al. (2007) and Li et al.( 2006) described SCM practices including strategic supplier relationships,

customer relationships, information sharing, information quality, internal lean practices and

postponement. Croxton, Garcia-Dastugue, Lambert & Rogers (2001), Hong & Jeong (2006), Lambert &

Cooper (2000) and Tsang & Antony (2001) defined SCM practices in seven management processes of

customer relationship management, customer service management, demand management, order

fulfilment, manufacturing flow management, product development and commercialization, quality

management, and returns management. These SCM practices will be used as a reference in this study.

SC Capabilities and Resource-based View Theory

There is growing discussion about SCM, arguing that effective SCM is tool of competitive advantage.

Our definition of competitive advantage is based in the Resource-based View (RBV) of the firm. In this

paper we separate the concepts of resources and capabilities (Makadok, 2001). Barney (2007: 22) defined

them as:

“Resources are firm’s fundamental, financial, individual and organizational capital attributes,

while capabilities are those attributes of a firm that enable it to exploit its resources in

implementing strategies”

of 19ANZAM 2010

4

Capabilities can be at the activity level, process level, functional level and firm level. They are developed

in functional areas by combining human, structural and physical resources at corporate level and can be

recognized with names such as reliable service, responsiveness, flexibility and short product development

cycles (Amit & Schoemaker, 1993). Resources can be a source of competitive advantage when a firm has

capability of deploying resources. Firms may have different level of performance even having the same

strategies and operating in similar market segments (Henderson & Cockburn 1994; Lawless, Bergh &

Wilsted 1989; Schroeder, Bates & Junttila 2002). A reason for performance difference can be differences

in capabilities at corporate and functional levels and such difference may have critical effect on corporate

performance (Narasimhan, Aram & Carter 2001). Ray, Barney & Muhanna (2004) summarize the

arguments that:

“In some cases, using resource-based theory to examine the economic implications of resources

and capabilities at the firm level can lead to misleading conclusions, and that process-level

analysis may be more appropriate”

There is growing consensus in strategy literature that business processes are the basic unit of competitive

advantage (Ray, Muhanna & Barney 2005) and alignment between process capability and corporate level

capability is critical (Kim, 2006). Supply chain capabilities can play a vital role in shaping the

competitive capability of the firm (Deshmukh 2001; Morash 2002; Shang & Sun 2004; Zhao, Droge &

Stank 2001). The above argument underlines the linkage between supply chain capabilities and corporate

capability and underscores that supply chain capability can be antecedent of competitive advantage.

Complex interdependent SC activities spread from the supplier end to the customer end, this complex and

diverse network of activities may be a reason for inference of numerous capability parameters.

Confounding definitions of supply chain capability in the literature emphasize the need to distinguish SC

capabilities from SC practices, activities, processes and performance attributes. These parameters are

discussed as price, quality, delivery and flexibility (Li et al. 2006; Skinner 1985; Tracey, Vonderembse &

Lim 1999). Morash (2002), Sánchez & Pérez (2005), Wu, Yeniyurt, Kim & Cavusgil (2006), and

of 19 ANZAM 2010

5

Yusuf, Gunasekaran, Adeleye & Sivayoganathan (2004) outlined SC capabilities as customer service,

flexibility, coordination, activity integration, information exchange, information system support and

responsiveness. These dimensions of capability can be classified in two major groups -1) logistics cost,

productivity, quality, price and delivery; 2) flexibility, responsiveness, coordination and integration.

Firms must first meet industry standards or minimum levels in the first group of quality, price and

delivery. However beyond these minimum standards or thresholds a firm will be able to create value to

customer through the second group (Kumar & Arbi 2008). Operational excellence can be aligned to the

strategic capability of cost leadership through integration while flexibility, responsiveness, coordination

and integration (internal and external) yield valued services to customers aligned to strategic capability of

differentiation (Kim 2006 and Morash 2002). Recognizing two broad SC capability dimensions of

operational excellence and value adding customer services, SC capabilities are recapped as flexibility,

responsiveness, coordination, integration and value to customer and these would be used for this study.

Exploring the evidence of SC capabilities as an antecedent of competitive advantage in SC practices

environment, it leads to following research question;

Research Question: How can SC capabilities help to enhance competitive advantage?

Following are the subsidiary questions for observing the evidence of SC capabilities;

• What are SC process and routines in practice

• How these practices support towards capability development

• What SC capabilities are possessed by the company

RESEARCH METHOD

An exploratory qualitative case study research method was used. Limited studies use the case study

method for exploring the evidence of relationships of SCM practices, SC capabilities and competitive

advantage in operational situation of an organization. In depth interviews of executives of three SC

partner firms of an apparel manufacturing company, were conducted followed by site visits. Content

analysis method was used for collected qualitative data.

of 19ANZAM 2010

6

The apparel industry is an important industry in which to study this research question. Apparel products,

being fashion related, have volatile and unpredictable demand; therefore, the failure of supply chain

management is often due to a mismatch between supply chain strategy and the nature of product demand

(Fisher 1997; Fernie & Sparks 2004). It results in a high risk of stock out and markdowns at the retail

level. Textile innovation and frequent changes in fashion trends results in a small forecast period and

small order size. This forces apparel manufactures to focus on strategic supply chain capabilities of quick

response (QR), vender managed inventory (VMI), continuous replenishment (CR) by reducing the

product life cycle and adoption of information technology tools and techniques for strategic collaboration

and integration.

Broadly there are three main partners in the apparel supply chain, buyer (brand name labels and retail

stores), manufacturers and fabric suppliers. Downstream apparel supply chain buyers are rich in resources

of capital, knowledge, information and technology. Upstream supply chain fabric suppliers are also rich

in capital, knowledge, information and technology and achieved substantial levels of success in SCM

practices. Mid-stream apparel manufacturers are predominantly SMEs; most of the big apparel

manufacturers have achieved a certain level of the success in SCM practices whereas SMEs are still

striving for success. Therefore it is vital to study a manufacturing SME operating in a supply chain

network with limited resources.

This is a case study of a Pakistani apparel company, Orangi, which has less resources of capital,

knowledge, technology and infrastructure compare to its downstream and upstream SC partners. It is very

challenging for apparel manufacturing SMEs to gain competitive advantage and remain partners in this

chain; therefore it is interesting to examine, how apparel SMEs gain competitive advantage and

partnership in the supply chain.

of 19 ANZAM 2010

7

FINDINGS

Orangi is an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of apparel. They get samples from their customer in

Europe already designed and developed, then source and develop fabric and trims in Pakistan, China,

Thailand and Hong Kong and manufacture the garments in own facility in Pakistan. The supply chain is

shown in figure 1.1(Appendix-A)

SCM Practices

The products fit Fisher’s (1997) categorisation of innovative products which change frequently and the

product life cycle is also short. Having short product life cycle time, its forecast period is also short and

hence control of production lead time is very important. Orangi broadly classify orders in two types. First

there are new style orders, which have never been produced before therefore fabric and trims are new and

need to be developed; hence material lead time will be longer similarly overall production lead time as

well. Second there are repeat style orders with shorter material lead time and overall production lead time.

Production lead time is 55 to 70 days for new style orders and 45 to 60 days for repeat style orders.

Minimum days and maximum days in both cases are due to local and imported fabrics used in orders; in

case of imported fabric, transportation time is more. After placing bulk orders the manufacturer develops

and sources fabric and trims with local and overseas suppliers according to the specifications of customer.

One of the executives of Orangi stated that:

“We have realized the changing need of market and improved our processes and shortened the

lead time although it is challenging to meet 55 to 70 days lead time for new style product when

only fabric supplier takes minimum 30 days, even than we serve our customer with on time

delivery performance of 98%”.

Major activities and lead time by product and fabric location are shown in Charts 1.1 to 1.4 (Appendix-B)

Orangi understands the unpredictable demand and short product life cycles and the high cost of

markdowns, stock out and inventories at point of sale. Realizing the cost issues, the company is

of 19ANZAM 2010

8

successful in delivering valued services to its customers in UK by providing a service of managing

finished goods inventory at their warehouse in Pakistan, through a vendor managed inventory (VMI)

program which helps the customer by reducing the opportunity cost of stock outs and high cost of

markdowns and carrying of inventory. This program they use for repeat orders and delivery of products

with just two weeks lead time. Finished goods inventory is maintained according to actual sales

projections at point of sale. They pick, pack and ship the finished goods as they receive customer orders

and then issue production order to dedicated production line at shop floor for replenishment of goods by

stock keeping units (SKU). Similarly fabric and trims suppliers collaborate in the supply chain by keeping

grey (semifinished) fabrics and semifinished trims and reacting quickly by printing, dying the right

pattern and colour. Achieving flexibility in manufacturing, changing needs of customer supply chain

partners coordinate in sharing of information for integrated supply chain.

Supply Chain Capabilities

Value adding content of the apparel manufacturer is higher than other downstream and upstream partners

in apparel supply chain; while Orangi has less resources, capital and technology compare to other partners

in chain. Interviewees at Orangi said:

“We have been successful in getting good return of investment on human resource at all levels,

which is quite different compared to our competitors in this country. We have qualified people in all

departments and the customer is very comfortable in communicating directly with them. We are

among the pioneers for using Industrial Engineers for production floor support and training of

supervisors”.

Responsiveness of the company is observed in serving customer with VIM, QR program with compressed

lead times and alignment with customers changing needs for computer aided design/computer aided

manufacturing (CAD/CAM ) for patterns, samples and embroidery making, where customer exchange

design details in digital format.

of 19 ANZAM 2010

9

Apparel manufacturing is considered to be a labour intensive industry and the major value adding

processes and sequence of processes of Orangi are cutting, embroidery, printing, sewing, washing and

packing, as shown in figure 1.1(Appendix-A). Sewing is a core process and the highest value adding

process. During interviews an executive said that;

“Our core competence is achieving high efficiency even with small order quantity by using skilled

technician and supervisors with the help of industrial engineers”

The company can produce small orders with shorter lead time with optimum efficiency and required

quality. Flexibility of capacity, order size, delivery lead time, packing types, is achieved by the company

by re-engineering the sewing process to a modular production system with incentive based pay;

improving capacity and production planning; effective pre-production preparation; shorten production

lead time by cutting non value adding activities and time of some activities and setting up buffer capacity

accommodate unpredictable demand.

Coordination with downstream and upstream partners is acknowledged in sample development, fabric

and trims development and approval process and sharing of inventory, sales, capacity and forecast

information as shown in table 1.1 (Appendix-C).

The company uses basic level information technology tools such as telephone, fax and e-mail through

internet and intra-net as medium of communication with internal and external supply chain partners for

exchange of order information (order forecasts, order details, manufacturing orders, order status, work in

progress), inventory information, and performance reports. Table 1.1 (Appendix-C) shows the type of

order information formally shared between partners and the mode of information exchange. The

information integration capability of the company is unsubstantial. Most information transfer (internal

and external) is through word of mouth, meetings and memos, which can be automated and can be

accessible to people who require it without request and efforts, extra resources are put to meet required

service level.

of 19ANZAM 2010

10

CONCLUSION

The study supports the argument that resource and capabilities complement each other; a firm can

strategically embed structural resources of processes, routines, SC practices and skilled human resources

which can help organizations for development of SC capabilities. This study suggests that operational

practices and services of VMI, QR, dedicated production lines, warehousing services, technology

alignment, and coordination services differentiate apparel manufacturing organizations with capabilities

of flexibility, responsiveness and coordination. These SC capabilities of the firm help their customers to

reduce costs of stock out, markdowns, high inventories at warehouses and point of sale - hence produce

value to the customer compared to marginal competitors in the country and region. Therefore study

reveals that firms engaged in producing low technology and less innovative products can achieve

differentiation through innovative valued services to their buyers for gaining competitive adventage and

buyers of such products can reduce costs of warehousing and inventories through SCM services. It is

found that having basic level of information integration and IT tools for sharing of information and

coordination, implies cost of extra resources and may undermine other SC capabilities.

of 19 ANZAM 2010

11

APPENDICES

Appendix-A

Figure 1.1 Supply Chain Flow of Orangi Company

of 19ANZAM 2010

12

Appendix-B

Charts 1.1 to 1.4 showing major activities and lead time by product and fabric location are shown

in Charts 1.1 to 1.4.

ACTIVITIES

Total Lead Time

Order Processing

Fabric Supply

Trims Supply

Inspection of Material 5 Days

Production 30 Days

Chart 1.1 Production Lead Time Before Improvement (Imported Fabric)

110 Days

LEAD TIME GANTT CHART

60 Days

15 Days

30 Days

ACTIVITIES

Total Lead Time

Order Processing

Fabric Supply

Trims Supply

Inspection of Material 5 Days

Product ion

30 Days

30 Days


90 Days

15 Days

40 Days

Chart 1.2 Pr oduction Lead Time Before Improvem ent (Local Fabric)

ACTIVITIES

Total Lead Time

Order Processing 5 Days

Fabric Supply

Trims Supply

Inspect ion of Material 2 Days

Production

Chart 1.3 Production Lead Time After Improvement (Imported Fabric)

18 Days

70 Days

45 Days

20 Days

LEAD TIME GANTT CHART ACTIVITIES

Total Lead Time

Order P rocessing 5 Da ys

Fabric Supply

Trims Supply

Inspect ion of Material 2 D ays

Production

Char t 1.4 Production Lead Time After Improvement (Local Fabr ic)

18 Days

55 Days

30 Days

20 Days


of 19 ANZAM 2010

13

Appendix-C

Table 1.1 Information exchange between supply chain partners

From Orangi company to customer

From customer to Orangi company

Type of information Frequency of information

sharing

Method/Tools of

information sharing

Order Forecasting

Quarterly

Excel sheet by e-mail

Confirm order

Order details

Order design details

New-Minimum 55 days

before delivery date

Repeat-Minimum 45 days

before delivery date

3 days after conformation

Maximum a week after

confirmation

By e-mail


MS office documents by

e-mail

Product development After new product approval MS office documents by

e-mail


sharing

Method / Tools of

information sharing

Production Planning

Monthly


Order status

Bi-weekly


Capacity Quarterly


WIP Bi-weekly Excel sheet by e-mail

Finished goods inventory

Monthly


Packing List and shipment

details

Day of shipment Excel sheet by e-mail

of 19ANZAM 2010

14

From supplier to Orangi company


sharing

Method/Tool of

information sharing

Production Planning

Not shared

Order status

Bi-weekly


Capacity Not Shared

WIP

Bi-weekly


Semi-finished goods

inventory

Monthly Excel sheet by e-mail

Product development 1-weeks after order placement

for first laboratory sample

By courier and e-mail

From Orangi company to supplier


sharing

Method/Tools of

information sharing

Order Forecasting

Quarterly


Confirm order

Purchase Orders

Overseas suppliers 45 days

Local supplier 30 days

Before delivery date

5 days after conformation

By e-mail


Product development Not shared

of 19 ANZAM 2010

15

REFERENCES

Agrawal V & Farrell D (2003) Who wins in off shoring, The McKinsey Quarterly (4): 36-53.

Amit R & Schoemaker P (1993) Strategic assets and organizational rent, Strategic Management Journal

14: 33-46. Abell D (1999) Competing today while preparing for tomorrow, Sloan Management Review 40 (3) 73-81.

Appelbaum R & Christerson B (1997) Cheap labor strategies and export-oriented industrialization: some

lessons from the Los Angeles, East Asia apparel connection, International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research 21: 202–217.

Barney J & Clark D (2007) Resource-based theory: creating and sustaining competitive advantage,

Oxford University Press, USA.

Boddy D, Macbeth D & Wagner B (2000) Implementing collaboration between organizations: an

empirical study of supply chain partnering, Journal of Management Studies 37: 1003-1018.

Cooper M, Lambert D & Pagh J (1997) Supply chain management: more than a new name for logistics,

The International Journal of Logistics Management 8: 1-14.

Croxton K, Garcia-Dastugue S, Lambert D & Rogers D (2001) The supply chain management processes,

The International Journal of Logistics Management 12: 13-36.

Deshmukh G (2001) Manufacturing strategy: literature review and some issues, International Journal of

Operations & Production Management 21 (7): 884-932.

Fernie J & Sparks L (2004) Logistics and retail management: insights into current practice and trends

from leading experts: Kogan Page Ltd.

Fisher Marshall L (1997) What is the right supply chain for your product, Harvard Business Review 75:

105-116.

Henderson R & Cockburn I (1994) Measuring competence?: Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical

research, Strategic Management Journal 15: 63-84.

Hines P (1993) Integrated materials management: the value chain redefined, International Journal of

Logistics Management 4: 13-22.

of 19ANZAM 2010

16

Hong P & Jeong J (2006) Supply chain management practices of SMEs: from a business growth

perspective, Journal of Enterprise Information Management 19: 292-302.

Inkpen A & Ross J (2001) Why do some strategic alliances persist beyond their useful life? California

Management Review 44: 132-148.

Kim S (2006) The effect of supply chain integration on the alignment between corporate competitive

capability and supply chain operational capability, International Journal of Operations &

Production Management 26: 1084-1107.

Koh S, Demirbag M, Bayraktar E, Tatoglu E & Zaim S (2007) The impact of supply chain management

practices on performance of SMEs, Industrial Management and Data Systems 107: 103.

Kumar S & Arbi A (2008) Outsourcing strategies for apparel manufacture: a case study, Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management 19 (1): 73-91.

Lambert D, Knemeyer A & Gardner J (2004) Supply chain partnerships: model validation and

implementation, Journal of Business Logistics 25: 21-42.

Lambert DM & Cooper MC (2000) Issues in supply chain management, Industrial Marketing

Management 29: 65-83.

Lawless M, Bergh D & Wilsted W (1989) Performance variations among strategic group members: An

examination of individual firm capability, Journal of Management 15: 649.

Li S, Ragu-Nathan B, Ragu-Nathan T & Subba Rao S (2006) The impact of supply chain management

practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance, Omega 34: 107-124.

Lummus R, Krumwiede D & Vokurka R (2001) The relationship of logistics to supply chain

management: developing a common industry definition, Industrial Management and Data

Systems 101: 426-431.

Makadok R (2001) Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent

creation, Strategic Management Journal 22: 387-401.

Mentzer J, DeWitt W, Keebler J, Min S, Nix N, Smith C & Zacharia Z (2001) Defining supply chain

management, Journal of Business Logistics 22: 1-26.

of 19 ANZAM 2010

17

Min S & Mentzer J (2004) Developing and measuring supply chain management concepts, Journal of

Business Logistics 25: 63-100.

Morash E (2002) Supply chain strategies, capabilities, and performance, Transportation journal 41: 37-

54.

Narasimhan R, ARAM J & Carter J (2001) An empirical examination of the underlying dimensions of

purchasing competence, Production and Operations Management 10: 1-15.

New S (1997) The scope of supply chain management research, Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal 2: 15-22.

Porter M (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance, The Free Press,

New York.

Ray G, Barney J & Muhanna W (2004) Capabilities, business processes, and competitive advantage:

choosing the dependent variable in empirical tests of the resource-based view, Strategic

Management Journal 25: 23-37.

Ray G, Muhanna W & Barney J (2005) Information technology and the performance of the customer

service process: A resource-based analysis, Management Information Systems Quarterly 29: 4.

Sánchez A & Pérez M (2005) Supply chain flexibility and firm performance, International Journal of

Operations & Production Management 25: 681-700.

Schroeder R, Bates K & Junttila M (2002) A resource-based view of manufacturing strategy and the

relationship to manufacturing performance, Strategic Management Journal 23: 105-117.

Shang K & Sun L (2004) Taxonomy in logistics management: a resource-based perspective, International

Journal of Management 21: 149-165.

Skinner W (1985) The taming of lions: how manufacturing leadership evolved, 1780-1984, In Clark,

Hayes, Lorenz (Eds.) The uneasy alliance: Managing the productivity-technology dilemma, pp

63-110. The Harvard School Press, Boston, MA.

Tracey M, Vonderembse M & Lim J (1999) Manufacturing technology and strategy formulation: keys to

enhancing competitiveness and improving performance. Journal of Operations Management 17:

of 19ANZAM 2010

18

411-428.

Tsang J & Antony J (2001) Total quality management in UK service organizations: some key findings

from a survey, Managing Service Quality 11: 132-141.

Whipple J, Frankel R & Daugherty P (2002) Information support for alliances: performance implications,

Journal of Business Logistics 23: 67-82.

Widener S (2006) Associations between strategic resource importance and performance measure use: the

impact on firm performance, Management Accounting Research 17: 433-457.

Wong C, Arlbjørn J & Johansen J (2005) Supply chain management practices in toy supply chains,

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 10: 367-378.

Wu F, Yeniyurt S, Kim D & Cavusgil ST (2006) The impact of information technology on supply chain

capabilities and firm performance: A resource-based view, Industrial Marketing Management 35:

493-504.

Yusuf YY, Gunasekaran A, Adeleye EO & Sivayoganathan K (2004) Agile supply chain capabilities:

Determinants of competitive objectives, European Journal of Operational Research 159: 379-

392.

Zhao M, Droge C & Stank T (2001) The effects of logistics capabilities on firm performance: customer-

focused versus information-focused capabilities, Journal of Business Logistics 22: 91-108.

of 19 ANZAM 2010

supply chain management practices and capabilities: …

Documents