International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2006, 47–56
Customer responsive supply chain strategy: An unnatural act?
JANET GODSELL*†, ALAN HARRISON†, CAROLINE EMBERSON‡ and
JOHN STOREY‡
†Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield,
Bedford MK43 0AL, UK
‡Open University Business School, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK
There has been a shift in the last few years from prescriptive models of supply chain strategy to more
embracing frameworks that accommodate a range of different approaches. However, there has been
a tendency for these models to differentiate by product type. In order to achieve alignment between
demand creation and fulfilment this basis for differentiation should, we conclude, change to buying
behaviour. We have explored the opportunities for increasing customer responsiveness through the
alignment of demand creation and fulfilment by means of empirical studies of six supply chains in
three sectors (electronics, process industries and third-party logistics). Our study found that there
is currently little evidence of such alignment in practice. There was a marked absence of proactive
“management” of the supply chain, and a lack of alignment within the demand fulfilment process
itself, and between the demand fulfilment and creation process (including new product introduction).
Performance measures were used to optimise functional performance at operational levels within a
supply chain rather than the performance of the supply chain as a whole.
Keywords: Supply chain management; Strategy formulation; Customer responsiveness
1.
Introduction
Whether we are in the age of the “new consumer”, the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore
1999) or the era of post-modernism, it is clear that there has been a significant shift in most
market-places. Fuelled by increasing market fragmentation, the desire to consume “experiences” and increased market literacy (Baker 2003), consumers are becoming increasingly
discerning. It would be convenient to dismiss this as a “marketing problem” and to ignore the
logistics implications; but such fundamental shifts in consumer behaviour and the demand
creation patterns they cause must be addressed by equally fundamental shifts in the way that
demand is fulfilled. This has significant implications for supply chain management (SCM).
Prescriptive models that seek to be panaceas are never likely to have long-term benefit (Hill
2000). While more complex in scope and more challenging to implement, supply chain strategies that seek to link demand creation with demand fulfilment can no longer be subjected to
simplistic “solutions”. Such strategies need to be both context specific and, at the same time, to
develop the optimum solution for a given competitive environment. It is time to understand the
*Corresponding author. Email: Janet.Godsell@cranfield.ac.uk
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications
ISSN 1367-5567 print/ISSN 1469-848X online © 2006 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13675560500534664
48
J. Godsell et al.
needs of the end-customer and to align supply chain strategy behind end-customer needs in the
market-place. Call it market orientation (Dawes 2000), demand chain management (Heikkila
2002), marketing logistics (Christopher and Peck 2003) or customer responsiveness (Godsell
and Harrison 2002), the key issue is to align demand creation and demand fulfilment.
The aim of this paper is to explore such alignment in practice. We set about this by studying
six supply chains in three sectors: electronics; process industries; and third-party logistics. The
paper begins with an overview of relevant literature, before expanding on the methodology
used for the empirical study. The results section provides empirical evidence of the current
state of alignment and the identification of enablers and inhibitors to the process of alignment;
these issues are developed further in the discussion and conclusions in section 5.
2.
Buying behaviour as a driver of supply chain strategy
The late 1990s saw apparently conflicting views arise between “lean” (Womack and Jones
1996) and “agile” (Goldman et al. 1995, Preiss et al. 1996, Harrison et al. 1999) paradigms for
supply chain strategy.Advent of the Fisher (1997) matrix suggested that the two strategies could
each be viable in different market environments—contingent on particular characteristics of
product demand. Subsequently, a more inclusive approach to supply chain strategy developed
(Aitken et al. 2002, Godsell and Harrison 2002, Hines et al. 2002). But what fuelled this
change in thinking?
While theory suggested that supply chains should be demand led—encapsulated by the
term “demand chain management” (e.g. Vollman and Cordon 1998, Heikkila 2002)—it has
proved difficult to find empirical data in support of such an approach. A key starting point for
understanding the demand-led approach is segmentation: as Piercy (2002) put it, “the only
real logic for how we organize the whole company is our understanding of the structure of the
market (i.e. market segmentation)”. A problem for researchers is that—in integrating customer
requirements into operations strategy—“the actual practice of segmentation is comparatively
neglected”, and that “much segmentation analysis is not only poorly directed but actually of
rather limited value” (Dibb and Wensley 2002). Childerhouse et al. (2002) provided a rare
practical example of how product supply chains can be classified operationally and matched
to target market segments. Attempts to match supply chain design with product type, such as
Fisher’s (1997) matrix of efficient/responsive supply chains, have failed to provide empirical
evidence to support the claims (Seldin and Olhager 2002, Olhager and Selldin 2004).
Concerns that the link between segmentation and supply strategy is problematic do not
imply that the reasoning is inherently flawed. They do, however, imply that a fresh look
needs to be taken at the meta-level process—the formulation and execution of supply chain
strategy. It is proposed here that the focus on “product” needs to be replaced by a focus
on “end-customer”—more specifically, by the end-customer’s buying behaviour. Indeed, use
of product-related rather than needs-based segmentation has been identified as one of the
reasons for the gap between segmentation theory and practice (Dibb and Wensley 2002).
By understanding why groups of end-customers buy a product, it is possible to develop an
appropriate supply chain strategy to meet the needs of the segment concerned (Gattorna 1998).
The link between demand creation and fulfilment is thereby created. This is the essence of
customer responsive supply chain strategy, which we have defined as “the identification and
delivery of an appropriate supply chain strategy to meet the needs of the market that it serves.
This is driven not by products, channels or markets, but by behavioural market segments
and is achieved by matching the desired strategy with the capabilities of the supply chain to
deliver” (Godsell and Harrison 2002). Buying behaviour provides further benefits, because
Customer responsive supply chain strategy
Figure 1.
49
Buying behaviour: a strategic link between marketing and SC strategy (Godsell).
it can provide a marketing bridge not only with supply chain strategy but also with needs
based segmentation—a driver of marketing strategy. An example of this bridge for a range
of battery-powered torches is illustrated in figure 1. Demand flows in the market-place (base,
wave and surge) follow Gattorna (1998).
Whilst the academic community may be converging on the principles of customer responsiveness or contingent supply chain theory, what about practitioners? What evidence is there
to support a market-driven approach to supply chain strategy in practice?
3.
Methodology
Yin (2003) defined case study research as “an empirical inquiry of a contemporary phenomenon
in a real life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and context
are not clearly evident”. The empirical study of the contemporary phenomenon of customer
responsive supply chain supply strategy formulation, a phenomenon that is difficult to define
and distinguish from its organisational context—the supply chain—is therefore a good fit with
a case study methodology. Even within the bounds of case study research, there are a number of
different types of case study design. The favoured approach for this study was a multiple case
study approach. The advantage with this approach is that evidence from multiple case studies
“can both augment external validity, and help guard against observer bias” (Voss et al. 2002).
Yin (2003) stated that the “The decision to undertake multiple case study research
cannot be taken lightly . . . each case must be carefully selected so that it (a) predicts
similar results (a literal replication) or (b) produces contrasting results but for predictable
reasons (a theoretical replication)”. The research was part of an EPSRC-funded project
(GR/N34406/01). The study comprised six case studies across three industrial sectors: electronics; process industries; and third-party logistics. We sought the opportunity for literal
replication within sectors, and for literal and replication logic across sectors. Each case study
was structured around a focal firm that provided the starting point for a supply chain study that
transcended the boundaries of both its supply and customer base. For this reason a processorientated unit of analysis was used based on the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR)
model version 4.0 (Lockamy and McCormack 2004), which considers the conversion of
demand into supply across the supply chain. The model was extended to reflect the alignment of the demand fulfilment process (plan–source–make and deliver) that is represented by
50
J. Godsell et al.
Table 1.
Company
DrugsCo
CleanCo
Sector
Summary of the six case environments.
Product
Process
Process
Well-being products
Washing and bathing
products
ElectronicsCo
Electronics Networks
TelCo
Electronics Electronic components
4PLCoDrinks
Transport
Supply chain (SC)
/logistics management
4PLCoElectronics Transport
SC/logistics management
Total
Sales
Location
Companies Interviews
£4.3 bn UK
£115 m UK
4
6
29
48
$2.4 bn Europe
$4.1 bn Europe and Asia
$30 m UK
8
2
6
27
40
31
6
32
19
194
$1.7 bn Europe
the SCOR model with market segmentation aspects of the demand creation process. The unit
of analysis was used to explore four research questions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
What approach to market segmentation is currently adopted?
What supply chain strategies are currently employed?
Does market knowledge drive supply chain strategy to deliver customer responsiveness?
What enables/inhibits the alignment of marketing and supply chain strategy?
As is common with case study research, “there can be many more variables of interest than data
points, and a result relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a
triangulating fashion” (Yin 2003). This led us to develop a research design that included both
quantitative and qualitative methods. Our primary research instrument was semi-structured
interviews with senior managers and directors, lasting, on average, 60 minutes. Over a period
of 3 years (2001–03), 194 interviews were carried out across the six different supply chains
involving 32 different organisations—predominantly in Europe, but with some in Asia. The
six case environments are summarised in table 1.
The interviews were recorded, and detailed notes were also taken and key themes identified.
The data were analysed using content analysis (Easterby-Smith et al. 1991) based around the
research questions.
4.
Results
The results from the study fall into two categories: market-led supply chain strategy and
enablers/inhibitors. Each category is discussed in more detail.
4.1 Market-led supply chain strategy
When the approach to market segmentation was considered for each of the focal firms it
was found that—rather than segmenting the market by buying behaviour as theory would
suggest—without exception a sales turnover-based measure was used whereby the greater
the sales turnover the greater the importance of the “customer”. The view of what “the
customer” represented varied considerably, depending on the scope of the supply chain
being studied—as illustrated in table 2. This has an effect on secondary factors used for
segmentation. For instance, DrugsCo had quite a vertically integrated supply chain and the
“customer” was the store, which was segmented firstly by turnover and then by store type.
In contrast, 4PLCoDrinks and 4PLCoElectronics were both providing fourth-party logistics
(4PL) services to specific customer accounts. In the case of 4PLCoElectronics, this was a
Customer responsive supply chain strategy
Table 2.
Summary of market segmentation and SC strategies.
Market segmentation
strategy
Company
The customer
By turn
over
Other
DrugsCo
Own retail stores
Y
Store type
CleanCo
Retail stores
Y
Channel
type
ElectronicsCo
Distributors and
end consumers
Internal and
external
manufacturers
Y
Channel
type
Channel
type
TelCo
4PLCoDrinks
A consortium of
drinks suppliers
4PLCoElectronics An electronics
company
51
Y
Y
Y
Strategic
accounts
SC strategy
SC segmentation
Scope of SC
Category
Procurement,
warehousing,
outbound
logistics
Lead time—
Outbound
same day, or
logistics,
to customer
warehousrequirement
ing and
planning
Lead time
Outbound
logistics
Lead time
Warehousing
and
outbound
logistics
Customised
Shelf
to specific
replenishcustomer
ment
Lead time—1
day or 3
days
Regional
logistics
Link between
market segmentation and
SC strategy?
N
N
N
N
Y (planned link
with large
strategic
accounts)
N (exception
high-profile
accounts)
Y, yes; N, no.
specific electronics company, and they had a dedicated facility and management team for the
account. For 4PLCoDrinks, they were trying to develop replenishment and merchandising
service for a range of drinks suppliers supplying supermarkets.
Approaches to supply chain strategy were more varied, in terms of both scope and approach
to segmentation. Common elements included within the scope of the supply chain were warehousing and outbound logistics. With the exception of the logistics service providers whose
“make” activity could be considered as warehousing, manufacturing was not within the scope
of the supply chain. Furthermore—again with the exception of the logistics service providers—
the “sourcing” of product was also beyond the scope of the supply chain function, though
DrugsCo did include the procurement element. Supply chain segmentation appeared to be
driven by differentiation of outbound logistics delivery time, and varied in the main between
same day (express) and 3-day (standard) delivery options. Initially, DrugsCo appeared to be
an exception, as it had adopted a strategy whereby different categories of products had different warehousing arrangements. However, on closer inspection, whilst the mechanisms for
replenishment did vary by category, the main driver of the replenishment system was still
lead time.
Theory suggests that the key building blocks to customer responsiveness are: (1) market
segmentation strategy based on behavioural segmentation; and (2) a differentiated supply
chain strategy that spans the full range of SCOR activities. However, we did not find this in
practice in any of the cases. The one small exception was 4PLCoElectronics. The electronics
company for which the 4PLCoElectronics provided a logistics service had a very small number
of customers to whom it was willing to offer a highly customised delivery service. For these
high-profile accounts, there was a link between the high-profile status and the customised
52
J. Godsell et al.
nature of the service offered to them. This is very much the exception rather than the rule,
though there was a marked tendency for customised solutions to be developed for “strategic”,
high turnover accounts.
4PLCoDrinks were developing a merchandising service on behalf of a consortium of drinks
suppliers. The customers targeted by the consortium were the top retailers by turnover and
these accounts were deemed to be “strategic” accounts and hence merchandising options were
to be developed to suit the needs of each individual retailer. The irony is that the margin on
these “strategic” accounts was generally lower than for other accounts as the costs of the
additional “management” required to meet the specific customer requirements were borne by
the service provider.
4.2 Enablers/inhibitors
So why—if theory suggests that market understanding should drive supply chain strategy—
did we not find this to be the case? Our research identified three key enablers/inhibitors to
this process: “management” of the supply chain; alignment; and performance measurement
(illustrated in table 2). These three factors act as enablers or inhibitors, depending on the way
in which they are employed.
4.2.1 “Management” of the supply chain. Whilst the term SCM suggests a proactive
management of the supply chain, reality could not be further from the truth. Our research
found that focal firms often struggle to find an appropriate mechanism to “manage” their supply
chains. Internally, SCM is complicated by functional divides, for example, the divide between
manufacturing and logistics. This was reflected in the functional organisational structure of
CleanCo, and even within the functional aspects of the matrix structures employed by DrugsCo,
TelCo and ElectronicsCo. This divide is exacerbated in organisations that do not have a broad
spanning supply chain role at director level. Our research found that the norm is still to have
functional logistical representation at board level (as illustrated in table 3). Exceptions to this
rule were DrugsCo and TelCo, which have undergone recent organisational restructuring and
which have broad spanning supply chain directorships. Interestingly, of the six cases studied,
these were the two most vertically integrated focal firms. The other mechanism that we found
to define “management” of the supply chain was to assign responsibility to an external party.
In three of the six cases studied, 4PL was being used to co-ordinate supply chain activities,
and with some degree of success.
4.2.2 Alignment. The concept of customer responsiveness suggests three types of process
alignment that impact on the supply chain. Firstly, there is alignment of SCOR activities
within a supply chain’s demand fulfilment process. Secondly, there is alignment between
the demand fulfilment process and the market-facing demand creation process, of which a
natural extension is the alignment with the new product introduction (NPI) process—the
third type. In practice, issues with internal SCM—particularly the functional dimension of
organisational structures—can make it difficult to align the main SCOR processes (plan, make,
source, deliver) across the supply chain. However, this alignment does seem to be improved
in the cases of the more vertically integrated organisations, DrugsCo and TelCo, which both
underwent supply chain restructuring programmes aimed at improving alignment. There was
still the potential for some misalignment within the DrugsCo supply chain, because parallel
import trading opportunities for pharmaceutical products could have a disruptive influence
on supply. The planning function by its nature can be a boundary-spanning process, and was
Customer responsive supply chain strategy
Table 3.
53
Summary of approaches to “managing” the supply chain.
Company
SC
director
Logistics
director
Shared understanding
of who manages the SC?
DrugsCo
Y
Y (reports
to SC
director)
Depends on category
CleanCo
N
Y
N
TelCo
Y
Y
Y
ElectronicsCo
N
Y
Y
4PLCoDrinks
Clients
1 of 4
Clients
3 of 4
Y
4PLCoElectronics
Client N
Client Y
Y
Mechanisms for managing the SC
Category specific supply chains
managed by a category team and
a supply team supported by the
logistics function
Cross-functional teams highly effective
at “managing” the seasonal supply
chain
Split between logistics and
manufacturing
Matrix organisation. Processorientated, hierarchical SCM
structures supported by functional
infrastructure
Project managers—act as a link
between the customer and the supply
chain
Use a 4PL to manage outbound supply
chain and they were seen to have
clear accountability
The 4PL has offered its services to
the drinks consortium partners to
“manage” merchandising/shelfreplenishment activities on their
behalf
The 4PL had clear accountability for
managing the SC. This has been
assigned by the customer
actively used by CleanCo as part of a sophisticated sales and operations planning process to
align supply and demand and encompass NPI. Another enabler of alignment is the make-toorder environment that is dictated by bespoke customised products. ElectronicsCo displayed
positive characteristics of all three types of alignment for their customised products that is
lacking in the “make to stock–fulfil from stock” environment of their merchandised products.
A key inhibitor to supply chain alignment—particularly from the perspective of 4PLs—was
the limited range of supply chain activities that the 4PL was permitted to manage. This was
driven by the desire by client firms to retain control. It meant that the scope of 4PL activities
tended to be limited to outbound or regional logistics, whereas the potential for improving
alignment and synchronicity would be improved by extending the scope to include inbound
logistics as well. A summary of these approaches to alignment is shown in table 4.
4.2.3 Performance measurement. The predominant method of performance measurement was the use of world class measures (WCMs) that cascaded down the organisation from
top-level business objectives and measures into a series of functional measures (see table 5).
The alternative method found in just two cases was the use of a Balanced Score Card (BSC),
which in the case of 4PLCoElectronics was quite sophisticated.
Even the BSC, however, cascaded down from business objectives to functional objectives
rather than following the strategic intent of linking measures to key business goals. Whilst the
strategic intent of the BSC is virtuous, in reality the functional divides within the focal firms
studied drove a hybrid approach whereby the BSC was used at the more senior levels, and
WCMs were used within functions at an operational level. We found this distinction in both
DrugsCo and 4PLElectronicsCo, which were the only two focal firms we studied that employed
54
J. Godsell et al.
Table 4.
Summary of approaches to alignment.
Type of alignment
Within demand fulfilment
process (SCOR activities)
Between demand creation
and demand fulfilment processes
DrugsCo
Yes—but disconnect with
purchasing policy
CleanCo
No
TelCo
Yes—undergone
specific performance
improvement project
improve alignment
ElectronicsCo
Yes—customised
No—merchandised
Dispensing supply chain responds to real
demand on a daily replenishment basis.
New products are added in response to
consumer demand. Seasonal supply chain
uses category team to select range that is
then “pushed” out to stores
Using an approach to sales and operations
planning to align demand and supply,
which includes NPI
Internally integrated, market-orientated
supply teams that planned and co-ordinated
demand fulfilment operations
Collaborative planning and loyalty
improvement programmes with key
customers
Customised products made, shipped and
installed to customer order. Merchandised
product made to stock and called off
Yes. On shelf replenishment driven by real
consumer demand
Company
4PLCoDrinks
Scope limited to
outbound logistics and
replenishment.
4PLCoElectronics Scope limited to regional
logistics
No. React to demand that is placed on the
network
With NPI process
N/A
From a process
improvement
perspective
N/A, not available.
the BSC approach. A further pitfall of the use of WCMs at an operational level is that they drive
the optimisation of individual functions rather than the supply chain as a whole, as found in
4PLCoElectronics. The performance measurement system employed in this supply chain was,
in many respects, exemplary. Metrics were collected at all stages in the supply chain—daily,
weekly, monthly and quarterly—and were actively reviewed through telephone calls, face-toface meetings and business review meetings. The format and content were identical across
the supply chain and the measures were used to drive performance improvement and reward;
and with reward lies the danger. There has been a shift over the last 10 years or so towards
metrics that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely (SMART). This has led
Table 5.
Performance measurement characteristics.
Company
Type of metric system
Consistent application across the SC
Review period
DrugsCo
Internal echelons
Monthly
CleanCo
TelCo
BSC with localised adoption of
WCMs
WCMs
WCMs
No
Yes, for certain key measures
ElectronicsCo
WCMs
Yes, for measures co-ordinated by 4PL
4PLCoDrinks
4PLCoElectronics
N/A
Customers developed their own
metric system that was a
combination of the BSC and
WCM
N/A
Yes, highly co-ordinated by 4PL
Monthly
Weekly, monthly,
quarterly
Weekly, monthly,
quarterly
N/A
Daily, weekly,
monthly,
quarterly
Customer responsive supply chain strategy
55
managers (particularly middle managers) to expect targets that are wholly within their span
of control. This in turn leads to functionally driven targets. 4PLCoElectronics used measures
that showed that it consistently achieved its 3-day delivery target. However, for the sample
studied, 99.7% of orders were delivered after the date the customer requested the goods, and
were on average 16 days late. 4PLCoElectronics was measured only on the part of the supply
chain where it was in control, not on what the customer actually wanted.
5.
Discussion and conclusions
Whilst academics in SCM have begun to develop the view that supply chain strategy is about
a context-specific, contingent approach that begins with the customer, the reality for many
organisations is very different. The array of terminology and approaches advocated to practitioners by consultants and academics does not help the cause, and has resulted in confusion
as to how SCM should be implemented in practice. Perhaps the biggest misnomer of all is the
impression of proactive “management” that SCM portrays. Functional divides permeate even
matrix organisations, and encourage optimisation of parts of the supply chain rather than the
supply chain as a whole. This is reinforced by the use of performance metrics. Even where
BSC has been employed—with its objective of linking measures to key strategic goals—we
found that WCMs are employed that drive functional behaviour at operational levels.
It is ironic to think that some of the best examples of customer responsiveness existed
within two extreme types of organisational structure. The vertically integrated organisations
of TelCo and DrugsCo were the most organisationally advanced in their attempts to achieve
alignment, both within the demand fulfilment process and between the demand fulfilment and
creation processes. This was achieved through focused improvement programmes that used
both organisational redesign and the co-ordinating effect of the planning process. The supply
chain directors of these organisations were symbolic of a proactive attitude to alignment, while
the lack of equivalent roles in the other cases studied stood out. In horizontally integrated
supply chains, the trend towards using 4PL to manage virtual supply chains provided a very
clear focus in terms of delegated management responsibility. Unfortunately, the 4PL vision
was constrained by clients who limited their visibility of the supply chain, so it was impossible
for a 4PL to leverage the alignment responsibility with which it had been charged.
Whilst buying behaviour no doubt has the ability to provide a language that is understandable
by both the marketing and supply chain parts of an organisation, this language is currently
not spoken. Customers are segmented by turnover, which prevents an effective operational
link between supply chain strategy and marketing considerations. However, there are pockets
of good practice that give hope for the future. Strategically important accounts could be
considered as micro-segments whereby supply chain strategy is developed to meet the needs of
the micro-segment. If the buying behaviours of these accounts were identified and considered
in relation to the rest of the customer base, an opportunity might exist to offer these services to a
far broader range of customers. This could have significant benefits as the bespoke supply chain
arrangements for strategic accounts often deliver the lowest margins due to the disproportionate
amount of management resource they consume. With a broader customer base over which to
spread the management resource, there is potential for margin improvement. Similar learning
can be gained from the make-to-order environment of customised products. The make-toorder environment has an aligning effect on the demand fulfilment and creation processes
from which there is much to learn.
To conclude: the philosophy of customer responsiveness is gaining momentum in academic
communities, and practitioners are setting out to adopt its principles. However, it is a struggle
to align demand creation and fulfilment when the functional nature of many organisations at
56
J. Godsell et al.
an operational level acts as a barrier to aligning supply chains effectively with the markets
they serve. Evidence of supply chain directors with a broad remit for SCOR processes and
a voice at the highest level of the organisation are good indicators of organisations that are
making progress towards this goal. Our research found evidence of this progress only in
vertically integrated organisations. Paradoxically, the 4PL used to “manage” the supply chain
in virtual organisations has great alignment potential, but this is currently constrained by client
organisations that limit the scope of their activities in an attempt to constrain their powers. Until
some fundamental changes take place to create boundary-spanning processes, organisational
structures and performance measures, customer responsive supply chain strategy will continue
to be an unnatural act.
References
Aitken, J., Christopher, M. and Towill, D., Understanding, implementing and exploiting agility and leanness. Int. J.
Logistics, 2002, 5, 59–74.
Baker, S., New Consumer Marketing: Managing a Living Demand System, 2003 (John Wiley & Sons: New York).
Childerhouse, P., Aitken, J. and Towill, D., Analysis and design of focused demand chains. J. Operations Mgmnt,
2002, 20, 675–689.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H., Marketing Logistics (2nd edn), 2003 (Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford).
Dawes, J., Market orientation and company profitability: further evidence incorporating longitudinal data. Aust. J.
Marketing, 2000, 25, 173–200.
Dibb, S. and Wensley, R., Segmentation analysis in industrial markets: problems of integrating customer requirements
into operations strategy. Eur. J. Marketing, 2002, 36, 231–251.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A., Management Research: An Introduction, 1991 (Sage: London).
Fisher, M.L., What is the right supply chain for your product? Harvard Business Rev., 1997, 75, 105–116.
Gattorna, J.L. (Ed.), Strategic Supply Chain Alignment, 1998 (Gower: Aldershot).
Godsell, J. and Harrison, A., Customer responsiveness: an exploratory view of a supply chain strategy for the new
economy, in 9th European Operations Management Association Conference, 2002, pp. 615–624.
Goldman, S.L., Nagel, R.N. and Preiss, K., Agile Competitors and Virtual Organisations: Strategies for Enriching
the Customer, 1995 (Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York).
Harrison, A., Christopher, M., Van Hoek, R.I., Creating the Agile Supply Chain, 1999 (Institute of Logistics and
Transport).
Heikkila, J., From supply to demand chain management: efficiency and customer satisfaction. J. Operations Mgmnt,
2002, 20, 747–767.
Hill, T., Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases (3rd edn), 2000 (McMillan: Palgrave).
Hines, P., Silvi, R. and Bartolini, M., Demand chain management: an integrated approach in automotive retailing.
J. Operations Mgmnt, 2002, 20, 707–728.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J., Market orientation: the construct, research propositions and managerial implications.
J. Marketing, 1990, 54, 1–18.
Lockamy III, A. and McCormack, K., Linking SCOR planning practices to supply chain performance. Int. J.
Operations Prod. Mgmnt, 2004, 24, 1192–1218.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F., The effect of market orientation on business profitability. J. Marketing, 1990, 53,
21–35.
Olhager, J. and Selldin, E., Supply chain management survey of Swedish manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Econ.,
2004, 89, 353–361.
Piercy, N., Market-led Strategic Change (3rd edn), 2002 (Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford).
Pine II, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H., The Experience Economy: Work is a Theatre and every Business a Stage, 1999
(Harvard Business School Press: Boston).
Preiss, K., Goldman, S.L. and Nagel, R.N., Co-operate to Compete: Building Agile Business Relationships, 1996
(Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York).
Seldin, E. and Olhager, J., Testing the fit between products and supply chains, in 9th European Operations Management
Association Conference, 2002, pp. 1305–1314.
Vollman, T.E. and Cordon, C., Building successful customer–supplier alliances. Long Range Planning, 1998, 31,
684–694.
Voss, C., Tsirikis, N. and Frohlich, M., Case research in operations management. Int. J. Operations Prod. Mgmnt,
2002, 22, 195–219.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T., Lean Thinking: Banish Waste & Create Wealth in your Corporation, 1996 (Simon &
Schuster: New York).
Yin, R.K., Case Study Research: Design & Methods (3rd edn), 2003 (Sage: Thousand Oaks).