Journal of Business Logistics

A management construct cannot be used effectively by practitioners and researchers if a common agreement on its definition is lacking. Such is the case with the term “supply chain management”—so many definitions are used that there is little consensus on what it means. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine the existing research in an effort to understand the concept of “supply chain management.” Various definitions of SCM and “supply chain” are reviewed, categorized, and synthesized. Definitions of supporting constructs of SCM and a framework are then offered to establish a consistent means to conceptualize SCM. Antecedents and consequences of SCM are identified, and the boundaries of SCM in terms of business functions and organizations are proposed. A conceptual model and unified definition of SCM are then presented that indicate the nature, antecedents, and consequences of the phenomena.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

In a world of turbulent change, resilience is a key competency since even the most carefully designed supply chain is susceptible to unforeseen events. This article presents a new Supply Chain Resilience Framework to help businesses deal with change. The conceptual framework is based on extant literature and refined through a focus group methodology. Our findings suggest that supply chain resilience can be assessed in terms of two dimensions: vulnerabilities and capabilities. The Zone of Resilience is defined as the desired balance between vulnerabilities and capabilities, where it is proposed that firms will be the most profitable in the long term. We identified seven vulnerability factors composed of 40 specific attributes and 14 capability factors from 71 attributes that facilitate the measurement of resilience. The article concludes with managerial implications and recommendations for future research.

Collaboration with external supply chain entities influences increased internal collaboration, which in turn improves service performance. This relationship may be the key to helping managers understand how best to facilitate behavioral change. The implication is that collaborating with customers and suppliers is a first step toward effective collaboration within the firm.

In today's tightly connected global economy, traditional management practices that rely on “steady‐state” conditions are challenged by chaotic external pressures and turbulent change. Just in the last few years, the world has experienced a string of catastrophic events, including a global economic meltdown, a volcanic eruption in Iceland, an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, a disastrous tsunami and power blackout in Japan, and political upheavals in Africa and the Middle East. Managing the risk of an uncertain future is a challenge that requires resilience—the ability to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of turbulent change. This research develops a measurement tool titled the Supply Chain Resilience Assessment and Management (SCRAM™). Data gathered from seven global manufacturing and service firms are used to validate SCRAM™, using qualitative methodology with 1,369 empirical items from focus groups reviewing 14 recent disruptions. Critical linkages are uncovered between the inherent vulnerability factors and controllable capability factors. Through mixed‐method triangulation, this research identified 311 specific linkages that can be used to guide a resilience improvement process. Pilot testing suggests a correlation between increased resilience and improved supply chain performance.

We opened our 2010 paper in the Journal of Business Logistics with a 6th century quote by Heraclitus – “The only constant is change.” This immutable law certainly holds in today's volatile business world, especially for supply chain management, and has been the driving factor behind the interest in resilience. Since the seminal works of the mid‐to‐late 1990s and early 2000s, the supply chain discipline has progressed toward a common understanding of resilience. But we're not there yet. This paper reflects on the impact of our 2010 paper, and envisions future opportunities for advances in resilience that will improve both day‐to‐day business continuity and long‐term sustainability. We are honored to be selected for this 40th Anniversary Issue of the Journal of Business Logistics, and proud that our paper has been recognized as the most cited of the decade.

The concern and study of supply risk and supply continuity has recently come to the forefront in managing business and conducting research. This empirical study of U.S. and German firms investigates the relationship between perceived supply risk sources and supply disruption occurrence, as well as the use of supply chain resiliency practices to reduce disruption frequency. We demonstrate that supply managers' concerns with risk emanating from suppliers and the supply market are positively related to supply disruption occurrence. We further show how and when implementing flexibility and redundancy may reduce the effects of supply disruptions.

More than a decade ago, other fields started to challenge the equilibrium‐focused meaning of resilience. They suggested that resilience does not just relate to the ability of a system to “bounce back” after an impeding event, but also to the capacity to adapt and transform. The operations and supply chain management literature remains surprisingly disconnected from these debates. This essay sets out to further our theoretical knowledge of what resilience means (or means to others) by disentangling two prominent perspectives of resilience—engineering resilience and social‐ecological resilience—and offering an updated definition of supply chain resilience. We integrate and discuss these perspectives in the context of our understanding of the supply chain as a system. The goal is to outline the potential links and inconsistencies of these perspectives with supply chain management (SCM). From there, we seek to develop a more comprehensive understanding of what resilience means in SCM. Supply chain resilience is then no longer understood in terms of stability, but in terms of adaptation and transformation.

This forward thinking article examines the risks and rewards of using survey research firms to enable empirical data collection, and issues a cautionary note about its application. An exposition and discussion of this form of data collection in supply chain management is relevant today, due to the “survey‐fatigue” among the population of business professionals from whom we seek a response. While this approach has some history in other disciplines, it is still relatively new among supply chain management researchers. To help supply chain management scholars assess the appropriateness of this type of data collection method, this forward thinking article provides invaluable guidance as derived from the authors' recent experiences with the approach. As such, we share our observations and lessons learned. The conclusion is that the use of survey research firms for empirical data collection can be a viable, alternative approach to self‐administered surveys. However, care should be taken in its application.

As supply chains spread toward emerging economies, Western buying firms frequently face the question of whether they should commit resources to develop their suppliers in these regions in terms of environmental issues. Supplier development researchers have just begun to consider environmental aspects, and thus far, the peer‐reviewed literature has remained primarily qualitative, and often descriptive. Large‐scale empirical evidence indicating the antecedents and benefits of environmental supplier development for a buying firm is still scarce. Addressing this gap, we use stakeholder theory to complement and extend the work of Ehrgott et al. (2011) and investigate how pressures from customers, governments, and employees act as antecedents to environmental supplier development. Furthermore, we build on the resource‐based view to examine how supplier capabilities, buying firm environmental reputation, and organizational learning in the buying firm can result from such supplier development initiatives. We test the resulting model with a sample of 244 corporate procurement executives from the United States and Germany.