Issues in Supply Chain Management: Progress and potential

Issues in Supply Chain Management: Progress and potential
Douglas M. Lambert a,⁎, Matias G. Enz b
a Fisher College of Business, 506A Fisher Hall, 2100 Neil Avenue Columbus, The Ohio State University, OH 43210, United States
b Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Argentina
a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 23 August 2016
Received in revised form 12 October 2016
Accepted 1 December 2016
Available online xxxx
In a 2000 article in Industrial Marketing Management, “Issues in Supply Chain Management,” Lambert and Cooper
presented a framework for Supply Chain Management (SCM) as well as issues related to how it should be imple-
mented and directions for future research. The framework was comprised of eight cross-functional, cross-firm
business processes that could be used as a new way to manage relationships with suppliers and customers. It
was based on research conducted by a team of academic researchers working with a group of executives from
non-competing firms that had been meeting regularly since 1992 with the objective of improving SCM theory
and practice. The research has continued for the past 16 years and now covers a total of 25 years. In this paper,
we review the progress that has been made in the development and implementation of the proposed SCM frame-
work since 2000 and identify opportunities for further research.
© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
1. Introduction
In this journal in 2000, a Supply Chain Management (SCM) frame-
work was presented as a new business model and a way to create com-
petitive advantage by strategically managing relationships with key
customers and suppliers (Lambert & Cooper, 2000). It was based on
the idea that organizations do not compete as solely autonomous enti-
ties but as members of a network of companies (Anderson,
Hakansson, & Johanson, 1994). In fact, it is common that companies pur-
chase from many of the same suppliers and sell to the same customers,
so the organizations that win more often are those that best manage
these relationships. In order to successfully manage key relationships
across a network of companies, the authors proposed a framework com-
prised of eight cross-functional, cross-firm processes. Implementation
of the processes requires the involvement of all business functions.
Sixteen years have gone by since the 2000 SCM article in Industrial
Marketing Management and the terms supply chain and SCM have be-
come common in the corporate world and in academic research
(Varoutsa & Scapens, 2015). However, there is still not a consensus
view of what SCM involves or how it should be implemented (Vallet-
Bellmunt, Martínez-Fernández, & Capó-Vicedo, 2011). Given the
number of university programs devoted to SCM (many with specialized
research centers on the topic), it is startling there are only two cross-
functional, cross-firm, process-based frameworks that can be, and
have been, implemented in major corporations (Lambert, García-
Dastugue, & Croxton, 2005): The Supply Chain Operations Reference
(SCOR) model developed and endorsed by the Supply-Chain Council
(now part of The American Production and Inventory Control Society),
and the SCM framework described by Lambert and Cooper (2000).
While many areas for research still exist, the research team led by
the first author of the 2000 article has addressed many of the research
questions raised in that article. The results of 16 years of research devot-
ed to further development of the framework have been reported in a
total of 30 publications including two books, one in the fourth edition.
Our purpose in this article is to summarize the progress made, describe
how managers can benefit from using the framework and identify op-
portunities for further research. In the next section, we provide a sum-
mary of the contributions to SCM made by Lambert and Cooper
(2000). This is followed by a description of the research priorities that
the executive members identified since the early days of the research
center 1 and a timeline of the publications that resulted from the re-
search. Then, the methodologies used to refine and extend the original
SCM framework since 2000 are described. Next, we provide the re-
search findings including: an updated definition of SCM; an evaluation
of the premise that the new basis for competition is supply chain vs.
supply chain; an explanation of why supply chain management is
about relationship management; a description of two tools that can be
used to structure key supply chain relationships; an overview of supply
chain mapping; and, a summary of changes to the original supply chain
framework described in the 2000 article. This is followed by a section on
the SCM framework in 2016 which includes: a description of the current
state of the SCM framework; revised process descriptions and figures;
guidelines for implementing the SCM processes; findings on value co-
Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [e-mail] (D.M. Lambert).
1 The research center involves executives from non-competing firms and academics
who have been meeting regularly since 1992 with the objective of improving SCM theory
and practice.
IMM-07437; No of Pages 16
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.12.002
0019-8501/© 2016 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Industrial Marketing Management
Please cite this article as: Lambert, D.M., & Enz, M.G., Issues in Supply Chain Management: Progress and potential, Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.12.002

creation; an explanation of how SCM process performance affects EVA;
a description of process assessment tools; and, an updated list of man-
agement components. Then, the SCM framework is compared with
the Supply Chain Operating Reference (SCOR) model. The paper ends
with opportunities for future research and conclusions.
2. The supply chain management framework in 2000
The original article (Lambert & Cooper, 2000) described the out-
comes of empirical research conducted by a team of academics and ex-
ecutives who met regularly since 1992 with the goal of developing a
normative SCM framework. The contributions of the article included:
1) a clarification in terminology regarding the differences between lo-
gistics (an organizational function) and SCM (the management of a net-
work of companies); 2) a definition of SCM that focused on the
integration of eight macro business processes across firms; 3) a require-
ment that the eight SCM processes are managed by cross-functional
teams that involve all key business functions; 4) a recognition of the im-
portance of managing business relationships within a complex network
of companies; 5) a description of methods for mapping the supply chain
network structure and for identifying the supply chain members with
whom key business processes should be linked (i.e., customer and
supplier segmentation); 6) a description of the eight key SCM
processes that need to be implemented; 7) an explanation of nine
management components to manage each process; 8) a list of
recommendations for implementation; and, 9) a summary of directions
for future research.
The predominant definitions of SCM that existed at the time the
research center began in 1992 resembled the contemporary under-
standing of logistics management. The nature of logistics and SCM
as functional silos within companies remained unchallenged,
which created confusion for managers and academics. For many,
this confusion continues to exist (Hingley, Lindgreen, & Grant,
2015). Also, the complexity required to manage all suppliers back
to the point of origin and all intermediaries to the point of consump-
tion by a single function made the popular definitions of SCM unreal-
istic and impracticable at a minimum. The following definition of
SCM, developed with input from the members of the research center,
changed the focus from a functional orientation to one that empha-
sized the management of business processes across companies to
create a competitive advantage.
“Supply chain management is the integration of key business pro-
cesses from end user through original suppliers that provides
products, services and information that add value for customers
and other stakeholders” (Lambert & Cooper, 2000, p. 66).
The research conducted with the member companies combined
with concepts from the marketing channels literature led to a “concep-
tual framework of supply chain management” (Lambert & Cooper, 2000,
p. 69) that described three major interrelated steps that needed to be
designed and implemented in order to successfully manage a supply
chain. The first step consisted of identifying the key supply chain mem-
bers with whom to link processes.
The second step consisted of determining what processes needed to
be implemented with each of the key supply chain members. In order to
successfully achieve cross-firm process integration, the development of
standard supply chain processes was considered necessary because
communication problems may occur when firms have different number
of processes, different process definitions or different activities included
within each process (Lambert & Cooper, 2000; Piercy, 2009). The eight
key SCM processes identified by the research team are shown in Fig. 1,
which comes from the 2000 article and provides a simplified represen-
tation of the eight key SCM processes cutting across functional and in-
tercompany silos.
The third step was to determine the right level of integration and
management to be applied to each process link. The research team iden-
tified nine management components that should be considered when
implementing the processes. The level of integration of a supply chain
process link could be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the number
and intensity of the components implemented in that link.
Lambert and Cooper (2000, p. 65) stated that: “Thus far, there has
been little guidance from academia, which in general has been following,
rather than leading, business practice.” In an effort to keep the SCM
framework relevant for the business community and academics, all of
the elements described in this section have been improved upon or ex-
tended since its publication in Industrial Marketing Management in 2000.
In order to reflect these changes, the definition of SCM was updated, the
eight key SCM processes were developed in detail (one article was devot-
ed to each process) and complemented with detailed implementation
guidelines and tools. Also, the management components were updated.
These changes are described in the following sections of this paper.
3. Supply chain management research priorities and publications,
1992 to 2016
On April 23 and 24, 1992, executives from six companies met with
the lead author to begin a research center. There were a number of
Fig. 1. The supply chain management framework in 2000 (Source: Lambert & Cooper, 2000).
2 D.M. Lambert, M.G. Enz / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Lambert, D.M., & Enz, M.G., Issues in Supply Chain Management: Progress and potential, Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.12.002

things that made this research center unique at the time, but the two
most significant were that the members would be executives from
non-competing companies and the executives would determine the re-
search agenda. Each company would contribute $20,000 per year and
two people from each company could attend the meetings. The mission
was to provide the opportunity for leading practitioners and academics
to pursue the critical issues related to achieving excellence in SCM.
Membership consisted of representatives of firms recognized as indus-
try leaders. Balance was maintained both as to the nature of the firms
and the expertise of their representatives, and the membership was
targeted at 12 to 15 firms in order to preserve the intimacy provided
by the smaller size.
Fig. 2 provides a timeline of the topics addressed by the research
team and the publications that resulted. The first research project
funded by the companies was on the topic of partnerships (see Fig.
2 and Table 1). The executives were unanimous in their belief that
this should be the first research project because the long-term suc-
cess of their organizations would depend on the ability to collaborate
with key customers and suppliers, and their companies were not
good at this. They gave examples of relationships that were called
partnerships and where there was a great deal of excitement in the
beginning but, as one executive explained, “most of these relation-
ships turned out to be bad marriages that ended in divorce.” The
members identified 18 relationships that were considered to be
good partnerships. They believed that if we studied these relation-
ships, we would learn what made them successful so they could
build more relationships like these and have fewer relationships
that failed to meet expectations. Unlike previous partnership re-
search which was based on surveys to a single informant on one
side of the relationship, a multiple case study approach was used in
order to increase the robustness and the managerial meaningfulness
of the findings (Baba, 1988; Eisenhardt, 1989). A 45 question
interview guide was used to structure interviews with multiple indi-
viduals on each side of each relationship.
A case report was developed on each relationship and the members
involved were given a copy to discuss within their organizations. It was
decided that some of these relationships were not partnerships even
though they were win-win business relationships. It was also recog-
nized that when relationships were partnerships they were not all the
same: there were degrees of partnering. In 1996, the Partnership
Model, a tool that can be used to determine when a partnership is ap-
propriate and to structure a relationship to meet the expectations of
both parties was published (Lambert, Emmelhainz, & Gardner, 1996a,
1996b).
Since 1996, the Partnership Model has been used to structure, in a
one and one-half day meeting, more than 100 relationships including
complex relationships such as the one between The Coca-Cola Company
and Cargill and less complex ones such as Wendy's and Tyson Foods
(Lambert & Knemeyer, 2004). An article was published describing a
partnership between Whirlpool Corporation and ERX, a third-party lo-
gistics provider (Lambert, Emmelhainz, & Gardner, 1999), and another
describing 20 relationships that were used to validate the model
(Lambert, Knemeyer, & Gardner, 2004).
In 1995, with the partnership research coming to completion, effort
was directed at identifying the next research project and two topics
emerged: measuring and selling value, and SCM. The managers wanted
to focus on the development of a framework to assist them in coordinat-
ing activities across corporate functions and with other key members of
the supply chain. They viewed SCM as a way to achieve a competitive
advantage through the implementation of cross-functional processes
which would achieve the necessary coordination. In 1995, it was decid-
ed that an executive seminar as well as teaching materials needed to be
developed and the first seminar was offered at the Marriott Sawgrass
Resort in February of 1996. The seminar was structured based on theSupply Chain Management Framework Research (1995)IJLM 1997 GSCF SCM frameworkIJLM 1998 GSCF SCM frameworkIMM 2000 GSCF SCM frameworkSupply Chain Management ProcessesGeneral DescriptionsIJLM 2001SCLJ 2001SCMR 2004S-D Logic 2006Specific DescriptionsIJLM 2002 Returns ManagementIJLM 2002 Demand ManagementIJLM 2003 Order FulfillmentIJLM 2003 Customer Service ManagementIJLM 2003 Manufacturing Flow ManagementIJLM 2004 Product Development and CommercializationJB&IM 2010 Customer Relationship ManagementSCMIJ 2012 Supplier Relationship ManagementPartnership Research (May, 1992)MM 1996 Model DevelopmentIJLM 1996 Model DevelopmentJBL 1999 Logistics PartnershipJBL 2004 Model ValidationHBR 2004 Example Using ModelValue Research (1995)IJLM 2000Supply Chain MetricsIJLM 2001Internet enabled coordination in the SCIMM 2003Supply Chain Management BooksSCM:P,P,P 2004SCM:P,P,P 2 nd Ed. 2006SCM:P,P,P 3rd Ed. 2008BHPBR 2010SCM:P,P,P 4th Ed. 2014Inter-Organizational Time-BasedPostponement in the SCJBL 2007Using Cross-functional, Cross-firm Teamsto Co-Create ValueIMM 2012JMM 2012JBL 2015SCQ 2015An Evaluation of Process-Oriented SCM FrameworksJBL 2005The Role of Logistics Managers in SCMJBL 20081252021781924292625313234351633346910182311121314151728302227
Fig. 2. Research streams that comprise the 2016 supply chain management framework. Note: encircled numbers refer to the citations shown in Table 1 and arrows show how research
areas are connected.
3D.M. Lambert, M.G. Enz / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Lambert, D.M., & Enz, M.G., Issues in Supply Chain Management: Progress and potential, Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.12.002

SCM framework which at the time included seven processes. An eighth
process, returns management, was added prior to the second seminar
held in April 1997. The framework and a definition of SCM were pub-
lished in 1997 (Cooper, Lambert, & Pagh, 1997) based on the contents
of the seminars and research (See Fig. 2 and Table 1). The framework
was further developed as the research continued and follow-up articles
were published in 1998 (Lambert, Cooper, & Pagh, 1998) and 2000
(Lambert & Cooper, 2000). Also, an article summarizing the research
on measuring and selling value was published (Lambert & Burduroglu,
2000).
In 2000, an MBA course on SCM based on the framework was of-
fered for the first time at The Ohio State University. In 2001, an article
was published on supply chain metrics research (Lambert & Pohlen,
2001) in which process performance was tied to EVA® (Economic
Value Added) and it was concluded that there were no end-to-end fi-
nancial measures possible for the entire supply chain. Rather, SCM
was really about relationship management, and the customer rela-
tionship management process of the seller organization and the sup-
plier relationship management process of the customer organization
formed the links in the chain. Performance at each link would be
measured as the impact of the relationship on each organization's in-
cremental profitability. Also in 2001, an article was published that
described the strategic and operational sub-processes for each of
the eight SCM processes (Croxton, García-Dastugue, Lambert, &
Rogers, 2001).
Publications based on our continuing research provided details on
each process: the returns management process (Rogers, Lambert,
Croxton, & García-Dastugue, 2002), the demand management process
(Croxton, Lambert, García-Dastugue, & Rogers, 2002), the order fulfill-
ment process (Croxton, 2003), the customer service management pro-
cess (Bolumole, Knemeyer, & Lambert, 2003), the manufacturing flow
management process (Goldsby & García-Dastugue, 2003), the product
development and commercialization process (Rogers, Lambert, &
Knemeyer, 2004), the customer relationship management process,
(Lambert, 2004, 2010), and the supplier relationship management pro-
cess (Lambert, 2004; Lambert & Schwieterman, 2012). In 2004, the first
edition of Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Perfor-
mance (Lambert, 2004) was published.
Table 1
Literature published during 25 years of research on partnerships and the supply chain management framework. Note: The numbers shown in the first column reflect the encircled
numbers shown in Fig. 2.
No. Reference
1 Lambert, D. M., Emmelhainz, M. A., & Gardner, J. T. (1996). So You Think You Want a Partner? Marketing Management, 5, 2, 24–41.
2 Lambert, D. M., Emmelhainz, M. A., & Gardner, J. T. (1996a). Developing and Implementing Supply Chain Partnerships. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 7,
2 1–17.
3 Cooper, M. C., Lambert, D. M., & Pagh, J. D. (1997). Supply Chain Management: More Than a New Name for Logistics. The International Journal or Logistics Management, 8, 1,
1–14.
4 Lambert, D. M., Cooper, M. C., & Pagh, J. D. (1998) Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities. The International Journal of Logistics
Management, 9, 2, 1–19.
5 Lambert, D. M., Emmelhainz, M. A., & Gardner, J. T. (1999). Building Successful Logistics Partnerships. Journal of Business Logistics, 20, 1, 165–181.
6 Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000). Issues in Supply Chain Management. Industrial Marketing Management, 29, 1, 65–83.
7 Lambert, D. M., & Burduroglu, R. (2000). Measuring and Selling the Value of Logistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 11, 1, 1–17.
8 Lambert, D. M., & Pohlen, T. L. (2001). Supply Chain Metrics. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 12, 1, 1–19.
9 Croxton K. L., García-Dastugue, S. J., Lambert, D. M., & Rogers, D. S. (2001). The Supply Chain Management Processes. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 12,
2, 13–36.
10 Lambert, D. M. (2001). Supply Chain Management: What Does it Involve? Supply Chain and Logistics Journal, 4, 4, 1–25.
11 Rogers, D. S., Lambert, D. M., Croxton, K. L., & García-Dastugue, S. J. (2002). The Returns Management Process. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 13, 2, 1–18.
12 Croxton, K. L., Lambert, D. M., García-Dastugue, S. J., & Rogers, D. S. (2002). The Demand Management Process. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 13, 2,
51–66.
13 Croxton, K. L. (2003). The Order Fulfillment Process. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 14, 1, 19–32.
14 Bolumole, Y. A., Knemeyer, A. M., & Lambert, D. M. (2003). The Customer Service Management Process. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 14, 2, 15–31.
15 Goldsby, T. J., & García-Dastugue, S. J. (2003). The Manufacturing Flow Management Process. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 12, 2, 33–52.
16 García-Dastugue, S. J., & Lambert, D. M. (2003). Internet-enabled Coordination in the Supply Chain. Industrial Marketing Management, 32, 3, 251–263.
17 Rogers, D. S., Lambert, D. M., & Knemeyer, A. M. (2004). The Product Development and Commercialization Process. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15, 1,
43–56.
18 Lambert, D. M. (2004). The Eight Essential Supply Chain Management Processes. Supply Chain Management Review, 8, 6, 18–26
19 Lambert, D. M. (2004). Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance. Sarasota, FL: Supply Chain Management Institute.
20 Lambert, D. M., Knemeyer, A. M. & Gardner, J. T. (2004). Supply Chain Partnerships: Model Validation and Implementation. Journal of Business Logistics, 25, 2, 21–42.
21 Lambert, D. M., & Knemeyer, A. M. (2004). We're In This Together. Harvard Business Review, 82, 12, 114–122.
22 Lambert, D. M., García-Dastugue, S. J., & Croxton, K. L. (2005). An Evaluation of Process-Oriented Supply Chain Management Frameworks. Journal of Business Logistics, 26, 1,
25–54.
23 Lambert, D. M., & García-Dastugue, S. J. (2006). Cross-Functional Processes for the Implementation of Service-Dominant Logic. In R. F. Lusch & S. L. Vargo, (Eds.), The
Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate and Directions. M.E. Sharpe Publishers, 150–165.
24 Lambert, D. M. (2006). Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance (2nd ed.). Sarasota, FL: Supply Chain Management Institute.
25 García-Dastugue, S. J., & Lambert, D. M. (2007). Interorganizational Time-Based Postponent in the Supply Chain. Journal of Business Logistics, 28, 1, 57–81.
26 Lambert, D. M. (2008). Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance (3rd ed.). Sarasota, FL: Supply Chain Management Institute.
27 Lambert, D. M., García-Dastugue, J. M., & Croxton, K. L. (2008). The Role of Logistics Managers in the Cross-functional Implementation of Supply Chain Management.
Journal of Business Logistics, 29, 1, 113–132.
28 Lambert, D. M. (2010). Customer Relationship Management as a Business Process. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 25, 1, 4–17.
29 Lambert D. M, Knemeyer A. M., & Gardner, J. T. (2010). Building High Performance Business Relationships. Sarasota, FL: Supply Chain Management Institute.
30 Lambert, D. M., & Schwieterman, M. A. (2012). Supplier Relationship Management as a Macro Business Process. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17,
3337–352.
31 Enz, M. G., & Lambert D. M. (2012). Using Cross-functional, Cross-firm Teams to Co-create Value: The Role of Financial Measures. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 3,
495–507.
32 Lambert, D. M., & Enz, M. G. (2012). Managing and Measuring Value Co-creation in Business-to-Business Relationships. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 13–14,
1588–1625.
33 Lambert, D. M. (2014). Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance (4th ed.). Sarasota, FL: Supply Chain Management Institute.
34 Enz, M. G., & Lambert, D. M. (2015). Measuring the Financial Benefits of Cross-Functional Integration Influences Management's Behavior. Journal of Business Logistics, 36,1,
25–48.
35 Lambert, D. M., & Enz, M. G. (2015). Co-creating Value: The Next Level in Customer-supplier Relationships. CSCMP's Supply Chain Quarterly, 9, 3, 22–28.
4 D.M. Lambert, M.G. Enz / Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Lambert, D.M., & Enz, M.G., Issues in Supply Chain Management: Progress and potential, Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.12.002