Abstract code 008-0055
Evolution of Supply Chain Theories: A comprehensive Literature review
Kayvan Lavassani1, Bahar Movehedi2, Vinod Kumar3
Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, 1-613-5202600,
1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
1
Kayvan@Lavassani.net, 2mbahar@connect.carleton.ca, 3vinod_kumar@carleton.ca
Abstract. Until the early 2000s, academia was more concerned with the
wording and definitions rather than providing theoretical support for supply
chain management (SCM) (Seuring, 2003). Recently, more attention has been
paid towards building theoretical frameworks around SCM and introducing this
field of study as a discipline. Many authors in the area of SCM have published
papers suggesting that more attention to be given to theory building in the area
of SCM. In an approach to gain a better understanding of the supply chain
theories this study presents an evolutionary review of the theories that can be
applied in the field of supply chain management. This study specifically
explores the development of the Transaction cost theory (view), Resourcebased view (theory), Knowledge-based view, Strategic choice theory, Agency
theory, Institutional theory, Systems Theory, and Network Perspective.
Furthermore this paper provides rational for application of each theory in
supply chain management studies.
Introduction
Few authors had previously tried to provide theoretical foundations for different areas
related to supply chain (SC). Handfield and Melnyk (1998), Mears-Young and Jakson (1997),
New (1995), and Brush (1997) are some authors who have provided theoretical frameworks for
some functions of the supply chain management (SCM), such as logistics, total quality
management (TQM), and outsourcing (Seuring, 2003). Mears-Young and Jakson (1997) and
New (1995), in their studies on organizational logistics, mentioned the lack of theoretical support
in SCM and presented some constructs for studies in this area. Brush (1997), in his studies on
outsourcing, suggested the use of “agency theory” in the area of outsourcing. In the late 1990s
and early 2000s, there were three dominant theoretical approaches in academic studies of SCM
to help in explaining and understanding the existence, management, and boundaries of SCM
studies. These three theories are: Transaction Cost Analysis (TCA), Network Perspective (NP),
and Resource-based view (RBV). These approaches can be seen in the works of Skjoett-Larsen
(1999) and Halldorsson et al., (2003). Halldorsson, et al., (2003) addressed the gap in SCM
studies and explained that more work is required for developing theories that can explain
different aspects of SCM studies. In response to this gap, Ketchen and Hult (2007) proposed a set
of SCM theories and suggested that some organizational views and theories can provide a useful
perspective for SCM studies. These views and theories are: RBV, Knowledge-based view,
Strategic choice theory, Agency theory, Institutional theory, and Systems theory. The following
sections will present and explain these theories and their application in the SCM studies. It is
important to note that these theories present complementary – and not mutually exclusive –
views for scientific research in this discipline (Halldorsson, et al., 2003), if we may call it a
discipline. At the end, we will brief the application of SC theories in SCM studies.
Resource-based view (RBV)
Currently there is no consensus in academia about how to label this topic (Acedo et al,
2006). In academia, this topic has been studied as RBV as well as resource-based theory. Acedo,
et al., (2006) in their study differentiated these two perspectives (Table 1). While some authors,
such as Toms (2004), Priem and Butler (2001a, 2001b), (Foss, 1997a, 1997b), Conner and
Prahalad (1996), and Miller and Shamsie (1996), discuss theoretical deficiencies in resourcebased practices, few authors (such as Barney, 2001a, 2001b) believe that resource-based practice
is scientifically developed enough to be called a theory. As we cannot yet draw a solid
conclusion regarding the debate over the level of maturity of this approach in this study – nor is
this our intention in this paper – we use the terms RBV and resource-based theory as two
terminologies referring to one concept. Our understanding is that RBV in the area of SCM is
currently developing to become recognized as a theory. This argument may be expanded to some
other theories (or views) that we present in this paper.
Table 1
View or Perspective vs. Theory
Main theme
Author
Indicating the lack of sufficient basis for a complete
Toms, (2004)
and consistent theory of firm behaviour
View or Indicating a lack of maturity and coherence among Priem and Butler (2001a,
2001b), Foss (1997a, 1997b)
Perspective the different contributions
Conner and Prahalad, (1996);
Indicating a lack of predictive capacity
Miller and Shamsie, (1996)
Indicating a mature and scientific development
Barney, (2001a, 2001b)
Theory
status
Regarding the roots of the RBV, a disagreement can be observed in the literature. Two
schools of thoughts can be identified, which we name Classical and Modern schools of thought.
While the Classical school of thought looks at the RBV mainly from an economics perspective
(with a focus on resources, such as labour and capital), members of the Modern school of
thought consider RBV as a strategy management tool (which aims at the growth of the
organization). The members of the Classical school of thought – mostly economists – believe
that the ultimate goal of organizations under RBV is to maintain sustainable competitive
advantage through their rent advantage, which originates from their resources. For the members
of this school of thought, the roots of RBV can be traced back to the seminal work of political
economist David Ricardo (2004) on the theory of comparative advantage (Madhok and Li,
2003). In contrast, the Modern school of thought believes that the ultimate goal of organizations
under the RBV is to clarify the process by which the firm grows (Rugman and Verbeke, 2002,
2004). This school of thought considers the seminal work of Edith Penroses (1959) – The Theory
of the Growth of the Firm – as the main origin of this view. According to this perspective,
“Penrose never aimed to provide useful strategy prescriptions for managers to create a
sustainable stream of rents; rather, she tried to rigorously describe the processes through which
firms grow. In her theory, rents were generally assumed not to occur” (Rugman and Verbeke,
2002). According to the RBV – whether it is rooted from the economic view or the strategic view
of the firm theory – the tangible and intangible resources of the organization influence the
creation, sustainability, and competitive advantage of the organization (Kor and Mahoney,
2004). These resources are valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). The
main contribution of the RBV as a theory that developed in the strategy discipline is that it
considers the involvement of other disciplines, such as economics, industrial organization, and
organization science. One of the main criticisms of the RBV is that this approach does not
provide methods of gaining the resources that can lead organizations to gain a competitive
advantage.
Transaction Cost Analysis (TCA)
TCA – also cited in the literature as transaction cost theory, and transaction cost approach
– has been widely used in different areas, especially in economics and organizational studies.
First, we will provide some background information about the roots of TCA and then we will
discuss the application of TCA in SCM. The main idea here is that TCA theory can justify the
existence of SCM. In the early 1970s, the mathematical economist, Williamson, incorporated
TCA into the general equilibrium model and set up his transaction cost economics in the new
theory of the firm. Oliver E. Williamson (2005) in a recent paper traced the origins of transaction
cost economies to the works of Ronald Coase (Coase, R.H., 1937; The Nature of the Firm),
Chester Barnard, and Herbert Simon, where they first explained why firms exist. Some other
scholars (Scott, 2003) also include Commons (1924) as one of the seminal people in developing
transaction cost economies. Williamson (1975, 1981) suggests that organizations can reduce
their transaction costs by vertical integration and increasing the level of trust. However, it is
important to note that an organizational supply chain can reduce transaction not only through
vertical integration and increasing the level of trust among supply chain participants, but also
though horizontal integration and economy of scale gained from the aggregation of supply and/or
demand. The literature discusses criticisms of the TCA. One criticism is that it focuses mainly on
dependent and independent economic factors and fails to include personal and social relations
(Skjoett-Larsen 1999; Auramo Kamarainen, 2002). Also, TCA is not concerned with interorganizational relationships and internal and external organizational changes over time (YliRenko 1999; Auramo Kamarainen, 2002). In other words, the transaction cost approach “ignores
the power-based criteria in explaining inter-organizational linkages” (McNichols, and Brennan,
2006). For TCA to be applied in SCM we should be able to satisfy these criticisms.
Knowledge-based view (KBV)
According to Robert M. Grant (1997) – one of the seminal authors who contributed in
shaping the theoretical roots of KBV – in the post industrial era knowledge as a source of
competitive advantage has created some sort of knowledge-based competition. This is the main
source of competitive advantage and one of the major characteristics of the new knowledgebased economy. Grant (1997) mentioned a number of scholars as pioneers of KBV, including
Bruce Kogut and Udo Zander, Ikujiro Nonaka, Gunnar Hedlund, Georg Von Krogh, Johann
Roos, and J. C. Spender. The roots of KBV – which Grant pleads for as a theory – can be viewed
from different perspectives (Grant, 1997). These roots can be traced back to the works of James
March and Chris Argyris in organizational learning, Nelson and Winter’s work on evolutionary
economics, Prahalad and Hamel’s work on organizational capabilities and competencies, and the
works of many scholars such as David Teece, Kim Clark, and Steven Wheelwright and Rebecca
Henderson on innovation and New Product Development (see Table 2).
Table 2
Roots of Knowledge-Based View in different Disciplines
Dimension
Major Contributing Authors
Organizational Learning
March and Chris Argyris
Evolutionary Economics
Nelson and Winter
Organizational capabilities – Competencies
Prahalad and Hamel
David Teece, Kim Clark, Steven
Innovation and New Product Development
Wheelwright and Rebecca Henderson
Adopted from Grant (1997)
According to KBV, the exchange of knowledge facilitates the integration and
performance of SC and enhances collaboration among inter-organizational SCs and within
organizations. Subroto Roy (2003), in his study on e-commerce and centralized purchasing,
described the application and importance of the KBV. He explained that in the knowledge-based
view of the firm (as described by Grant and Badden-Fuller, 1995; Kogut and Zander, 1992;
Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Spender, 1996; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998) knowledge is different
from the traditional economic resources such as land, labour, and capital. Knowledge can be a
source of competitive advantage when it is shared, understood, and combined (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995). This knowledge – which is shared, understood, and combined – will create
what Poppo and Zenger (1999) described as the common identity. Creation of this common
organizational communication code will lower the cost of communication for future research and
learning, and will facilitate the efficient dissemination and protection of knowledge in
organization (Poppo and Zenger, 1999, p. 857). It can also reduce the transaction cost.
Knowledge exchange will help organizations to “possess advantages in generating firm-specific
language and routines that yield valuable capabilities” (Conner and Prahalad, 1996, p. 483).
Strategic Choice Theory (SCT)
The early empirical studies on the relationship between organizational structure and
situational factors (such as technology) by Blau, Hage and Aiken, Hal, Lawrence, and Lorsch in
the United States and Pugh and Woodward in Britain provided material for development of
models that helped the SCT to advance (Child, 1972). According to these models, the goal of the
organizations is to achieve high performance standards and increase the efficiency to the limits
of economic constraints. In these studies, little attention was paid to situational (contextual)
factors – environment, technology, and scale of operation – and the agency of choice – any agent
in the organization who has the power to direct the organization, e.g. managers (Child, 1972).
Strategic decisions in organizations have significant effects on organizational outcomes. Child
(1972), in his seminal article on the role of strategic choice, provided a theoretical framework for
this theory. SCT, according to Child’s perspective is less concerned with the functional operation
of the organization and has more to do with the governance structure and political actions in
organizations. Strategic choice emphasizes the importance of establishment of structural forms,
the manipulation of environmental features, and the choice of relevant performance standards in
achieving organizational goals (Child, 1972). According to the SCT, managers play an important
role in achieving organizational outcomes through their decision making or leading the changes
in organizations (Child, 1972; Ketchen and Hult, 2007). This strategic decision making functions
at three levels: Top tier or long term planning, middle tier or functional level, and bottom tier at
the individual level (Kochan, Katz and McKersie, 1986). SCT views managers as proactive
agents who are down-stream decision-makers and mainly focus on directing major decisions and
change processes in organizations. Change, or what Child (1972) calls “variation in
organizational structure,” is caused by three contextual factors: environmental conditions,
technology, and size. Employing new technologies and devices (such as RFID 1 tags, ERP2
systems, etc.) is a form of technological change in organizations that requires decision making at
the top tier lever and support at the top, middle, and bottom tiers.
Agency theory (AT)
The AT is an effort to explain the negative (traditional AT) and positive (contemporary
AT) relationships between two parties when one party delegates some of its authority to the other
one. The roots of AT can be traced back to the works of Max Weber in the area of economics
(Beckert, and Zafirovski, 2006). Since then, AT has moved from economics to other disciplines
such as finance, accounting, marketing organizational behaviour, political science, sociology,
and, more recently, operational management. According to the traditional AT – as described by
Max Weber – under normal conditions, political master or ruler (or the principal as used in
management and sociology literature) has to delegate authority to agents (or state officials in
political science literature) in order for his/her policies (or strategies) to be implemented. Max
Weber explains that in this situation, conflict of interest between principals and agents occurs
when the principal finds him/her self in the position of the dilettante standing against the now
expert trained officials (agents) who stand within the management of administration. In the
relationship between these two parties (agent and principals) agents will acquire the advantage of
1
2
Radio Frequency Identification
Enterprise Resource Planning
informational asymmetries (Wood & Waterman, 1994, p. 25; Jens Beckert and Milan Zafirovski,
2006). “Knowledge that agencies acquire by continuous attention to particular functions puts
them in an especially advantageous position to influence policy when the facts they gather
cannot be subject to independent verification or disproof” (Rourke, 1984: p15). The roots of
negative (traditional) AT can be found in the neoclassical view of the firm, where organizations
are viewed as black boxes of production function with the goal of profit maximization in free
markets, under the assumption that contracts were perfectly monitored and enforced at zero cost.
Beckert and Zafirovski (2006) explain that this view “left neoclassical economics with no theory
of relationship between incentives and performance within firms.” In response to this dilemma
the “new institutionalism” view of the organizations provided a different view of organizations
outside the neoclassical view of organizations. The traditional negative agency theory was born
under the neoclassical economic model, while the new contemporary positive agency theory was
developed in the context of the new-institutionalization school of thought. The newinstitutionalism scholars opened the black box of organizations and viewed organization as an
institution among other institutions in the environment. According to this view, profit
maximization is a win-lose game, as the ultimate organizational goal gives its place to
collaboration and competition among other firms in a win-win game. Competition for the limited
resources gave way to coordination and collaboration in the environment for creating more
value. Agency theory can be applied to SCM studies from two perspectives: the positive
collaboration view and the negative conflict view. In the traditional negative AT, the theory
states that the conflict between agents and principals can create an abusive relationship in which
the agent abuses its power – acquired by informational asymmetries and knowledge – throughout
supply chains (Eisenhardt 1989, Ketchen and Hult, 2007). According to this view vertical
integration of organizations should be through internalization of forward and backward linkages.
The Ford Motors vertical supply chain expansion in the early twentieth century, which was based
on internalization of first and second tier suppliers from steel manufacturing to soybean farms,
can be best explained by the traditional (negative) view of agency theory. Under the traditional
view of AT, this theory “might help us understand under what conditions a supply chain member
is likely to attempt to exploit other members” (Ketchen and Hult, 2007). The contemporary
(positive) view of agency theory, as we explained, could justify the opportunistic behaviour
under a rational system perspective. In the new institutionalism environments the ultimate goal
of organizations is survival and value creation through collaboration, and agents have a rather
open system perspective, which seeks to gain competitive advantage through coordination with
their environment. Operations throughout the supply chain of organizations are no longer seen
merely as isolated functional institutes or what Beckert and Zafirovski (2006) described as black
boxes; rather they are processes through which their integration creates a higher value-added for
all participants. The early works on SC viewed SC as merely a network of functions (black
boxes) while the more recent definitions view SC as process integrated with other organizations.
Thanks to advancements in new technologies – especially communication technologies – the
black box has been opened and collaboration has been introduced as one way to gain higher
competitive advantage. Combs and Ketchen (1999) explained that the positive theory of agency
also has implications in RBV (Barney, Mike Wright, David J. Ketchen, 2001). From this
perspective, collaboration with the institutional environment can be viewed as resources that
provide competitive advantages for organizations.
Institutional theory3 (InT)
In describing the agency theory and its historical evolution, we explained the evolution of
InT and described how it affected the agency theory. This part focuses on the application of InT
in SCM. There are basically three views of organizations (Scott, 2003): rational, natural, and
open systems. The new institutionalism view of the organization is similar to the open system
view of the organization, which emphasizes the influence of the environment (institutionalism
environment) on organizations. Application of InT in SCM implies that managers should
constantly monitor their environment for two purposes: 1- identifying collaborative opportunities
and 2- comparing their current way of doing things with the best practices in the environment.
They could follow the one that brings them higher competitive advantage and ensures their
survival.
Systems Theory (ST)
ST was initiated in the 1950s by the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy and some other
researchers. “As an applied science, general systems theory (GST) became systems science, a
meta-discipline with a content capable of being transferred from discipline to discipline”
(Skyttner, 2001). “Bertalanffy tentatively suggested that living organisms were open systems that
could not be fully described by classical thermodynamics” (Lowaon, 2003). Since its
recognition, the systems theory has moved to other areas such as geography, sociology, political
science, organizational theory, management, and psychotherapy. Bertalanffy and Kenneth
Boulding were two of the most prominent founders of the International Society for General
Systems Theory (ISGST) in 1954. ISGST later became International Society for Systems
3
The term institution theory refers to the new institutional theory or new institutionalism, as opposed to the old
intuitionalism. (DiMaggio et al., 1991)
Science (ISSS) (Skyttner, 2001). Systems theory is one of the two most influential theories in
SCM since the 1950s besides transaction cost theory. While the transaction cost theory was the
dominant theory during the period of 1950-1970 (Smykay, et al., 1961; Heskett, et al., 1964), the
systems theory has been the dominant theory from 1970 to the present time. However, it is
important to note that during the period of 1970-1985 the focus of systems theory in SCM was
on provision of an interface between different functions in organizations such as marketing,
distribution, and production (Ballou, 1978; Magee et al., 1985). From 1985 until the present, the
focus of systems theory has shifted to efficiency related issues, such as time-based management,
lean production, costumer response efficiency, and the value chain concept (Womack, et al.,
1990; Hout and Stalk, 1990; Stock and Lambert, 2001; Gripsrud, Jahre and Persson, 2006).
These latter applications of systems theory are “often considered in industrial engineering field”
(Coe, 2005). General system theory provides a “way to abstract from reality,” simplifying the
complex model “while at the same time capturing its multi-dimensionality” (Skyttner, 2001).
Kilburg (1995) of Johns Hopkins University is one of the seminal authors who looked at the
organizational supply chain from the systems perspective and identified the boundaries and
major processes of organizational SC. It is important to note that the view of this theory toward
the organizations is an open system perspective (Lowson, 2003). The application of systems
theory in SCM is mainly concerned with the determination of the domain of SCM, properties of
the parts of the SCM process, and promoting interrelationships among the parts of the system.
According to the systems theory, as new tools and technologies are discovered the integration
should be promoted. This theory promoted integration throughout the supply chain and declares
that what determines the level of analysis is the capability of the organization to integrate. The
new technologies, such as communication technologies, have increased the capabilities of the
organizations for expanding their SC not only company wide, but also across organizations.
Network Perspective (NP)
NP is mostly known as a perspective or view. However, authors such as McNichols and
Brennan (2006) consider NP as a theory. Following McNichols et al. (2006) we view NP as a
theory. NP theory of the firm is concerned with the structure and content of inter-organizational
relations of the organization among the group of other organizations (Moller and Wilson, 1995;
Håkansson and Snehota, 1995). According to the network perspective, networks can increase the
resources capabilities and competencies of individual firms through coordinating strategies
(Roberts and Mackay, 1998). Network perspective, like the resource-based view, looks at
organizational resources as means to achieve competitive advantage (Koster 2002; Delfmann, et
al., 2002). However, unlike the resource-based view, which focuses on the dyadic relationships
among trade partners (Reekers and Smithson, 1996), the network perspective focuses on several
party inter-organizational relationships (McNichols and Brennan, 2006). The effectiveness of
networks can be measured by different factors, including and not limited to, network size,
network range, and network diversity. A network perspective enables us “to explore the
relationship between incumbency of distinct structural positions within a movement network,
and involvement in exchanges with other political actors” (Mario Diani, 2000; Ansell, 2000).
Synthesis: Conclusion and Future Studies
In this paper, a number of theories of SCM have been discussed. We noted that there is
currently a gap in the literature with regards to the theory development around SCM. Since the
development of SCM theories is in its beginning stages, there is still little attention from
academia to empirically apply SCM theories in SCM studies. However there has been recent
attempt to use SCM theories in case studies (e.g. see Ketchen and Hult, 2007). The roots of each
theory, the historical evolution, and application of each theory in SCM studies have been
discussed. A summary of these findings in regards to the application of each theory in SCM
studies is presented in Table 3. Empirical studies are required to confirm the application of each
theory.
Table 3
Application of SC theories
Theory
Justification for application of theory in SCM studies
Transaction Cost
Reducing cost generated through asset specify and uncertainty.
Analysis
Vertical Integration
Tangible and intangible resources influence the creation,
Resource-based view
sustainability, and competitive advantage of the firm
Knowledge is a source of competitive advantage
Knowledge-based view
Exchange of knowledge increases the SC value creation
Establishment of structural forms
Strategic choice theory Manipulation of environmental features
Choice of relevant performance standards
Conflict raising from delegation of authorities: encourages
Agency theory
internalization
Positive relationships: encourages collaboration
Monitoring environment for collaborative opportunities
Institutional theory
Following best practice
Simplifying the relations among the components of the systems, in
Systems Theory
order to gain better understanding and analysis of values generated
by SC
Several-party inter-organizational relations increase the resources
Network Perspective
capabilities and competencies of the individual firms
Although we are unable to generalize the findings based on a literature review alone, we
believe that there exists strong evidence that these theories can be applied in SCM studies.
Furthermore, this study provides the researchers sufficient materials to develop a theoretical
foundation for conducting an empirical study. At the end of the paper we provided a framework
for application of these theories in SCM studies. The issues discussed in regards to the
application of SCM theories may not be generalized to all studies. Empirical studies are required
to confirm the application of each theory in SCM studies.
References
Acedo F. J., Barroso C., & Galan J. L. (2006). The resource-based theory: dimension and main
trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 621-636.
Ansell, C. (2000). Community embeddedness and collaborative governance. In the workshop
"Social movement analysis: the network perspective". Ross Priory, Loch Lomond.
Ballou, R. (1978). Basic Business Logistics, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management, 17, (1), 99-120.
Barney, M., Wright, D., & Ketchen, J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years
after 1991. Journal of Management, 27 (6), 625-641.
Beckert J. & Zafirovski M. (2006). International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology.
Routledge. ISBN 0415286735.
Brush, D (1997). Logan 2000: A world class upgrade for the 21st century. ITE Journal.
Child, J., (1972) Organizational structure, environment, and performance: the role of strategic
choice. Sociology 6, 1–22.
Coase, R.H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, New Series 4(16), 386–405.
Coe T. (2005). Electronic Supply Chain Collaboration for Small Job Shop Manufacturers: An
Exploratory Triangulation Study. Universal Publishers, ISBN 1581122624.
Combs, J., & Ketchen, D. (1999). Explaining inter-firm cooperation and performance: Toward a
reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics.
Strategic Management Journal, 20(9), 867–888.
Commons J. R. (1924). Legal Foundations of Capitalism. New York: Macmillan.
Conner, K. R. & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge
versus Opportunism. Organization Science,7(5), pp. 477-501.
Delfmann, W. & Albers, S. (2002). The impact of electronic commerce on logistics service
providers. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 32(3), 20322.
Eisenhardt, K.M., (1989). Agency theory: an assessment and review. Academy of Management
Review, 14(1), 57–74.
Foss, NJ. (1997a). Resources and Strategy: A Reader. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Foss NJ. (1997b). The classical theory of production and the capabilities view of the firm.
Journal of Economic Studies, 24(5), 307-323.
Grant, R. M., & Badden-Fuller, C. (1995). A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm
collaboration. Proceedings of Academy of Management, 17-21.
Grant, R.M. (1997). The Knowledge-based View of the Firm: Implications for Management
Practice. Long range planning, 30(3), 450-454.
Gripsrud G., Jahre M. & Persson G (2006). Supply chain management – back to the future?
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 36 (8), 643-659.
Halldorsson, Arni, Herbert Kotzab & Tage Skjott-Larsen (2003). Inter-organizational theories
behind Supply Chain Management – discussion and applications, In Seuring, Stefan et al. (eds.),
Strategy and Organization in Supply Chains, Physica Verlag.
Handfield, R. B. & Melnyk, S. A. (1998). The scientific theory-building process: a primer using
the case of TQM. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 321-339.
Heskett, J., Ivie, R. & Glaskowsky, N. (1964). Business Logistics. Management of Physical
Supply and Distribution, The Ronald Press Company, New York, NY.
Hout, T. M., & Stalk, G. (1990). Competing Against Time: How Time-Based Competition Is
Reshaping Global Markets. New York: Free Press
Kämäräinen Vesa & Auramo Jaana, (2002). Fast growing high-tech start-ups: Efficient network
operations require knowledgeable governance, The Logistics Research Network (LRN) 7th
annual conference, September 2002.
Ketchen Jr., G., & Hult, T.M. (2007). Bridging organization theory and supply chain
management: The case of best value supply chains. Journal of Operations Management, 25(2)
573-580.
Ketchen, Jr. D.J., DeSantis Carl & Hult G.T. (2005). Knowledge as a strategic resource in
supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 23(5), 569-570.
Kilburg R. (1995). Integrating psychodynamics and systems theories in organization
development practice. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research.
Kochan, T., Katz, H., & McKersie, R. (1986). The Transformation of American Industrial
Relations, Basic Books, Massachusetts.
Kogut B, & Zander U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the
replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.
Kor, Y. Y. & Mahoney, J. T. (2004). Edith Penrose’s (1959) contributions to the resource-based
view of strategic management. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 183–91.
Koster, R.B.M. (2002). Distribution structures for food home shopping. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 32(5), 362-80.
Lowson R.H. (2003). Strategic Operations Management the New Competitive Advantage.
Publisher: Routledge, ISBN-13: 978-0415256551.
Madhok & Li. Ricardo Revisited: The Resource Based View, Comparative Advantage and
Competitive
Heterogeneity.
http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.king/
conference/Papers/MadhokandLi.pdf [30th May 2007].
Magee, J.F., Copacino, W.C., & Rosenfield, D.B. (1985). Modern logistics Management:
Integrating Marketing, Manufacturing and Physical Distribution. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Mario Diani (2000). Networks and social movements: from metaphor to theory. Proceedings of
Conference of Social Movements Analysis: The Network Perspective", Scotland 23-25 June
2000.
McNichols, T.J. & Brennan, L. (2006). Evaluating partner suitability for collaborative supply
networks. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 3(2), 220-237.
Mears-Young B. & Jakson M.C. (1997). Integrated logistics-Call in the revolutionariesv Omega,
International Journal of Management Science, 25(6), 605-618.
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The
Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 519-543.
Moller & Wilson (1995). Business Marketing: an interaction and network perspective. Springer,
ISBN 0792395042.
Nahapiet J. & Ghoshal S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266.
New, S. J. (1995). Supply chain integration: results from a mixed-method pilot study. Fourth
International IPSERA Conference, Birmingham.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: John Wiley.
Poppo, L., & Zenger, T., (1999). Testing alternative theories of the firm: transaction cost,
knowledge-based, and measurement explanations for make-or-buy decisions in information
services. Strategic Management Journal, 19(9), 853-877.
Priem R.L., & Butler J.E. (2001a). Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic
management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22-40.
Priem R.L., & Butler J.E. (2001b). Tautology in the resource based view and the implications of
externally determined resource value: further comments. Academy of Management Review,
26(1), 57-66.
Reekers, N., & Smithson, S. (1996). The distribution of the benefits and drawbacks of EDI use in
the European automotive industry. Paper presented at the Research Forum, 5th World Congress
of EDI Users, Brighton.
Ricardo David (2004). Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Courier Dover
Publications.
Roberts, B. & Mackay, M. (1998). IT supporting supplier relationships: the role of electronic
commerce. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 4(2), 175-184.
Rourke, F.E. (1984). Bureaucracy, Politics, and Public Policy. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown.
Rugman, A.M. & Verbeke, A. (2002). Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource-based view
of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 23(2), 769-80.
Rugman, A.M. & Verbeke, A. (2004). A final word on Edith Penrose. Journal of Management
Studies. 41(1), 205-17.
Scott W.R. (2003). Organizations, Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Fifth Edition. Prentice
Hall.
Seuring S.A. (2003). Strategy and organization in Supply chains, Springer. ISBN 3790800244.
Skjoett-Larsen Tage (1999). Supply Chin Management: A new Challenge for Researchers and
Managers in Logistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 10(2), 41-54.
Skyttner, L. (2005). Systems Theory and the Science of Military Command and Control.
Cybernetes, 34(7/8), 1240-1260.
Smykay, E.W., Bowersox, D.J. & Mossman, F.H. (1961), Physical Distribution Management,
Macmillan, New York, NY.
Spender, J.-C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic
Management Journal, 17, 45-62.
Stock, J.R. & Lambert, D.M. (2001). Strategic Logistics Management, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill
Irwin, Boston, MA.
Subroto Roy (2003). OK you are now an approved supplier—but you still do not get orders
Understanding the case of the P-Card. Industrial Marketing Management, 32(), 605-613.
Toms S. (2004). Sustained Competitive Advantage and the Modern Labour Theory of Value.
University of York Department of Management Studies Working Paper No. 20 ISSN Number:
1743-4041.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intra-firm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(), 464-476.
Williamson O.E. (2005). Transaction cost economics and business administration, Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 21(1), 19-40.
Womack, J., Jones, D. & Roos, D. (1990). The Machine that Changed the World, Rawlinson
Associates, New York, NY.
Wood, B.D. & Waterman, R.W. (1994). Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a
Democracy. Boulder, CO: West view Press.
Yli-Renko, H. (1999). Dependence, Social Capital, and Learning in Key Customer
Relationships: Effects on the Performance of Technology-Based New Firms, Doctoral
dissertation. Acta Polytechnica Scandinavia, Industrial Management and Business
Administration Series No. 5, Espoo, Finland.