مدیریت زنجیره تامین: یک چارچوب تحلیلی برای بررسی ادبیات انتقادی

There can be little dispute that supply chain management is an area of importance in the field of management research, yet there have been few literature reviews on this topic (Bechtel and Mulumudi, 1996, Proceedings of the 1996 NAPM Annual Academic Conference; Harland, 1996, British Journal of Management 7 (special issue), 63–80; Cooper et al., 1997). This paper sets out not to review the supply chain literature per se, but rather to contribute to a critical theory debate through the presentation and use of a framework for the categorisation of literature linked to supply chain management. The study is based on the analysis of a large number of publications on supply chain management (books, journal articles, and conference papers) using a Procite© database from which the literature has been classified according to two criteria: a content- and a methodology-oriented criterion.

This paper is a `thought paper’ and arose from our discussions about the nature of the academic study of supply chain management, a conversation that has indeed been on going for a number of years (see Croom and Saunders, 1995). Our concern was with the nature of research in supply chain management, and more specifically with exactly what would constitute the domain of supply chain management as a management discipline. From these discussions this paper developed in order to present a basis for our debate and development around the field of supply chain management by attempting to consolidate current learning, identify possible gaps, and thereby pose possible future directions for development. Our contention that supply chain management should begin to be seen as a discipline in much the same way as marketing ( Malhotra, 1999) has been seen as contentious, not least by early reviewers of the paper, yet we stand by this claim, citing Long and Dowells (1989) argument that “…disciplines are distinguished by the general (discipline) problem they address” (cited in Tranfield and Starkey, 1998). What we set out to establish in this paper is in fact the general problem domain of supply chain management, thereby, we hope, contributing to the development of a discipline in supply chain management. Tranfield and Starkey also note the underlying “soft, applied, divergent and rural” nature of management research, and further argue that there is a real need in any field of social research to identify the cognitive components of the subject ( Tranfield and Starkey, 1998). Their paper has been instrumental in our approach to the challenge of undertaking a critical literature review of the field of supply chain management, and this paper's focus on mapping and classifying the area has been motivated by their claim that “…a key question for any applied field concerns the strategic approach taken to its mapping” (p. 349). Supply chain management and other similar terms, such as network sourcing, supply pipeline management, value chain management, and value stream management have become subjects of increasing interest in recent years, to academics, consultants and business management (Christopher, 1992; Hines, 1994; Lamming, 1996; Saunders, 1995 and Saunders, 1998). It is recognised in some parts of the literature that the supply chain should be seen as the central unit of competitive analysis (Macbeth and Ferguson, 1994; Cox, 1997). Companies will not seek to achieve cost reductions or profit improvement at the expense of their supply chain partners, but rather seek to make the supply chain as a whole more competitive. In short, the contention that it is supply chains, and not single firms, that compete is a central tenet in the field of supply chain management (Christopher, 1992; Macbeth and Ferguson, 1994). Supply chain management has received attention since the early 1980s, yet conceptually the management of supply chains is not particularly well-understood, and many authors have highlighted the necessity of clear definitional constructs and conceptual frameworks on supply chain management (Saunders, 1995 and Saunders, 1998; New, 1995; Cooper et al., 1997; Babbar and Prasad, 1998). Saunders (1995) warns that pursuit of a universal definition may “lead to unnecessary frustration and conflict”, and also highlights the fragmented nature of the field of supply chain management, drawing as it does on various antecedents including industrial economics, systems dynamics, marketing, purchasing and inter-organisational behaviour. The scientific development of a coherent supply chain management discipline requires that advancements be made in the development of theoretical models to inform our understanding of supply chain phenomena. As an illustration, the application of Forrester's (1961) industrial dynamics model applied to supply chains (the `Forrester Effect') exemplifies such a model. Its value lies in the ability to aid understanding of the actions of materials flows across a chain, and has provided a basis for further advancement of understanding supply chain dynamics (for example, see Sterman, 1989; Towill, 1992; Van Ackere et al., 1993; Lee et al., 1997). Cooper et al. (1997) support this view, pointing to the fact that whilst supply chain management as a concept is a recent development, much of the literature is predicated on the adoption and extension of older, established theoretical concepts. In this paper our concern is not so much with advancing theory per se, but in providing a taxonomy with which to map and evaluate supply chain research. In the process, it is our contention that we also provide a topology of the field of supply chain management, which may provide a fruitful means of delineating or defining the subject domain. This is not necessarily a novel idea: Lamming (1993), for example, provides a map of antecedent literature for his development of the Lean Supply Model, which again supports our claim that there is a need for a topological approach to the development of supply chain theory. The paper presents the results of a literature survey in the field of supply chain management. The main purposes of the survey are: • to look at some major issues in supply chain management literature and to present a framework for classification and analysis; • to describe and evaluate the methodologies used in supply chain management literature. The paper is organised in five sections. In Section 1 some definitions of supply chain management are examined, underlining differences and common aspects, in order to better trace the boundaries of the concept and to highlight the difficulties of its definition. One of the reasons for the lack of a universal definition of supply chain management is the multidisciplinary origin and evolution of the concept. Section 2 considers the bodies of literature associated with supply chain management and discusses the different perspectives adopted by various authors. In Section 3 we explain the framework and the methodology used for classifying the literature analysed and we present the results of literature review. Section 4 presents a summary and some conclusions we can draw from the work in terms of moving towards a disciplinary approach to supply chain management.

One of the most significant findings from our literature analysis has been the relative lack of theoretical work in the field when compared to empirical based studies. Our concern with the finding that the literature is primarily empirical-descriptive is that any development of a cognate supply chain management discipline requires more rigorous and structured research in the topic. We would argue that theoretical development is critical to the establishment and development of supply chain management study. However, it is not our contention that empirical studies are valueless. Rather, we feel that the inductive–deductive dichotomy is best addressed through the constant reflection of empirical against theoretical studies. However, what is of concern is the lack of a significant body of a priori theory — a point Andrew Cox argues forcibly in his 1997 treatise. Furthermore, our content analysis of the supply chain literature highlights the contrasting themes and antecedents of the field. In some ways we feel this offers an even greater challenge for the development of supply chain management research. As an illustration of this we recently conducted a survey of published research into supply chain management currently conducted at the University of Warwick — a leading UK research university. By applying our content-oriented matrix to the analysis of publications within all the departments of the University, we found that research covering at least one of the cells in the matrix could be found in science, social science, engineering and a number of humanities departments. We recognise that developments in our understanding of supply chain management require multi-disciplinarity in order to address the contrasting antecedents. Certainly the importance of transaction cost economics and inter-organisational theory has been recognised by a number of researchers (Lamming, 1993; Harland, 1994; Croom, 1996). In addition, our survey at the University of Warwick identified a number of key antecedent disciplines currently evidenced in supply chain research — included amongst these being systems thinking, information theory, industrial dynamics, production economics, social theory, game theory and production engineering. If one begins to include some of the hybrid field such as marketing or strategic management, then it is apparent that the subject is being explored from a multiplicity of perspectives. This paper has thus set out to provide a taxonomy or topology of the field of supply chain management as an aid to both the classification of research in the field, and as a means of providing a framework for the identification of the key content of the subject. Of significance we feel is the need for researchers to be aware of complementary studies outside of their own `normal’ domain of expertise. Thus, as Dietrich (1994) pointed out, future developments in theory concerned with business to business phenomena may require a more cosmopolitan approach, incorporating a combination of contrasting social and technical disciplines.