International Journal of Production Research
ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20
Supply chain design: issues, challenges,
frameworks and solutions
Steven A. Melnyk, Ram Narasimhan & Hugo A. DeCampos
To cite this article: Steven A. Melnyk, Ram Narasimhan & Hugo A. DeCampos (2014) Supply
chain design: issues, challenges, frameworks and solutions, International Journal of Production
Research, 52:7, 1887-1896, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2013.787175
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.787175
Published online: 18 Jun 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 55573
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 50 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
International Journal of Production Research, 2014
Vol. 52, No. 7, 1887–1896, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2013.787175
Supply chain design: issues, challenges, frameworks and solutions
Steven A. Melnyka, Ram Narasimhana and Hugo A. DeCamposb*
a
Michigan State University, Department of Supply Chain Management, The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management, East
Lansing, MI 48824, USA; bWayne State University, Department of Marketing & Supply Chain Management, School of Business
Administration, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
(Received 7 March 2013; final version received 13 March 2013)
Truly effective supply chain management is planned and purposive. A value-driven supply chain that is coupled to the
strategic priorities of the firm is the result of deliberate management action and strategic corporate investments aimed to
procure, develop and configure the appropriate resources, processes and metrics that define that firm’s supply chain. A
framework of supply chain design is proposed that comprehends three key levels of factors critical in understanding
supply chain design: influencers, design decisions and building blocks. Influencers are higher-level considerations such
as the business and political environment, the business model employed, the firm’s desired outcomes and the supply
chain life cycle. Design decisions include the social, behavioural and physical/structural design elements that define a
supply chain. Building blocks include the inventory, transportation, capacity and technology decisions that are used to
implement the supply chain. Supply chain design needs to comprehend these three levels of analysis. The articles in this
special issue are introduced in the context of these levels of analysis and a research agenda is suggested that can be
pursued in light of this framework, highlighting areas that are covered in this special issue and areas where research
opportunities exist.
Keywords: supply chain design; supply chain architecture; integration; life cycle design; research framework
1. Introduction
1.1 Why focus on supply chain design?
The last 20 years have seen the emergence of the supply chain as a critical competitive force in today’s increasingly
turbulent marketplace (Lee and Billington 1992; Lee 2004; Melnyk et al. 2009). By drawing on the capabilities (i.e.,
capacity and skills) offered by the supply chain (the set of upstream and downstream entities who work either directly
or indirectly with the firm) and by developing and fostering appropriate ties with both customers and suppliers, firms
can realise significant benefits in the form of reduced inventories, lower costs, enhanced responsiveness, and improved
strategic focus in terms of design, execution and capital investments (Harvard Business Review 2006). Providing further
support for the supply chain’s impact on performance, AMR (a leading supply chain research organisation) stated that
in 2008 the top 25 companies with best supply chain practices reported an average return of 17.89% compared with
6.43% for the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) and 3.53% for the S&P 500 (Reuters January 10, 2008).
Yet, in reviewing these findings, it is important to recognise that although supply chain management is not new, it is
still evolving. The term was first coined in 1982 when Keith Oliver, a consultant at Booz Allen Hamilton, used it in an
interview with the Financial Times (Kransdorff 1982). Since then, its development and growth as a discipline has
occurred primarily in the industrial sector. Supply chain management is a concept that has been born of practice, grown
through need, and changed in response to various challenges, threats and opportunities. Consequently, until recently, it
has largely not been theoretically grounded. Rather, attention has been devoted to understanding what supply chain management is (and is not), how it is related to similar approaches such as logistics, operations management and purchasing/sourcing management (e.g., Cooper, Lambert, and Pagh 1997; Skjoett-Larsen 1999; Larson and Halldorsson 2004),
and how it affects performance. The knowledge base on which supply chain management is based is still in flux and
surrounded by controversy. For example, there is disagreement over the very nomenclature applied – are we dealing
with supply chains, supply chain networks or value chain networks? For the purposes of this note, we shall conform to
common usage by using the term ‘supply chain management’.
*Corresponding author. Email: decampos@msu.edu
Ó 2013 Taylor & Francis
1888
S.A. Melnyk et al.
As supply chain management continues to grow in prominence across both practitioner and academic communities,
we observe that truly effective supply chain management is planned and purposive. Recently, Melnyk et al. (2010) noted
a transition taking place from the strategically decoupled/price-driven supply chain to the strategically coupled/valuedriven supply chain. This transition is not simply a ‘happy accident’. Rather, it is the result of deliberate management
action and strategic corporate investments aimed to procure, develop and configure the appropriate supply chain
resources that will allow the firm to compete successfully in the marketplace. The concept of supply chain design lies at
the very heart of these investment decisions.
As first recognised by Fine (1998), supply chain design is a rich aspect of supply chain management that goes
beyond issues of make/buy, buyer–supplier relationships, or vertical integration. In recognition of this richness, Fine
talked in terms of supply chain architecture, rather than supply chain design. As we shall see subsequently, there is a
significant difference between these two terms. To Fine, supply chain architecture enfolds considerations such as
geography, organisation, culture and technology. We are now starting to recognise that to maximise the benefits offered
by supply chain management, we must design appropriate types of supply chain that vary according to the complex set
of considerations listed above.
Yet, supply chain design presents managers and researchers with its own set of issues, concerns and obstacles. As
this concept is relatively new, the salient issues that define its content, scope and boundaries are still emerging. We now
recognise that ‘one size’ does not fit all when it comes to supply chain design. What works well in one setting may not
work well in another. For example, Hull (2005) and Hussain, Assavapokee, and Khumawala (2006) have shown that
supply-driven supply chains, such as those encountered in the energy/petroleum industries, require different practices if
they are to be deployed most effectively and that practices that work well in demand-driven supply chains (e.g.,
Wal-Mart and Toyota) will not necessarily be appropriate when deployed in supply-driven environments. Humanitarian/
disaster relief systems represent another environment that requires unique configurations of supply chain resources and
investments (e.g., Apte 2009; Kovacs and Spens 2009; Tatham and Spens 2011).
Given the relevant yet nascent level of this stream of enquiry, it was determined that an appropriate next step would
be to solicit research from the broader academic community, thus leading to this call for papers.
1.2 The special issue
This special issue aimed to publish a set of papers that will shed greater insight into how supply chain design can help
describe, explain, and predict supply chain activities and outcomes at both the corporate and supply chain levels. The
intent was to publish research that investigates supply chain design, identifies its various critical dimensions, explores
the relationship between design, capabilities and performance, and considers the setting(s) in which particular designs
may or may not be appropriate.
There was no limit on the type of paper solicited. These papers could be conceptual, empirical, or analytical in
nature; they could adopt a domestic or international/comparative focus; and they could pursue either theory-building or
theory-testing. In terms of methodology, papers could be based on empirical techniques (e.g., case, field study, survey,
archival research, and so on) or on modelling techniques (e.g., optimisation or simulation). Papers that integrated
multiple perspectives, that drew on competitive studies (e.g., Far East versus North America), and/or multiple methodologies were especially encouraged.
The result was the submission of over 40 papers, of which eight were finally accepted for publication. Each paper
was subject to a double-blind review process (see Appendix 1 for a list of reviewers whose involvement made this
special issue possible). Before summarising the selected papers, however, it is important to understand them within the
context of supply chain design. To do so, we first offer a definition of what is meant by supply chain design; we also
develop a framework of supply chain design. These are discussed in the next section.
2. Supply chain design – a theoretical perspective
Supply chain design shapes the nature of the supply chain (as illustrated in Figure 1) and ultimately consists of those
decisions that influence the investment patterns made by the firm across its various supply chains. These decisions affect
the capabilities of the supply chain – in other words, the types of problem that the supply chain can and cannot address
(Wu, Melnyk, and Flynn 2010). These decisions also affect the types of relationship that emerge between supply chain
partners, the performance measurement systems germane to the supply chain at hand, the degree of supply chain visibility achieved and the overall vulnerability of the supply chain. These investments also affect ‘fit’ – how well the supply
chain capabilities match the strategic objectives of the firm, the environment/setting in which the supply chain is
deployed and, ultimately, the needs of the firm’s key customer.
International Journal of Production Research
1889
Figure 1. The distribution network.
2.1 Supply chain design or supply chain architecture
This special issue focuses on supply chain design. Within this issue, we use the terms ‘supply chain design’ and ‘supply
chain architecture’ interchangeably. However, we recognise that there are differences between the notion of design and
architecture – differences that should be explored in future studies.
As highlighted in the preceding discussion, supply chain design is critical, strategic and inherently complex. That
may be one reason that Fine (1998) used the term ‘architecture’ in preference to design. These two terms, although closely related, are not necessarily the same. There is significant confusion surrounding the differences separating these
two constructs. The Information Technology (IT) field, for example, has explored the distinction between architecture
and design (e.g., Rivera 2007).
Architecture is seen as being broad-based, driven by need, and systems-oriented: its ultimate focus is on ‘fitness
for purpose’ (Rivera 2007, 48). By contrast, design is seen as being shaped and constrained by architecture and
focuses more on implementation issues such as feasibility, effectiveness and efficiency. In other words, architecture
delineates what we call ‘influencers’ in the next section, where as design refers to the process that culminates in making specific choices pertaining to the various elements of architecture. Not all aspects of supply chain architecture
would necessarily apply to supply chain design in all settings. Design is also seen as being more focused, less broadbased, and more concerned with technological issues and problems. In this paper, we recognise these differences and
incorporate both dimensions of architecture and design into an overall framework of supply chain design. That is, we
view supply chain design as consisting of two separate but interlinked aspects – planning (architecture) and execution
(design).
2.2 Supply chain design – defining the concept
For the purposes of this paper, we define supply chain design as: identifying the desired strategic outcomes for the firm
and developing, implementing, and managing over time the resources, processes, and relationships (within the firm and
across the supply chain) that seek to make the attainment of such desired outcomes inevitable over time. Inherently, we
regard supply chain design as a dynamic concept. This awareness of the need to regard design as dynamic has been
recognised by researchers such as Harrington, Boyson, and Corsi (2011) and Viswanathan (2009).
Interest in supply chain design is not new. Other researchers (e.g., Closs and Mollenkopf 2004; Janvier-James 2012;
Lambert, Cooper, and Pagh 1998; Samaranayake 2005; Spens and Bask 2002) have focused on this issue from both theoretical and empirical perspectives. However, in many of these studies, the focus has been on issues such as process,
investments, and structure without an overall framework that ties these aspects together. In this paper, we define a
different perspective of supply chain design.
1890
S.A. Melnyk et al.
2.3 Supply chain design – towards a research framework
We view supply chain design (and the resulting supply chains) as being the result of a process that is shaped by three
salient dimensions that have a hierarchical relationship: influencers, design decisions and building blocks (see Figure 2).
(1) Influencers: These are very broad-based environmental factors that constrain and significantly influence the overall nature of the resulting supply chain. Included are life cycle considerations, desired supply chain outcomes,
business models/critical customers, and the overall environment (e.g., political, economic, technology, industry
and adjacencies). This is the domain where supply chain architecture is most evident.
(2) Design decisions: These are the specific decisions that must be made regarding the overall structure and design
of the supply chain. These decisions are constrained by the influencers discussed above. Included are decisions
regarding physical network design (capacity positioning, transportation network and geographic dispersion of
sites), sourcing strategies (component/subsystem sourcing, global sourcing, spend allocation decisions), social
network design (contract flows, information flows, relationship flows, etc.), relationship governance mechanisms
(contractual versus collaborative governance), and behavioural management strategies.
(3) Building blocks: At the lowest level, building blocks are the specific investments required to implement the above
listed design decisions and are the necessary inputs into building the desired supply chain. These building blocks
include investments such as physical structures (storage and manufacturing capacity), modes of transportation
(logistics capacity), Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, sourcing decision tools and procedures, contracts,
inter-firm process development and investments in social capital.
While much supply chain research has delved into the relevance of design decisions and building blocks, there is a
paucity of robust empirical and analytical research that explicates the role of influencers in the supply chain design
process – particularly research that ties the concept of influencers together with the appropriate design decisions and
ensuing building blocks that should be procured or developed. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, research has
not yet explored the role of transitioning supply chains in the presence of a dynamic set of influencers. How does a supply chain successfully transition when the desired outcome shifts from one dimension to another? How and when should
certain design decisions be triggered for a given product that is undergoing a transition in its life cycle?
Each of these three dimensions (influencers, design decisions and building blocks) must be explored and understood
in concert in order to appreciate and manage the richness and complexity inherent in supply chain design. Furthermore,
this framework enables us to position each paper published in this special issue according to the proposed three-level
supply chain design framework so that the reader can better understand what areas have been addressed and what areas
merit future research.
Figure 2. Three levels of factors influencing supply chain design.
International Journal of Production Research
1891
This special issue publishes a set of papers that shed greater light on how supply chain design can help describe,
explain, and predict supply chain activities and outcomes at both the corporate and supply chain levels. The papers collectively employ a myriad of tools and methodologies across various industries and countries to achieve this end, including
conceptual, empirical and analytical analysis. Table 1 provides an overview of the contribution that each paper provides in
the context of the three-level factor framework just discussed. Section 3 summarises each article in this special issue.
3. Article summaries
3.1 An examination of multi-tier supply chain strategy alignment in the food industry
Andrew C. Lyons, Azanizawati Ma’aram
The Fisher (1997) framework advocates an efficient supply chain for functional products and a responsive supply chain
for innovative products. The authors empirically test this framework in the context of the food industry using a survey
of 170 food companies across the UK and Malaysia. Respondents are sampled from multiple tiers in the food industry
supply chain, including retailers, distributors and manufacturers. Findings support that an efficient supply chain is, as
expected, typically aligned with functional food products across all levels of the supply chain. Innovative food products,
however, are aligned with responsive supply chains predominantly with downstream partners while upstream partners
such as manufacturers continue to pursue an efficient supply chain, even with innovative food products. These results
bring up interesting questions regarding the concept of decoupling a supply chain versus purposeful design from cradle
to grave. Are there natural decoupling points in supply chain designs? Can one part of the supply chain be designed to
optimise cost while other parts are designed to optimise innovation output, or should one purposefully design an entire
supply chain to focus on a single outcome? In terms of the proposed framework, this article addresses design decisions
(physical design) and building blocks (physical design).
3.2 Product complexity and supply chain design
Robert R. Inman, Dennis E. Blumenfeld
This paper uses analytical modelling to explore and quantify the impact of product complexity on the likelihood of supply chain disruption. The authors identify four key design factors that affect performance in the presence of product
complexity: (1) the make/buy decision; (2) supplier location; (3) shipping mode/route; and (4) consolidation and deconsolidation centres. The design of supply chains across these four factors should therefore consider the level of product
complexity. The arguments presented by these authors highlight the importance of considering product architecture when
designing supply chain architecture. In other words, there are some types of supply chain design that are appropriate for
a given level of product complexity, and when the level of product complexity changes, so should the supply chain
design. In terms of the proposed framework, this article addresses influencers (desired outcome) and design decisions
(inventory and transportation).
3.3 The complex adaptive supply network of disaster relief: fostering emergent resilience
Jamison Day
In this paper, complexity research in science and findings regarding system resilience are applied to a supply chain context. Complex adaptive supply networks are introduced and used to analyse conceptually disaster relief supply chains
and the system properties that emerge as a function of three key elements: (1) topology (path lengths, redundancies,
Table 1. Supply chain design research agenda – this special issue and opportunities.
Life Cycle
Lyons & Ma'Aram
Influencers
Business
Model/
Desired
Critical
Outcome
Customer Environment
X
Sourcing
Strategy
X
X
Day
X
X
X
Relationship Behavioral
Governance Management Inventory Transportation Capacity
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Askin, Baffo & Xia
Wilhite, Burns, Patnayakuni & Tseng
Physical
Design
Building Blocks
X
Inman & Blumenfeld
von Massow & Canbolat
Design Decisions
Social
Network
Design
X
X
Technology
1892
S.A. Melnyk et al.
clustering, etc.); (2) entities (non-governmental organisations, donors, volunteers, media, etc.); and (3) environment. In
particular, this paper focuses on the emergence of a resilience capability in disaster relief supply chains and posits
various relationships that may arise when considering the impact of these three key elements on that supply chain. This
article is a good example of cross-disciplinary study where patterns observed in other fields of research may enable
insight into similar phenomena that occur in other settings. In terms of the proposed framework, this article addresses
influencers (environment) and design decisions (physical design and social network design).
3.4 Multi-commodity warehouse location and distribution planning with inventory consideration
Ronald G. Askin, Ilaria Baffo, Mingjun Xia
Analytical supply chain optimisation models typically focus on either strategic decision-making (warehouse capacity,
warehouse location) or on operational decision-making (service levels, order size, lead time, mode of transportation).
This paper, however, integrates the operational and strategic decision-making into a single model of a three-echelon supply chain, and does so while allowing non-linear shipping costs. The authors demonstrate the model’s capabilities while
using a genetic algorithm to solve the sample problem. In terms of the proposed framework, this article addresses design
decisions (physical design) and building blocks (inventory, transportation and capacity).
3.5 A strategic decision framework for a value added supply chain
Michael von Massow, Mustafa Canbolat
Supply chain strategy should link directly to corporate strategy. The mixed integer programming model presented in this
paper allows for such alignment and is robust enough to allow for single or diversified supply chain strategies. The
model allows for compensatory capabilities across a sourcing portfolio such that it may be possible to source to a group
of suppliers that individually do not meet the required capabilities but do so in aggregate. The model takes a three-step
sourcing approach that considers: (1) partner standards (minimum acceptable requirements); (2) supply chain standards
(pooling allowed); and (3) supply chain characteristics (constraining priorities). In terms of the proposed framework, this
article addresses influencers (desired outcome) and design decisions (sourcing strategy).
3.6 Military supply chains and closed-loop systems
Allen Wilhite, Laird Burns, Ravi Patnayakuni, Fan Tseng
This paper explores supply chain design in military supply chains involved in closed-loop remanufacturing where
readiness is the objective and cost is a constraint. In this context, it is not uncommon to find a paucity of suppliers,
whereupon the military must choose between outsourcing to a sole supplier or developing the remanufacturing capability
in-house. The authors therefore present a mathematical model that can guide this make/buy decision. This paper is an
example of the unique design considerations that need to be considered when non-traditional outcomes are the objective
of a supply chain. Additionally, this paper mirrors an emerging trend in supply chain management where it is not
always the case that a manufacturer has access to multiple competing suppliers where market forces dictate purchase
price. Some firms are realising that in the presence of limited supply options (sometimes only one option) supply chain
strategy may need to comprehend in-sourcing or a hybrid sourcing strategy that maintains a balance between in-house
production and outsourced production. In terms of the proposed framework, this article addresses influencers (desired
outcome and business model/critical customer) and design decisions (physical design and sourcing strategy).
4. Future research direction and opportunities
One of the objectives of this special issue was to encourage and direct future research into supply chain design. It is
possible to identify areas for future research by reviewing Table 1 and focusing on areas in which research is missing.
However, these are not the only supply chain design-related topics needing future study. Special attention can also be
directed to the topics in the following subsections.
4.1 Uncovering the factors driving supply design
Previously, we have noted that supply chain design is very context sensitive. As noted previously, design features
encountered in many demand-driven supply chains (e.g., Wal-Mart) would not work well when applied to supply-driven
International Journal of Production Research
1893
supply chains (e.g., a supply chain designed around energy or petroleum). Similarly, humanitarian/disaster relief supply
chains (e.g., Day et al. 2012) impose their specific demands on supply chain design.
What these studies seem to imply is that there are certain underlying traits present in these different settings that significantly shape and influence supply chain design decisions and features. What is needed is a series of comparative
supply chain design studies that consider various settings such as humanitarian/disaster relief, mega projects, finite
events (e.g., the 2012 London Olympics – a one-time event that has a definite ending point but which requires significant supply chain efforts (Openshaw and Craddock 2012)), and military/defence – to name a few. These studies should
identify the supply design features that are both similar and distinct. They should also begin the process of identifying
the underlying factors that drive design and that shape the resulting systems. This research line would essentially focus
on uncovering the DNA of supply chains.
Evidence for the importance of the setting can be found in this special issue by observing the various focal
industries that are considered across different papers: military equipment, disaster relief, food and general product
manufacturing.
4.2 Focusing on the dynamics of supply chain design
Harrington, Boyson, and Corsi (2011), in a recent major study of supply chains, have argued that supply chains have
become increasingly dynamic and ‘extreme’. Consequently, the past practice of reviewing supply chain design on a regular, periodic cycle of once every 5–10 years is no longer adequate. Their research, supported by numerous case studies,
directs researchers to deal with the dynamics of supply chain design. It raises a number of unresolved questions that
merit future research:
•
•
•
What type of supply chain features foster supply chains that can easily adapt and change? Correspondingly,
what types of feature inhibit rapid changes in supply chain design?
What factors signal (trigger) the need for supply chain redesign?
What types of technique, procedure or analytics can be used to improve supply chain redesign?
This line of research on dynamic reconfiguration of supply chains is important because it recognises that supply
chains do not always remain static. Researchers therefore have an opportunity to help identify and understand the underlying factors that influence the dynamic supply chain transition process.
4.3 Impact of alternative outcomes on supply chain design
Much of the research into supply chain design has focused on developing solutions where the implied objective function
is to reduce cost and/or lead times. Yet, these are not the only outcomes driving supply chain design. Supply chains can
be designed to achieve alternative outcomes such as increasing responsiveness, driving innovation or improving sustainability. As the desired outcomes change, we can also expect the optimal supply chain design features and approaches to
change. We can expect that design features that work well for cost may not necessarily work well when the underlying
goal is to become responsive (as an example). Both empirical and analytical research into the design impact of these
different outcomes is both needed and currently lacking.
4.4 Stage of the supply chain life cycle
Like products, supply chains experience their own life cycles, or stages of evolution – life cycles that are not necessarily
related to the product and its life cycle. The presence of a supply chain life has been recognised by researchers such as
Van Wassenhove (2006), who identified three stages of the supply chain life cycle. Kovács and Spens (2007) and Pettit
and Beresford (2005) presented three- and four-stage disaster relief supply chain life cycles, respectively.
Once we recognise that supply chains have life cycles, we can then investigate what critical antecedents need to be
considered at each stage and how the transition from one stage of the life cycle to the next can be managed. These are
not trivial issues. For example, if we are managing the transition from pre-planning (the stage that occurs before a
supply chain is deployed) to initiation (the first stages in the actual deployment of the supply chain), we are faced by
challenges such as identifying the specific conditions that trigger the need for transition as well as coordinating ongoing
supply chain flow while simultaneously reconfiguring the architecture of that supply chain. An appropriate metaphor that
captures the complexity of this task is rewiring an aeroplane’s electrical system while it is still in flight to its destination.
What parts of the system need to be changed first? What changes can happen simultaneously and what changes need to
1894
S.A. Melnyk et al.
take place in isolation of others? As we apply Fine’s (1998) dimensions of supply chain architecture to these questions,
we realise that it is not enough simply to address the structural design of one’s supply chain in managing transition;
rather, it is a combination of structural and cultural initiatives that must be orchestrated in order to bring lasting and
effective change.
5. Concluding comments
There is increasing evidence of the growing importance of supply chain design. As noted by Harrington, Boyson, and
Corsi (2011), in today’s turbulent world, one of the most critical tools available to managers is that of supply chain
design (and redesign). Yet, this critical element, while frequently used, is poorly understood. Consequently, this special
issue introductory article began by proposing a three-level framework. This framework provides a structure not only for
understanding this construct but also for understanding current and future research on the topic of supply chain design.
The three levels of interdependent factors include influencers, design decisions and building blocks. These three factors are relevant to the overall strategic success of a supply chain design and have been referenced by Fine (1998) as
the supply chain architecture that defines a value chain. Each of the eight articles presented in this special issue were
briefly reviewed and placed within the proposed framework. These works included analytical, empirical and theoretical
papers across numerous industries and across various continents (Europe, North America and Asia).
While this special issue presents works of research that touch on many different dimensions of the proposed
framework, many areas remain untouched by both this special issue and by other research in general. As such, we have
highlighted numerous opportunities for future research that can build upon that which has already been published.
Additionally, other areas of potential future research pertinent to supply chain design have been presented, including:
multi-industry studies, supply chain transition studies, the impact of differing desired outcomes, and the impact of the
supply chain life cycle.
Supply chain design is a rich concept that cannot be comprehended or generalised by any single dimension,
neither is it reasonable to expect any single study fully to test and explore all relevant factors simultaneously. Future
studies may in fact focus on only one (or a few) salient dimension(s) discussed here. These studies, however, will be
well served by placing their focus of research within this proposed framework so that appropriate control variables
and other potentially confounding factors can be taken into account. As such, knowledge and understanding on this
rich topic can proceed with a common base of assumptions, definitions and frameworks that will guide the formulation of interesting and relevant research questions. The results of such efforts will enable the research community not
only to identify stand-alone factors of successful supply chain design, but also to enable the assembly of a complex
puzzle whose various pieces work together to orchestrate an overall supply chain architecture designed to meet customers’ needs.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to recognise the contributions of the 46 reviewers (in addition to the three special issue editors). These people
gave of their time and were willing to share their knowledge in carrying out the reviews. They also responded to telephone calls from
the editors as they sought to understand better their reviews and concerns and the perceived contributions of the submissions. Without
their help, this issue would never have been completed. Thank you.
References
Apte, Aruna. 2009. “Humanitarian Logistics: A New Field of Research and Action.” Foundations and Trends in Technology, Information and Operations Management 3 (1): 1–100.
Closs, D. J., and D. A. Mollenkopf. 2004. “A Global Supply Chain Framework.” Industrial Marketing Management 33: 37–44.
Cooper, M. C., D. M. Lambert, and J. D. Pagh. 1997. “Supply Chain Management: More than a New Name for Logistics.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 8 (1): 1–14.
Day, J. M., S. A. Melnyk, P. D. Larson, E. W. Davis, and D. C Whybark. 2012. “Humanitarian and Disaster Relief Supply Chains: A
Matter of Life and Death.” Journal of Supply Chain Management 48 (2): 21–36.
Fine, C. H. 1998. Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary Advantage. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
Fisher, M. L. 1997. “What is the Right Supply Chain for Your Product?” Harvard Business Review 75 (2): 105–116.
Harrington, L. H., S. Boyson, and T. M. Corsi. 2011. X-SCM: The New Science of X-Treme Supply Chain Management. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Hill, T. J., R. Menda, and D. M. Dilts. 1998. “Using Product Profiling to Illustrate Manufacturing-Marketing Misalignment.” Interfaces 28 (4): 47–63.
Hull, B. Z. 2005. “Are Supply (Driven) Chains Forgotten?” The International Journal of Logistics Management 16 (2): 218–236.
International Journal of Production Research
1895
Hussain, R., T. Assavapokee, and B. Khumawala. 2006. “Supply Chain Management in the Petroleum Industry: Challenges and
Opportunities.” International Journal of Global Logistics and Supply Chain Management 1 (2): 90–97.
Janvier-James, A. M. 2012. “A New Introduction to Supply Chains and Supply Chain Management: Definitions and Theories Perspective.” International Business Research 5 (1): 194–206.
Kovács, G., and K. M. Spens. 2007. “Humanitarian Logistics in Disaster Relief Operations.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37 (2): 99–114.
Kovács, G., and K. Spens. 2009. “Identifying Challenges in Humanitarian Logistics.” International Journal of Physical Distribution
&Amp; Logistics Management 39 (6): 506–528.
Kransdorff, A. 1982. “The Management Page: High Stock Levels – Not the Answer – Arnold Kransdorff reports on ‘Supply Chain
Management’.” Financial, Times, June 4: 16.
Lambert, D. M., M. C. Cooper, and J. D. Pagh. 1998. “Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 9 (2): 1–20.
Larson, P. D., and A. Halldorsson. 2004. “Logistics versus Supply Chain Management: An International Survey.” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 7 (1): 17–31.
Lee, H. L. 2004. “The Triple-a Supply Chain.” Harvard Business Review 82 (10): 102–112.
Lee, H. L., and C. Billington. 1992. “Managing Supply Chain Inventory: Pitfalls and Opportunities.” Sloan Management Review 33
(3): 65–73.
Melnyk, S., R. Lummus, R. Vokurka, L. Burns, and J. Sandor. 2009. “Mapping the Future of Supply Chain Management: A Delphi
Study.” International Journal of Production Research 47 (16): 4629–4653.
Melnyk, S., E. Davis, R. Spekman, and J. Sandor. 2010. “Outcome-Driven Supply Chains.” MIT Sloan Management Review 51 (2):
33–38.
Openshaw, J., and A. Craddock. 2012. “Ready, Set, Go – London.” Monocle 6 (54): 77–82.
Pettit, S. J., and A. K. C. Beresford. 2005. “Emergency Relief Logistics: An Evaluation of Military, Non-Military and Composite
Response Models.” International Journal of Logistics 8 (4): 313–331.
Reuters. 2008. “AMR Research’s Supply Chain Top 25 Beats Market with 17.89% Return.” Accessed 10 January 2008 http://www.
reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS133675+10-Jan-2008+PRN20080110
Rivera, R. 2007. “Am I Doing Architecture or Design Work?” IT Professional 9 (6): 46–48November/December.
Samaranayake, P. 2005. “A Conceptual Framework for Supply Chain Management: A Structural Inegration.” Supply Chain Management 10 (1): 47–59.
Skjoett-Larsen, T. 1999. “Supply Chain Management: A New Challenge for Researchers and Managers in Logistics.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 10 (2): 41–54.
Spens, K. M., and A. H. Bask. 2002. “Developing a Framework for Supply Chain Management.” International Journal of Logistics
Management 13 (1): 71–88.
Tatham, P., and K. Spens. 2011. “Towards a Humanitarian Logistics Knowledge Management System.” Disaster Prevention and Management 20 (1): 6–26.
Van Wassenhove, L. N. 2006. “Humanitarian Aid Logistics: Supply Chain Management in High Gear†.” Journal of the Operational
Research Society 57: 475–489.
Viswanathan, N. 2009. “Supply Chain Network Design: Architecting a Green Future.” (Aberdeen, Group February 19).
Wu, S. J., S. A. Melnyk, and B. B. Flynn. 2010. “Operational Capabilities: The Secret Ingredient.” Decision Sciences 41 (4):
721–754.
1896
S.A. Melnyk et al.
Appendix 1. List of special issue reviewers
Jamison Day
Lloyd Rinehart
Kevin Linderman
Madhu Rao
Virpi Turkulainen
Fan Tseng
Xiaodong Deng
Kyle Cattani
Stanley Fawcett
Christopher Fleming
Ron McLachlin
Edward Davis
Diane Mollenkopf
Anand Nair
Santosh Mahapatra
Brian Jacobs
Eric Jackson
Thomas Kull
Stanley Griffis
Sriram Narayanan
Funda Sahin
Vicki Smith-Daniels
Claudia Rosales
Jennifer Blackhurst
Gary Ragatz
Christopher Zobel
John Macdonald
Srinivas Talluri
Kimberly Bates
Jan Hartley
Myung-Kyo Kim
Laird Burns
Bill Verdini
Justin Lavadour
Lawrence Fredendall
Vijay Kannan
Constantin Blome
John Hanson
Mohan Gopalakrishnan
Susan Golicic
Kevin Dooley
Barbara Flynn
Ann Marucheck
Judy Whipple
Srimantoorao Appadoo
Robert Wiedmer