Fiala 2005
Fiala 2005
Fiala 2005
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 801 W. Michigan St., Indianapolis, IN 46202, United States
School of Management, Xian Jiaotong University, China
c
Centre for Supply Chain Management & Logistics, Li & Fung Institute of Supply Chain Management & Logistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong
d
Department of Decision Sciences and Managerial Economics, Faculty of Business Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong
b
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 15 February 2008
Received in revised form 29 May 2009
Accepted 8 June 2009
Available online 17 June 2009
This study extends the developing body of literature on supply chain integration (SCI), which is the
degree to which a manufacturer strategically collaborates with its supply chain partners and
collaboratively manages intra- and inter-organizational processes, in order to achieve effective and
efcient ows of products and services, information, money and decisions, to provide maximum value to
the customer. The previous research is inconsistent in its ndings about the relationship between SCI
and performance. We attribute this inconsistency to incomplete denitions of SCI, in particular, the
tendency to focus on customer and supplier integration only, excluding the important central link of
internal integration. We study the relationship between three dimensions of SCI, operational and
business performance, from both a contingency and a conguration perspective. In applying the
contingency approach, hierarchical regression was used to determine the impact of individual SCI
dimensions (customer, supplier and internal integration) and their interactions on performance. In the
conguration approach, cluster analysis was used to develop patterns of SCI, which were analyzed in
terms of SCI strength and balance. Analysis of variance was used to examine the relationship between SCI
pattern and performance. The ndings of both the contingency and conguration approach indicated
that SCI was related to both operational and business performance. Furthermore, the results indicated
that internal and customer integration were more strongly related to improving performance than
supplier integration.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Supply chain integration
Taxonomy
Performance
China
Supply chain management
1. Introduction
Researchers have long articulated the need for a close,
integrated relationship between manufacturers and their supply
chain partners (e.g., Lambert et al., 1978; Armistead and Mapes,
1993). However, only recently has there been a call for a systematic
approach to supply chain integration (SCI), as increasingly global
competition has caused organizations to rethink the need for
cooperative, mutually benecial supply chain partnerships (Lambert and Cooper, 2000; Wisner and Tan, 2000) and the joint
improvement of inter-organizational processes has become a high
priority (Zhao et al., 2008).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 317 278 8586; fax: +1 317 274 3312.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B.B. Flynn), [email protected]
(B. Huo), [email protected] (X. Zhao).
1
Tel.: +852 3163 4493; fax: +852 3163 4492.
2
Tel.: +852 2609 7650; fax: +852 2603 6840.
0272-6963/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jom.2009.06.001
59
60
61
62
Table 1
Proles of responding companies.
Overall
Hong Kong
Guangzhou
Chongqing
Shanghai
Tianjin
n = 617
n = 206
n = 104
n = 104
n = 100
n = 103
Industries
Arts and crafts
Building materials
Chemicals and petrochemicals
Electronics and electrical
Food, beverage and alcohol
Jewelry
Metal, mechanical and engineering
Pharmaceutical and medical
Publishing and printing
Rubber and plastics
Textiles and apparel
Toys
Wood and furniture
Percentage distribution
1.9%
0.5%
5.0
1.9
6.3
1.5
13.1
13.6
4.9
5.8
0.5
1.0
25.4
9.2
1.8
2.4
4.4
2.4
6.6
9.2
17.8
35.4
1.3
3.9
1.9
1.0
3.8%
6.7
8.7
9.6
5.8
0.0
28.8
0.0
1.9
2.9
14.4
0.0
3.8
4.8%
8.7
7.7
11.5
4.8
0.0
35.6
3.8
9.6
2.9
3.8
0.0
1.9
1.0%
7.0
8.0
11.0
1.0
0.0
42.0
0.0
7.0
8.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
1.0%
3.9
10.7
19.4
5.8
1.0
28.2
1.9
2.9
7.8
7.8
0.0
3.9
Sales
<HK$5M
HK$510M
HK$1020M
HK$2050M
HK$50100M
HK$100 or more
Percentage distribution
32.4%
9.1%
14.1
9.1
12.4
15.3
15.8
22.2
10.2
13.6
15.0
30.7
49.0%
18.3
4.8
12.5
9.6
5.8
33.7%
12.5
19.2
16.3
7.7
10.6
30.0%
16.0
12.0
15.0
15.0
12.0
56.3%
18.4
8.7
8.6
2.9
4.9
63
% of
respondents
Years in current
position
% of
respondents
Top management
Middle management
39.9%
56.9
13 years
46 years
26.9%
22.9
Other
3.2
712 years
More than 12 years
24.6
25.6
scales were all reliable, with alpha values ranging from 0.84 to 0.94
(see Table 3). Appendix B reveals that all items had strong loadings
on the construct that they were intended to measure. The EFA
results also indicate that all items have lower loadings on the
constructs that they were not intended to measure. The results
demonstrate construct unidimensionality. Content validity was
established through a domain search of the literature, careful
synthesis and critical evaluation of existing constructs and an
iterative construct review by domain experts.
We rst used CFA to evaluate convergent validity as suggested
by OLeary-Kelly and Vokurka (1998). Each measurement item was
linked to its corresponding construct, and the covariance among
the constructs was freely estimated. The model t indices were x2
(976) = 4751.23, NNFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.95, RMSEA = 0.090 and
SRMR = 0.070. Thus, the model was acceptable (Hu and Bentler,
1999), indicating convergent validity (OLeary-Kelly and Vokurka,
1998). Furthermore, all factor loadings were greater than 0.50, the
t-values were all greater than 2.0 (Droge et al., 2004; Koufteros
et al., 2007; Narasimhan and Kim, 2002; Vickery et al., 2003), and
each items coefcient is greater than twice its standard error
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988), further demonstrating convergent
validity. The estimates for the average variance extracted (AVE)
were higher than 0.50 for four constructs, and 0.46 for the fth
construct. While Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested that the
minimum AVE should be 0.50 and one of our constructs fall slightly
below the minimum of 0.50, we satised the more detailed criteria
set by several other studies as indicated above. Therefore our
constructs have convergent validity.
In order to assess discriminant validity, we built a constrained
CFA model for every possible pair of latent constructs, in which the
correlations between the paired constructs were xed to 1.0. This
was compared with the original unconstrained model, in which the
correlations among constructs were freely estimated. The x2
difference demonstrated discriminant validity (Bagozzi et al.,
1991; Chen and Paulraj, 2004b; OLeary-Kelly and Vokurka, 1998).
Furthermore, the average variance extracted (AVE) for each
construct was greater than the squared correlation between that
construct and the other constructs as suggested by Fornell and
Larcker (1981), providing further evidence of discriminant validity.
4. Results
4.1. Contingency analysis of SCI
Hierarchical regression analysis was used to test hypotheses 1
3. In the rst step, the direct effect of internal integration on
operational and business performance was assessed. In the second
step, we assessed the relationship of customer and supplier
integration to operational or business performance, given the
relationship between internal integration and operational or
Table 3
Descriptive statistics.
Correlation coefcients
Cronbachs alpha
Supplier
integration
Internal
integration
Supplier integration
Internal integration
Customer integration
Operational performance
Business performance
1.00
0.52***
0.65***
0.31***
0.22***
1.00
0.59***
0.40***
0.35***
1.00
0.46***
0.25***
1.00
0.31***
1.00
Mean
Standard deviation
3.51
1.41
4.05
1.45
4.26
1.26
5.43
.97
3.99
1.16
Customer
integration
Operational
performance
Business
performance
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.86
0.94
64
Table 4
Regression results for operational performance.
Model
Independent variables
R2
t
***
DR2
Constant
Internal integration
4.34
.27
40.78
10.94***
.163
Constant
Internal integration
Customer integration
Supplier integration
3.78
.14
.27
.02
30.10***
4.62***
6.97***
.57
.237
63.51***
.074
Constant
Internal integration
Customer integration
Supplier integration
II CI interaction
II SI interaction
CI SI interaction
II CI SI interaction
3.55
.16
.30
.03
.00
.00
.06
.01
19.90***
4.75***
7.47***
.93
.15
.10
2.50*
.73
.255
29.71***
.017
*
***
119.58
***
Table 5
Regression results for business performance.
Model
Independent variables
R2
DR2
Constant
Internal integration
2.85
.28
21.91***
9.29***
.123
86.24***
Constant
Internal integration
Customer Integration
Supplier integration
2.73
.25
.04
.03
17.00***
6.42***
.78
.60
.126
29.38***
.003
Constant
Internal integration
Customer integration
Supplier integration
II CI interaction
II SI interaction
CI SI interaction
II CI SI interaction
2.53
.27
.05
.05
.02
.01
.03
.01
11.00***
6.33***
.87
1.02
.71
.29
.96
1.08
.131
13.08***
.005
65
Table 6
Cluster centroids.
Supplier integration
Low uniform
Medium uniform
High uniform
Medium customer leaning
High customer leaning
F
*
Internal integration
Customer integration
1.83
4.06
5.47
2.36
3.59
2.02
3.38
5.43
4.16
5.24
2.66
4.28
5.67
3.63
4.87
492.03***
400.66***
244.55***
n
111
151
111
108
136
**
Table 7
Discriminant analysis.
Function
Eigenvalue
% of variance
Cumulative %
Canonical correlation
1
2
3
5.862
1.055
0.007
84.7%
15.2
0.1
84.7%
99.9
100.0
0.924***
0.717***
0.086
66
Table 8
Standardized canonical discriminant function coefcients.
Function 1
Customer integration
Supplier integration
Internal integration
0.490
0.613
0.538
Function 2
0.047
0.708
0.779
Table 9
Analysis of variance.
Operational performance
Business performance
Medium customer
leaning (cluster 1)
High customer
leaning (cluster 2)
Low uniform
(cluster 3)
Medium uniform
(cluster 4)
High uniform
(cluster 5)
5.18 (2,5)
3.99 (3,5)
5.79 (1,3,4)
4.30 (3,4)
4.96 (2,5)
3.42 (1,2,5)
5.12 (2,5)
3.73 (2,5)
6.12 (1,3,4)
4.50 (1,3,4)
38.67***
18.20***
Numbers in parentheses indicate the cluster(s) from which that cluster is signicantly different at p < 0.05. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.
67
68
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the nancial support
provided by the Research Grants Council (RGC) of Hong Kong and
the Center for Supply Chain Management & Logistics, Li & Fung
Institute of Supply Chain Management & Logistics, The Chinese
University of Hong Kong.
Appendix A. Summary of prior literature on the relationship between SCI and performance
Study
Performance
SCI
Operational performance
Supplier integration
Supplier integration
Operational performance
Supplier integration
Customer integration
Operational performance
Time to market
Product responsiveness
Firm performance
Supplier integration
Customer integration
Marketplace performance
Productivity performance Non-productivity performance
Internal integration
Downstream integration
Logistics performance
Financial performance
Logistics-production integration
Logistics-marketing integration
External integration
Cost reduction
Stock-out reduction
Lead time reduction
Customer integration
Strategic integration
Customer satisfaction
Financial performance
Supplier integration
Product innovation
External quality
Internal integration
Customer integration
Supplier product integration
Supplier process integration
Product innovation
Quality
Protability
SCI
Internal integration
Supplier integration
Customer integration
Pagell (2004)
Internal integration
Performance
Supplier integration
Supplier integration
SCI
Competitive capabilities
Business performance
Internal integration
External integration
Process efciency
Sourcing leverage
Customer integration
Internal integration
Supplier integration,
Technology and planning
Measurement integration
Relationship integration
Internal collaboration
External collaboration
69
Appendix A (Continued )
Study
Performance
SCI
Customer service
Financial performance
0.46
0.46
0.60
0.75
0.70
0.65
0.72
0.64
0.66
0.59
0.60
Supplier integration (eigenvalue = 7.91). Please indicate the extent of integration or information sharing between your organization and your
major supplier in the following areas (1 = not at all; 7 = extensive).
The level of information exchange with our major supplier through information networks.
The establishment of quick ordering systems with our major supplier.
The level of strategic partnership with our major supplier.
Stable procurement through network with our major supplier.
The participation level of our major supplier in the process of procurement and production.
The participation level of our major supplier in the design stage.
Our major supplier shares their production schedule with us.
Our major supplier shares their production capacity with us.
Our major supplier shares available inventory with us.
We share our production plans with our major supplier.
We share our demand forecasts with our major supplier.
We share our inventory levels with our major supplier.
We help our major supplier to improve its process to better meet our needs.
0.48
0.42
0.59
0.57
0.73
0.76
0.86
0.84
0.85
0.85
0.78
0.81
0.63
Internal integration (eigenvalue = 6.19). Please indicate the degree of integration in the following areas (1 = not at all; 7 = extensive).
Data integration among internal functions.
Enterprise application integration among internal functions.
Integrative inventory management.
Real-time searching of the level of inventory.
Real-time searching of logistics-related operating data.
The utilization of periodic interdepartmental meetings among internal functions.
The use of cross functional teams in process improvement.
The use of cross functional teams in new product development.
Real-time integration and connection among all internal functions from raw material management through production, shipping, and sales.
0.65
0.69
0.78
0.79
0.76
0.74
0.79
0.78
0.66
Operational performance (eigenvalue = 3.616). Please indicate the degree to which you agree to the following statements concerning your
companys performance with respect to your major customer (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree).
Our
Our
Our
Our
The
Our
company can quickly modify products to meet our major customers requirements.
company can quickly introduce new products into the market.
company can quickly respond to changes in market demand.
company has an outstanding on-time delivery record to our major customer.
lead time for fullling customers orders (the time which elapses between the receipt of customers order and the delivery of the goods) is short.
company provides a high level of customer service to our major customer.
0.78
0.69
0.77
0.80
0.78
0.75
Business performance (eigenvalue = 5.111). Please evaluate your companys performance in the following areas relative to your primary/
major competitors (1 = much worse; 7 = much better).
Growth in sales.
Return on sales.
Growth in return on sales.
Growth in prot.
Growth in market share.
Return on investment (ROI).
Growth in ROI.
0.75
0.88
0.87
0.85
0.78
0.88
0.89
70
References
Anderson, J.C., Gerbing, D.W., 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 103 (2),
411423.
Armistead, C.G., Mapes, J., 1993. The impact of supply chain integration on operating performance. Logistics Information Management 6 (4), 914.
Armstrong, J.S., Overton, T.S., 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3), 396402.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y., Phillips, L.W., 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly 36 (3), 421458.
Beamon, B.M., 1999. Measuring supply chain performance. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 19 (3), 275292.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J., Stank, T.P., 1999. 21st Century Logistics: Making Supply
Chan Integration a Reality. Michigan State University, Council of Logistics
Management.
Bowersox, D.J., Morash, E.A., 1989. The integration of marketing ows in channels of
distribution. European Journal of Marketing 23 (20), 5867.
Campbell, J., Sankaranl, J., 2005. An inductive framework for enhancing supply chain
integration. International Journal of Production Research 43 (16), 33213351.
Cespedes, F., 1996. Beyond teamwork: how the wise can synchronize. Marketing
Management 5 (1), 2537.
Chandler Jr., A.D., 1962. Strategy and Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004a. Understanding supply chain management: critical
research and a theoretical framework. International Journal of Production
Research 42 (1), 131163.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004b. Towards a theory of supply chain management: the
constructs and measurements. Journal of Operations Management 22 (2), 119
150.
Cousins, P.D., Menguc, B., 2006. The implications of socialization and integration in
supply chain management. Journal of Operations Management 24 (5), 604620.
Das, A., Narasimhan, R., Talluri, S., 2006. Supplier integrationnding an optimal
conguration. Journal of Operations Management 24 (5), 563582.
Devaraj, S., Krajewski, L., Wei, J.C., 2007. Impact of e-business technologies on
operational performance: the role of production information in the supply
chain. Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 11991216.
Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A.J., Vollmann, T.E., 1990. The New Performance Challenge
Measuring Operations for World-Class Competition. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Donaldson, L., 2001. The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Drazin, Robert, Van de Ven, Andrew, H., 1985. Alternative forms of t in contingency
theory. Administrative Science Quarterly 30 (4), 514539.
Droge, C., Jayaram, J., Vickery, S.K., 2004. The effects of internal versus external
integration practices on time-based performance and overall rm performance.
Journal of Operations Management 22 (6), 557573.
Eccles, R.G., Pyburn, P.J., 1992. Creating a comprehensive system to measure
performance. Management Accounting 74 (4), 4144.
Ellram, L., 1990. The supplier selection decision in strategic partnerships. Journal of
Purchasing and Materials Management 26 (4), 814.
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., 2002. The rhetoric and reality of supply chain integration. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management
32 (5), 339361.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18
(1), 2950.
Frohlich, M.T., 2002. Techniques for improving response rates in OM survey
research. Journal of Operations Management 20 (1), 5362.
Frohlich, M.T., Westbrook, R., 2001. Arcs of integration: an international study of
supply chain strategies. Journal of Operations Management 19 (2), 185200.
Galbraith, J.R., 1973. Designing Complex Organizations. Addison-Wesley.
Germain, R., Iyer, K.N.S., 2006. The interaction of internal and downstream integration and its association with performance. Journal of Business Logistics 27
(2), 2953.
Gimenez, C., Ventura, E., 2005. Logistics-production, logistics-marketing and external integration: their impact on performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (1), 2038.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Hall, R.W., 1983. Zero Inventories. Dow-Jones Irwin, Homewood.
Hambrick, D.C., 1983. High prot strategies in mature capital goods industries: a
contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal 26 (4), 687707.
Hammer, M., 1990. Reengineering work: dont automate, obliterate. Harvard Business Review 68 (4), 104112.
Harland, C.M., Caldwell, N.D., Powell, P., Zheng, J., 2007. Barriers to supply chain
information integration: SMEs adrift of eLands. Journal of Operations Management 25 (6), 12341254.
Heide, J., John, J., 1990. Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of joint
action in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing Research 27 (1),
2436.
Hillebrand, B., Biemans, W.G., 2003. The relationship between internal and external
cooperation: literature review and propositions. Journal of Business Research
56 (9), 735743.
Hochwarter, W.A., James, M., Johnson, D., Ferris, F.R., 2004. The interactive effects of
politics perceptions and trait cynicism on work outcomes. Journal of Leadership
& Organizational Studies 10 (4), 4457.
Homburg, C., Stock, R.M., 2004. The link between salespeoples job satisfaction and
customer satisfaction in a business-to-business context: a dyadic analysis.
Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 32 (2), 144158.
Hu, L., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for t indices in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation
Modeling 6 (1), 155.
Johnson, H.T., Kaplan, R.S., 1987. Relevance lost-the rise and fall of management
accounting. Canadian Business Review 14 (4), 4850.
Johnson, J.L., 1999. Strategic integration in industrial distribution channels: managing the interrm relationship as a strategic asset. Journal of Academy of
Marketing Sciences 27 (1), 418.
Kahn, K.B., Mentzer, J.T., 1996. Logistics and interdepartmental integration. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 26 (8), 6
14.
Kingman-Brundage, J., George, W., Bowen, D., 1995. Service logic: achieving service
system integration. International Journal of Service Industry Management 6 (4),
2039.
Kotha, S., Nair, A., 1995. Strategy and environment as determinants of performance:
evidence from the Japanese machine tool industry. Strategic Management
Journal 16 (7), 497518.
Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., Jayaram, J., 2005. Internal and external integration
for product development: the contingency effects of uncertainty, equivocality,
and platform strategy. Decision Sciences 36 (1), 97133.
Koufteros, X.A., Cheng, T.C.E., Lai, K.H., 2007. Black-box and gray box supplier
integration in product development: antecedents, consequences and the moderating role of rm size. Journal of Operations Management 25 (4), 847870.
Lambert, D.M., Cooper, M.C., 2000. Issues in supply chain management. Industrial
Marketing Management 29 (1), 6583.
Lambert, D.M., Robeson, J.F., Stock, J.R., 1978. An appraisal of the integrated physical
distribution management concept. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management 9 (1), 7488.
Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J.W., 1967. Organization and Environment. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
Lee, H.L., Whang, S., 2001. Winning the last mile of e-commerce. Sloan Management
Review 42 (4), 5462.
Mabert, V.A., Venkataramanan, M.A., 1998. Special research focus on supply chain
linkages: challenges for design and management in the 21st century. Decision
Sciences 29 (1), 537552.
Marquez, A.C., Bianchi, C., Gupta, J.N.D., 2004. Operational and nancial effectiveness of e-collaboration tools in supply chain integration. European Journal of
Operational Research 159 (2), 348363.
Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., 1995. Complementarities and t: strategy, structure and
organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics
19 (2/3), 179208.
Miller, D., 1986. Conguration of strategy and structure: towards a synthesis.
Strategic Management Journal 7 (3), 233249.
Miller, J.G., Roth, A.V., 1994. A taxonomy of manufacturing strategies. Management
Science 40 (3), 285304.
Morash, E.A., Clinton, S.R., 1998. Supply chain integration: customer value through
collaborative closeness versus operational excellence. Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice 6 (4), 104120.
Narasimhan, R., Kim, S.W., 2002. Effect of supply chain integration on the relationship between diversication and performance: evidence from Japanese and
Korean rms. Journal of Operations Management 20 (3), 303323.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M., Berry, D., 1999. Leagility: integrating the lean and agile
manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain. International Journal of
Production Economics 62 (1/2), 107118.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., Platts, K., 1995. Performance measurement system design.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 15 (4), 80
116.
OLeary-Kelly, S.W., Flores, B.E., 2002. The integration of manufacturing and marketing/sales decisions: impact on organizational performance. Journal of Operations Management 20 (3), 221.
OLeary-Kelly, S.W., Vokurka, R.J., 1998. The empirical assessment of construct
validity. Journal of Operations Management 16 (4), 387405.
Pagell, M., 2004. Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of
operations, purchasing and logistics. Journal of Operations Management 22 (5),
459487.
Paulraj, A., Lado, A., Chen, J., 2008. Inter-organizational communication as a relational competency: antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative
buyersupplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management 26 (1), 4564.
Petersen, K., Handeld, R., Ragatz, G., 2005. Supplier integration into new product
development: coordinating product, process, and supply chain design. Journal
of Operations Management 23 (3/4), 371388.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method
bias in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of. Applied Psychology 88 (5), 879903.
Podsakoff, P.M., Organ, D.W., 1986. Self-reports of organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management 12 (4), 531544.
Poirier, C.C., Reiter, S.E., 1996. Supply Chain Optimization: Building the Strongest
Total Business Network. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Ragatz, G.L., Handeld, R.B., Petersen, K.J., 2002. Benets associated with supplier
integration into new product development under conditions of technology
uncertainty. Journal of Business Research 55 (5), 389400.
Rosenzweig, E.D., Roth, A.V., Dean Jr., J.W., 2003. The inuence of an integration
strategy on competitive capabilities and business performance: an exploratory
71
Widaman, K., 1985. Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement 9 (1), 126.
Williams, L.J., Cote, J.A., Buckley, M.R., 1989. Lack of method variance in selfreported affect and perceptions at work: reality or artifact. Journal of Applied
Psychology 74 (3), 462468.
Wisner, J.D., Tan, K.C., 2000. Supply chain management and its impact on purchasing. Journal of Supply Chain Management 36 (4), 3342.
Zailani, S., Rajagopal, P., 2005. Supply chain integration and performance: US versus
East Asian companies. Supply Chain Management 10 (5), 379393.
Zhao, X., Flynn, B.B., Roth, A.V., 2006a. Decision sciences research in China: a critical
review and research agendafoundations and overview. Decision Sciences 37
(4), 451496.
Zhao, X., Huo, B., Flynn, B.B., Yeung, J., 2008. The impact of power and relationship
commitment on the integration between manufacturers and customers in a
supply chain. Journal of Operations Management 26 (3), 368388.
Zhao, X., Sum, C.-C., Qi, Y., Zhang, H., Lee, T., 2006b. A taxonomy of manufacturing
strategies in China. Journal of Operations Management 24 (5), 621636.
Dr. Barbara Flynn is the Richard M. and Myra Louise Buskirk professor of manufacturing management and director of the Center for International Business Education and
Research (IU CIBER) at the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University. She received
a DBA in operations management from Indiana University and an MBA from Marquette
University. She is a fellow of the Decision Sciences Institute and recipient of the
Distinguished Scholar Award from the Operations Management division of the Academy of Management and the Dennis E. Grawoig Distinguished Service Award from the
Decision Sciences Institute. Dr. Flynn has received over $1 million in research funding
from the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Education and the Center
for Innovation Management Studies. She has published articles in Management Science,
Decision Sciences, Journal of Operations Management, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management and other leading journals, as well as a book and numerous
book chapters. Dr. Flynn is founding editor of Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education and past Editor of Quality Management Journal. She is a past President of the
Decision Sciences Institute and has held leadership positions in the Decision Sciences
Institute, Academy of Management and American Society for Quality.
Dr. Baofeng Huo is an assistant professor of operations management at the School of
Management at Xian Jiaotong University and research fellow at Center for Supply
Chain Management & Logistics, Li & Fung Institute of Supply Chain Management &
Logistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. He received his PhD in operations
management from The Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests are
logistics and supply chain management. His research has been published in the Journal
of Operations Management, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, International Journal of Production Economics, Business Horizon, and other journals.
Dr. Xiande Zhao is professor of operations management at the Department of Decision
Sciences and Managerial Economics and director of the Center for Supply Chain
Management and Logistics, Li & Fung Institute of Supply Chain Management and
Logistics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. He received his PhD in business
administration and MBA from the University of Utah, U.S.A. Prof. Zhaos teaching
and research interests are in the areas of supply chain management and service
operations management. He has published over fty articles in refereed journals
including the Journal of Operations Management, Journal of Consumer Research, Decision
Sciences, European Journal of Operations Research, International Journal of Production
Research and other journals.