u10_dq
Decision Sciences © 2013 The Authors Volume 44 Number 3 Decision Sciences Journal © 2013 Decision Sciences Institute June 2013
The Interdisciplinary Future of Supply Chain Management Research
Nada R. Sanders^ and Zach G. Zacharia Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, Lehigh University, Rauch Business Center, 621 Taylor Street, Bethlehem, PA 18015, e-mail: nrs209@lehigh.edu, zgz208@lehigh.edu
Brian S. Fúgate Department of Management, Colorado State University, 1201 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, e-mail: Brian.Fugate@business.colostate.edu
ABSTRACT
Since the term supply chain management (SCM) was first introduced over 30 years ago, the field of SCM has undergone numerous transformations. Today, it. is a prevailing theme in scholarly and popular research, and numerous disciplines claim its ownership. However, current and emerging SCM research challenges are becoming increasingly more complex. Fragmented and "siloed" research efforts across a range of disciplines may not be adequate to address the full complexities associated with these phenomena. We interviewed 50 SCM academic thought leaders, across a range of disciplines, and 20 SCM executives with the goal of helping researchers develop a consistent stream of work that builds on existing research, identifies relevant research directions, and provides guidance for the future. Although there were some differences in opinions, there was consensus on the boundary characteristics of SCM, as well as the identification of interdisciplinary research (IDR) as necessary for the enablement of SCM to address the numerous current and emerging intractable SCM challenges. In this article, viie present these findings and provide a path forward based on the collective wisdom of these academics and executives. [Submitted: June 24, 2011. Revised: March 16, 2012; July 2, 2012; August 11, 2012. Accepted: August 15, 2012.]
Subject Areas: Interdisciplinary Research, Qualitative Interviews, Qualita- tive Research, and and Supply Chain Management.
INTRODUCTION
Current and emerging supply chain management (SCM) research challenges, such as global value creation and delivery, health care services delivery, sustainabil- ity initiatives that drive environmental, social, as well as economic improve- ments, or capturing market opportunities in emerging markets through improved food distribution networks are increasingly more complex, cross-functional, and
^Corresponding author.
413
414 Interdisciplinary Future ofSCM Research
consequently, multidisciplinary. Sanders and Wagner (2011) recommend consid- ering the full complexities associated with these supply chain phenomena in order to make significant advances in these and other important research problem ar- eas. They emphasize the need for research that identifies alternative perspectives that view the phenomena from different lenses to address the points of system interdependence in the supply chain.
Achieving this goal, however, is a considerable and perhaps daunting chal- lenge; given that current SCM research is largely discipline focused, its ability to address these challenges, which require holistic and comprehensive solutions is limited. Different disciplines such as operations, logistics, supply management, marketing, and information systems (IS) have developed their own models of SCM with limited cross-referencing. The result has been a reduction in the normal build up and accretion of theory based on past research (Stock, 2009). Scholar- ship in a discipline is largely dependent on the progressive creation, exchange, and accumulation of knowledge over time (Linderman & Chandrasekaran, 2010). Unfortunately, SCM researchers have not engaged in the cross-disciplinary knowl- edge exchange required to address the seemingly intractable emerging research challenges.
To improve the potential impact of SCM on these emerging research chal- lenges, we interviewed 50 SCM journal editors and 20 SCM executives and com- piled their insights. Our goal is to provide researchers information that will help them develop a consistent stream of work that builds on existing research, identifies relevant research directions, establishes universally acceptable rigorous method- ologies, and provides guidance for the future. We consider this to be the most effec- tive approach considering the field's rapid rate of change and the significant time delay from the time a change occurs to when it is reported in academic journals (Melnyk, Lummus,Vokurka, Burns, & Sandor, 2009). The interviewed scholars spanned the disciplines of operations management, logistics, supply management, and marketing—the disciplines identified as foundational to SCM (Frankel, Bolumole, Eltantawy, Paulraj, & Gundlach, 2008). In addition, we included schol- ars from management IS (MIS) based on responses from academic participants. Our objective was to extract commonality of opinion on the current state of SCM, identify its future direction, and outline a plan. Although there were differences in opinions among those interviewed, some common themes emerged. The most notable theme is that the identification of interdisciplinary research (IDR) is nec- essary for the enablement of SCM to address numerous current and emerging research challenges. Further, there was agreement on the steps researchers and academicians should take to enable and foster this development.
The interviewed executives were all directly involved in SCM within their respective organizations, thereby providing an applied perspective. Although their responses underscored many of the same challenges raised by the academics, the practitioners noted that their own views are organizationally and industri- ally siloed. They recognized the breadth of viewpoints SCM requires and, given their own limitations, looked to academia as a source of solutions to many of their SCM problems. In this article, we present these findings and provide a path to a new vision of SCM based on the collective wisdom of these scholars and executives.
Sanders, Zacharia, and Fúgate 415
METHODOLOGY
In contrast to past research that relied on Delphi studies (e.g., Monczka & Markham, 2007; Melnyk et al., 2009), we interviewed SCM thought leaders (unless otherwise noted, the term "thought leader" refers to both academics and execu- tives) and used their insights to develop methods of addressing the complexities of SCM and to identify a path forward. Through a systematic nonprobabilistic purposive sampling method starting with journal editors, saturation of findings (Strauss & Corbin, 2008) was reached with 50 academic thought leaders (at least eight from each of the five disciplines) and 20 SCM executive thought lead- ers across eight industries. Tables A1-A3 provide the sample selection process and list the journals from which editors were interviewed and the executives by industry.
To ensure trustworthiness of findings, we meticulously followed qualitative research analysis guidelines offered by Strauss and Corbin (2008) during research design and implementation. We chose to use in-depth semistructured interviews, following the ethnographic grand tour technique (Spradley, 1979; McCracken, 1988). Questions included
(1) What is SCM, what are its boundaries, and how has it changed?
(2) What is the future direction of SCM as it relates to existing functions?
(3) How would you improve upon the thought and practice of SCM?
Our interest was to capture similarities and differences among interview respondents' perceptions and attitudes about the phenomena in question rather than to provide generalizability.
We followed Strauss and Corbin's (2008) open, axial, and selective coding process so that we could derive themes from the data transcribed during the 70 interviews (facilitated by QDA Miner 3.2.3). This systematic process allowed us to identify properties and dimensions of the concepts that were discovered in the data. It also enabled us to relate themes to their corresponding subthemes, properties, and dimensions, and to integrate and refine our findings and present them in manuscript form. We present our findings in the following section, based on the prevailing themes that emerged. Only a few representative quotes (of hundreds usable) are presented for each theme (Suddaby, 2006).
FINDINGS
Our objective was to extract commonality of opinion from leading SCM scholars and executives to identify the current state and developmental direction of SCM. Although there was disagreement among the scholars and executives, there was also consensus on key issues. Most notably there was agreement on the identification of IDR (expressed through comments from executives as the need for cross-functional integration to solve complex problems) as a key element for the development of SCM into a respected discipline and for its enablement to tackle current and emerging intractable research challenges. There was universal agreement that, as a result of the cross-functional nature of SCM challenges in practice (highlighted
416 ¡nterdisciplinary Future of SCM Research
Figure 1: IDR framework.
Recognition of Inhemnl Inter-Funclional/
Organi2alionat Nature of Business Problems
Trustworthy Insights to Inter- Fjjnctionei/Organizational SCM
Problems
or Colleges & SCM ResearT:h
Access to SCM D
sty, Innovative Methods Availability/Access to Date,
Methods, & Expertise
Reduction ofMyopit Disciplined-Besed
Perspective in Resaarch & Teaching/'
Less 'Turf V\fyrs" 'Between Disdptines & Increased Potential of Innovative SCM Ideas
by the executives), SCM is being studied from a wide range of disciplines and diverse theoretical perspectives. This enables us to conclude that SCM is by nature interdisciplinary and boundary spanning. Accordingly, in this section we present each of the IDR findings, develop conclusions, and provide a path forward based on the collective opinions of the respondents.
Need for IDR
This interdisciplinary nature of SCM results in significant research complexities. With disparate disciplines studying segmented aspects of SCM, there is a significant risk of inconsistencies in findings, overlapping results, and a general fragmentation of the field. Formal IDR is identified by the participants as the critical requirement for the development and evolution of SCM into a respected discipline. Four factors were identified as necessary to establish IDR, each having a reinforcing relation- ship. These factors form an IDR framework and include relevance, rigor, impact, and culture, as shown in Figure 1.
SCM is viewed as a field well positioned to be the source of solutions for contemporary business challenges given its breadth and interdisciplinary nature. Scholars and executives believed the ability to conduct truly relevant and impact- ful research in a rigorous manner to be essential, and recognized that the inability to do so could have negative consequences such as a decline in both research funding and access to company data. An IDR approach to SCM research was
Sanders, Zacharia, and Fúgate 417
seen as a way to address the increasing number of intractable business challenges. Those interviewed also reported that such research is likely to generate higher levels of external funding, further incentivizing IDR. Executives, however, in- dicated that academics often provide solutions that are functionally based, and not integrated with other organizational functions and processes. They provided examples of marketing academics offering customer-focused solutions, supply management academics offering supplier management-focused solutions, and IS academics offering system connectivity-focused solutions. Similarly, the current siloed academic environment was seen as a significant obstacle, often creating an unsupportive culture for IDR. The acadetnics made an urgent call for academic dis- ciplines to work together to deliver robust solutions to relevant business problems for the benefit of the academic community as a whole.
Thought leaders stressed that IDR serves to facilitate more rigorous SCM research, as it provides the opportunity to draw from broader sources of data, methods, and expertise. One executive provided the example that a capabilities- development lens, such as offered by operations management or logistics, may result in a global supply chain network structure that optimizes organizational ca- pabilities with strategic intent, but does not account for other factors such as risks of potential future scenarios (Ferdows, 2010). By contrast, applying a risk man- agement lens to the same problem may result in a network structure that minimizes identified risk probabilities such as network disruptions or financial risk, but may not fully leverage organizational capabilities. Combining the risk management and capabilities-development perspectives leads to a more robust and reliable solution (Sanders & Wagner, 2011). As such, IDR enhances research rigor, results in greater insights and contributions to practice, and ultimately has the potential to gener- ate greater financial support from industry, reinforcing continued IDR. Finally, an additional identified benefit of DDR is a reduction in the myopic, discipline- based perspective in research and teaching, and mitigation of "turf wars" between disciplines, ultimately facilitating innovative SCM breakthroughs. Therefore, we conclude that it is necessary to apply IDR to SCM to address relevant business challenges in a more rigorous and reliable manner.
Barriers to IDR The most cited barrier to IDR was the discipline-based perspective of SCM. For instance, most SCM literature reviews are largely discipline-based, ignoring par- allel research conducted in other disciplines (Burgess, Singh, & Koroglu, 2006). While it was recognized that marketing, operations, logistics, supply management, marketing, IS, finance, econotnics, accounting, industrial and mechanical engi- neering, and even psychology and sociology study phenomena that are important to SCM, it was perceived that each discipline works on SCM research in isolation, ignoring research conducted in the other disciplines. When discussing supply chain relationships, one academic highlighted the lack of operations researchers citing marketing channels literature, and another academic commented that marketing ignores operations supply chain relationship research. As another example, an in- terviewee stated that in behavioral research " . . . our publications only conduct a cursory review of psychology and sociology literature, much less pull in co-authors
418 Interdisciplinary Future of SCM Research
Figure 2: Path forward for SCM research.
^ Barriers ^ No consensus about domain/derm i lion of SCM & lack of knowledge about oihcr disciplines' role/\'alue in SCM
Incentive misalignment from discipline-specific practices and college
. structures j .
interdisciplinary Research
EfTectiveness
for Researchers to Facilitate IDR Rigorously Identify Relevant Resenreh: •"Get hands ditiy" •Lead, not follow business community •Program of research employing triangulation of methods •"Step ouiside the box"
Collubonit« wilh others: •Ulih business eommunity •With other disciplines
Leaders promote IDR: •Senior SCM researchers assemble teams consisting of researchers from all business disciplines •Editors:
o Include other disciplines on review boards o Special issues on (DR o Force thorough review of all related disciplines o Take risks with IDR submissions
Target Research Contributions: •Three Communities: Academic, Business. £ Teaching 'Wahin tnalnstream SCM disciplines • 'Ouiside tnainsiream SCM disciplines /*
Thought & Practice of SCM
Strategies for Organizations Facilitate TDR
Realign Academic Structures: •Reward impact of research on business community •Reward publication in oiher disciplines •Fund conferences in other disciplines •Promote IDR teams
Restructure Professionat/Aendemic Associations •Promote altendance/collaboration with; O Academics and practitioners o Researchers from other disciplines
•Stan a new association (and corresponding journal) consisting of interdisciplinary'
nstituents from inception. Jj
from those disciplines to gain a more thorough understanding of the phenomenon." Another stated that the result has been the "reinvention of the wheel" across dis- ciplines and relatively few innovative breakthroughs in implementable research contributions.
Incentive systems Another academic-identified barrier to IDR is the current incentive structure, both informal and formal, at business schools. Academic researchers are incentivized by colleagues and the university promotion structure to publish within their own disciplines. This creates conflict among coauthors from different disciplines re- garding where to submit manuscripts. Additionally, the journal editors interviewed, discussed the difficulties in securing reviewers from different disciplines to review IDR. Therefore, we conclude that this incentive system is another significant barrier to IDR.
Strategies to Facilitate \DK While most academics understand the aforementioned barriers, we attempt to draw knowledge from thought leaders to provide tangible and implementable strategies for overcoming them. The cumulative result of integrating interview findings leads to the identification of the barriers and strategies presented in Figure 2. Collectively,
Sanders, Zacharia, and Fúgate 419
they identify a path forward for SCM researchers to follow. Specific strategies are presented next.
Relevance of SCM research
Results identified the ability to address SCM research problems as a driver of IDR. The interdisciplinary nature of SCM research was seen as necessitating IDR, and ultimately resulting in more impactful research contributions. Strategies for addressing relevant SCM problems were identified and are listed in Table A4 with representative supporting comment (Appendix).
Some academics and executives suggested that researchers should view busi- ness and society, not academia, as the end-customer of research. Other researchers would serve as "quality control experts" to ensure rigorous research in order to "separate truth from hype." Further, viewing business as the end-customer would dictate that researchers identify and thoroughly understand the relevant, pressing SCM needs facing business. These would then be used as a starting point for the creation of new innovative research ideas.
To make significant advances in SCM thought and practice, it was felt that researchers must step outside of their methodological confines. IDR has important implications for expanding researchers' methodological "toolboxes," because it provides greater access to different types of expertise and methods employed by other disciplines. As such, IDR provides great potential for the development and use of new and innovative research methods.
Cross-industry and cross-functional collaboration
Taking initiative to collaborate across industries and functions (Table A5 in the Appendix includes representative quotes for cross-industry and cross-functional collaboration) was seen as incumbent on SCM researchers. Further, academia and business were viewed as providing complementary roles in advancing SCM. This was also supported by executive interviews that expressed the business chal- lenge: practitioners are too busy with day-to-day problems to keep up with SCM challenges that are often too daunting for them; as a result, they are looking to academia for help. In the words of one executive, "they (researchers) are keep- ing us aware of what's out there from a solutions point of view. Nobody in any company no matter how big they are has the time to know everything that's go- ing on. All the software companies are trying to sell you product and it's really hard to discern what's really valuable. It just takes too much time and we end up walking away and doing nothing." Other executives expressed additional thoughts regarding the need for academic research to provide systematic, cross-functional solutions, which further highlights the need for interdisciplinary and collaborative research.
Academic thought leaders offered yet another motivation for addressing rel- evant SCM problems, due to a change in the "funding formula" of academic institutions. It was noted that financial support would continue to diminish at many academic institutions and as a result, academics would need to rely more heavily on the business community to secure research funding. Given the exec- utives' recurring interview responses requesting more cross-functional solutions.
420 Interdisciplinary Future of SCM Research
SCM research has a high likelihood of receiving such financial support given that its interdisciplinary nature is well suited for addressing inter- and intrabusiness problems.
There was a dominant opinion that to promote cross-functional collabora- tion, it is the responsibility of SCM researchers to take the lead in reaching out to disciplines outside of their core areas. One academic stressed that not doing so would result in a diluted, misrepresented understanding of SCM. The interview responses suggest that the MIS discipline is perhaps the most open to collabora- tive SCM research efforts, and thus, simply requires initiative on the part of the other mainstream SCM disciplines. However, reaching out to other disciplines was viewed as particularly important for a nascent area such as SCM that does not have a clear "discipline home." It was acknowledged by the academics that some disciplines might resist IDR, seeing it as detrimental to a deeper understanding of phenomena, and creating researchers described by the aphorism, "jack of all trades, master of none." A recommendation was that, when reaching out to other disci- plines, researchers articulate not only the downfalls of excessive specialization, but also the reciprocal benefits of IDR as compared to specialized, intradisciplinary research. The fresh, new insights gained from IDR provide additional knowledge to specialists in the related disciplines. After all, IDR not only enhances specialized research, it is entirely indebted to those specialists as interdisciplinary researchers would have no knowledge on which to build IDR without them. IDR and special- ization are complementary; they are not in competition with each other (Klien, 1996).
Role of senior researchers and editors
Promoting IDR was deemed the responsibility of senior researchers and journal editors (Table A6 provides representative quotes). This is due to inherent risks for junior, untenured faculty embarking on an IDR project due to publication challenges. As a result, senior researchers should lead the charge in taking such risks. They should also be the ones to take the initiative by forming the research team and driving the research agenda.
Journal editors were seen as playing an equally critical role. The interviewed editors were adamant regarding their role in encouraging IDR in SCM. They shared the challenges faced in providing a proper review of IDR submissions and convincing researchers outside of the traditional SCM areas of operations, logistics, supply management, and marketing to engage in IDR in SCM. They also felt that a key strategy, as editors, to promote IDR in SCM is to not only invite reviewers from other disciplines, but to also add well-known authors from other disciplines to their editorial review boards. The editors reported that inviting reviewers and editorial board members from varied disciplines not only increases their receptivity to submit their own work to the journal, but also improves the quality of reviews of IDR submissions and elevates, in the eyes of other disciplines, the perception of the journal as one that is accepting of IDR submissions. Additionally, some suggested that the inclusion of executives in the review process provides "reality checks" for the relevance of the research. Special issues on emerging IDR problems, such
Sanders, Zacharía, and Fúgate 421
as healthcare or developing markets, were seen as excellent ways to increase the citations from other disciplines, resulting in an increase in future IDR submissions.
The editors thought it important to approach the review process in a manner that facilitates IDR. One strategy they promote is to encourage authors to thor- oughly review literature from their own as well as all related disciplines (and/or seek help from experts in those areas), and to advocate associate editors and re- viewers to do likewise. For instance, one editor described a situation in which the editor told an author, "You are not getting this published in this journal unless you go back and integrate this in this article." The editor said the author responded, "I didn't know this whole literature base existed." This editor felt the traditional editorial approach would typically reject such manuscripts, but approaching the review process in the above manner would promote IDR, resulting in higher quality publications. Some editors suggested that they should be more willing to take risks on IDR submissions.
Their responses demonstrated that these editors believe these and other strategies to promote IDR will ultimately result in more citations by other dis- ciplines and will improve the credibility of their journals. However, they did not feel that journals should try to "own SCM," but rather pubhsh SCM research that provides contributions and implications for their specific journal's traditional discipline(s).
Target research outlets within and outside SCM disciplines
The prevailing opinion was to first follow the strategy of sending the highest quality SCM research to journals in the mainstream functional areas of SCM (operations management, logistics, supply management, and marketing). However, opportunities and long-term benefits of publishing high quality SCM research in other disciplines were also highlighted. Recognizing that the "A" class journals are typically not oriented toward IDR, those interviewed suggested targeting research outlets outside the mainstream SCM disciplines as another option. One academic noted, "From my experience there are a lot of [researchers] in other areas, whether it be finance, psychology, sociology, or economics, who are quite interested in the supply chain arena as a sort of laboratory in which they can apply their kind of tools and techniques." It was also suggested that publishing SCM research in journals across disciplines would serve the ancillary benefit of promoting SCM to a broader academic community. Some even felt doing so would be the only way to gain respect from the more traditional disciplines in business, as well as the university.
Further, the importance of providing research contributions to the busi- ness and teaching communities (i.e., teaching implications), in addition to the research community, was also noted. Targeting SCM research to all three audi- ences was seen as not only impacting each particular community, but as serving to build a broad respect for SCM. One prominent editor described that his objec- tive for every research project was to publish three articles: one for the research community, another for the business community, and another for the teaching community.
422 Interdisciplinary Future of SCM Research
Change aspects ofthe academic and professional infrastructure
Seventy-six percent of respondents thought that business colleges should recognize their applied nature, similar to fields such as medicine, engineering, and pharmacol- ogy. (Table A6 provides representative quotes for suggested changes to academic infrastructure.) Accordingly, the respondents suggested that colleges of business should measure and reward researcher based on its impact on business rather than on "knowledge for knowledge's sake." Rewarding researchers for publications in outlets that intentionally minimize discussions of managerial implications was seen as completely contrary to the missions of colleges of business. This view is underscored by the increasing need for business colleges to become financially more self-sufficient due to decreasing government support. Respondents further asserted that the viability of some business colleges might be in question if re- searchers do not explicitly show the value and relevance of their research to end customers.
Some thought leaders predicted that in the future, business college rankings might also consider research output that addresses relevant interfunctional busi- ness problems, driven by the need to obtain external funding. Recognizing the interfunctional nature of the SCM problems that businesses face, thought lead- ers recommended revisions to current business colleges' incentive structures in order to promote IDR. They suggested, for example, rewarding researchers for publications in other disciplines, funding attendance to other disciplines' con- ferences, promoting IDR and teaching teams, and encouraging the recognition, by promotion and tenure committees, of the additional challenges faced by re- searchers conducting IDR. Another suggestion made was for academic institu- tions to consider cluster hiring, a current trend at some institutions. When cluster hiring, institutions do not hire individual faculty for each department. Rather, a grand initiative is selected, such as sustainability or smart grid technology and a cluster of faculty from different disciplines is hired across the institution for this purpose.
Interviewees felt that professional SCM-related associations should be en- couraged to promote collaboration across disciplines and functions. It was sug- gested that these associations actively invite researchers from a variety of disci- plines and practitioners from various functions to participate in their conferences, and should even consider providing travel funding, to further promote IDR. This was seen as a vehicle for creating opportunities for researchers from disparate disciplines to begin collaborative discussions.
Most existing associations were seen as too steeped in the traditional dis- cipline from which they were conceived to be capable of sufficiently creating a collaborative IDR culture. Current professional organizations were viewed to be largely slanted toward one discipline and to have a myopic worldview which would be impossible to overcome. Executives felt that this further exacerbated the func- tionally based nonintegrated solutions provided by academics. Accordingly, they suggested the consideration of creating new associations consisting of interdisci- plinary constituents from the inception ofthe association. These new associations could set the direction, or at least provide potential research initiatives, for IDR and teaching. Thought leaders felt this approach would provide a unique venue to
Sanders, Zacharia, and Fúgate ATi
leam and promote greater receptivity and discussion of emerging and intractable SCM problems.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND CONCLUSIONS
We conducted in-depth interviews of SCM journal editors and business executives across multiple industries in order to help define the future direction of SCM, and to identify critical barriers in the development of the field and strategies to over- come them. The interviewed scholars spanned the disciplines identified as founda- tional to SCM: operations management, logistics, supply management, marketing, and IS.
Our study identifies strategies that are incumbent on the academic community to implement. There are, however, other stakeholders that will also play a signifi- cant role in SCM's future. It would be meaningful to further investigate perceptions from junior faculty, deans, department heads, and junior business managers who will also influence and shape the future of SCM. The objective of our research necessitated a qualitative research approach as it attempts to develop a body of knowledge about a particular research interest by capturing the individual's point of view and providing rich descriptions. However, this qualitative approach is not without limitations. Findings from qualitative research are derived from attitudes, perceptions, and opinions of a limited number of informants. Our approach appro- priately allowed the emergence of important, relevant issues and actions necessary to address the future of SCM thought and practice. Our methodology limited the number of editors and journals from which we collected data. Future research could extend our qualitative findings through large-scale surveys of a broader set of relevant academics and practitioners to determine the generalizability of our findings. This would provide strong empirical evidence to use in driving the action plans, which were identified by influential SCM thought leaders in our study.
We have presented these findings to help provide a path forward based on the collective wisdom of these scholars. Although the thought leaders and executives did not agree on everything, there was commonality of opinion on certain key issues. First, our findings support the idea that much of the research in SCM continues to exhibit a siloed, discipline-based perspective. This results in parallel research effort, "reinvention of the wheel," and the inability of research to adequately respond to the complex and pressing SCM problems that business organizations face. Second, we identify IDR as a necessary tool with which to speed the maturation of SCM, to make it possible to tackle current and emerging business challenges, and to increase the effectiveness of specialization research. Third, we establish that it is incumbent on the mainstream functions of SCM to initiate and promote collaborative initiatives, based on discipline maturity and inclusiveness. Fourth, a discipline-based perspective of SCM is a significant barrier to IDR. This is driven by lack of a holistic perspective about SCM and its domain, and the current informal and formal incentive systems of business schools. Fifth, key incentives for DDR were identified, including that there is an increasing need for research funding from business, and that continuing to receive such funding will be contingent on the ability of academia to address interdisciplinary SCM problems.
424 Interdisciplinary Future of SCM Research
Finally, we outlined a path forward (IDR) which places the responsibility on each individual SCM researcher as well as on the SCM research community as a whole.
REFERENCES
Burgess, K., Singh, J. P., & Koroglu, R. (2006). Supply chain management: A structured literature review and implications for future research. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 26(1), 703-729.
Ferdows, K. (2010). Go after the soft $3 outside the factory. POMS Chronicle, 77(1), 13-14.
Klien, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and inter- disc iplinarities. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press.
Linderman, K., & Chandrasekaran, A. (2010). The scholarly exchange of knowl- edge in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 28{4), 357-366.
McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Melnyk, S. A., Lummus, R. R., Vokurka, R. J., Bums, L. J., & Sandor, J. (2009). Mapping the future of supply chain management: A Delphi study. Interna- tional Journal of Production Research, 47(16), 4629-4653.
Monczka, R. M., & Markham, W. J. (2007). The future of supply management part i: Category strategies and supplier management. Supply Chain Management ReviewJ 1(6), 24-30.
Sanders, N. R. & Wagner, S. M. (2011). Multidisciplinary and multimethod re- search for addressing contemporary supply chain challenges. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(4), 317-323.
Spradley, J. R. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stock, J. R. (2009). A research view of supply chain management: Developments and topics for exploration. Orion, 25(2), 147-160.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3^ ed.)- London, UK: Sage.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633-642.
Zsidisin, G. A., Smith, M. E., McNally, R. C , & Kull, T. J. (2007). Evaluation criteria development and assessment of purchasing and supply management journals. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 165-183.
Sanders, Zacharia, and Fúgate 425
APPENDIX
Table AI: Sample selection process to reach theoretical saturation.
Step Process
1 Contacted editors from the three highest ranked SCM journals across operations, logistics, and supply management in the Financial Times Top 45. For disciplines without three journals on the list, we evaluated ISI rankings and Zsidisin, Smith, McNally and Kull (2007) survey ranking of journals.
2 If the editor agreed to interview, he/she was asked to list five additional thought leaders who should be interviewed.
3 The thought leader was then added to the list of participants if mentioned by more than three interviewees. This list included both academics and SCM executives, and led us to include marketing and IS disciplines in our study.
4 Saturation of findings (Strauss & Corbin 2008 includes a review of this process) was then reached, followed by additional interviews to confirm saturation of findings.
5 Ten more academic thought leaders and five more executive thought leaders were interviewed to ensure saturation of findings, resulting in a total of 70 thought leaders.
Table A2: Alphabetical listing of journals from which editors were interviewed.
Decision Sciences Journal Journal of Public Policy & Marketing Information Systems Research Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management International Journal of Integrated Journal of Retailing
Supply Management International Journal of Logistics Journal of Strategic Information Systems
Management International Journal of Physical Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Distribution & Logistics Management International Journal of Operations & Journal of Supply Chain Management
Production Management International Journal of Research in Management Science
Marketing Journal of Business Logistics Manufacturing & Service Operations
Management Journal of Business Research Management Information Systems Quarterly Journal of Marketing Production and Inventory Management
Journal Journal of Operations Management Production and Operations Management
Table A3: Executives
Industries
Automotive Chemicals Consulting Services Consumer Products
interviewed by industry.
Executives
4 1 1 2
Industries
Electronics Food/Beverages Logistics Pharmaceutical
Executives
2 3 3 4
426 Interdisciplinary Future of SCM Research
Table A4: Strategies for addressing relevant SCM research problems.
Strategy Representative Comments
View businesses as final consumers of research.
Lead in research problem identification
Talk to business
"We set up our own marketplace. We buy and sell to ourselves... so you are the market, the consumer, and the provider in the same market. Nowhere else does that happen. We buy and sell our own product."
"Without this shift academic SCM research will become irrelevant to practice."
"SCM researchers should not be followers. If we're followers I do not think we add a lot of value. We need to lead."
"SCM is definitely a practical field... even if you do theoretical research, it starts as a practice."
"You have to get your hands dirty. If you want to study gorillas you have to go into the jungle. You can model gorillas in your lab and you can survey gorillas perhaps, but to really understand them you have to go into the jungle."
"Not simply interviews with managers."
"If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. I would like to encourage people to step out of the box. Try something new. It does not have to be far out of the b o x — Do things that are a little bit outside your comfort zone."
"I think we have to look at getting to broader viewpoints within the data to help get more of a supply chain perspective."
Note: Table A4 presents a representative set of thought leaders' comments for each category due to space limitations; each comment is made by a different thought leader.
Use rigorous qualitative methods
Expand research methodological toolbox
Table A5: Strategies for cross-industry and cross-functional collaboration.
Collaboration Representative Comments
Cross-Industry Collaboration Need
Cross-Industry Collaboration Strategy
"I think more and more the pressure is going to be on all of us to do [collaborative research with businesses]... in the future with all the pressure that we have on the need to bring more funds into our schools, the practitioners are not going to give money unless they are going to get something out of it.
"Research is the coin of the realm. It's what makes us. It's how business schools create value. But research for research sake is not good enough in a business school because we're a professional school and the research we do has to push the envelope of developing leaders of the future in our teaching and it has to help today's organizations solve meaningful problems.
"Engage the practitioners in free-wheeling discussions, and then bring our theoretical knowledge to bear on some of the issues that they are pointing out. Then we have to apply creativity in those discussions, a research theme, and one or two research topics that are theoretically anchored. Therefore, we can really develop meaningful, useful theories, while simultaneously generating knowledge that would be of use to the practitioners."
Continued
Sanders, Zacharia, and Fúgate 427
Table A5: Continued
Collaboration Representative Comments
"That is probably the only way we're (SCM) going to get credibility in other disciplines, is when we can collaborate with them and publish in their discipline's journals and vice versa."
"I think as a field we need to push back and we need to go out to (the other disciplines) and say, "Hey, we have something to say. Listen to us." It is supply chain that brings the stuff in, who buys it, who makes it, and who ships it out. And for us to be cut out of the equation in any way is detrimental to the long-term success ofthe business."
Note: Table A5 presents a representative set of thought leaders' comments for each category due to space limitations; each comment is made by a different thought leader.
Cross-Functional Collaboration Need
Cross-Functional Collaboration Strategy
Table A6: Roles of academics and changes to infrastructure in promoting IDR.
Strategy Representative Comments
Roles of senior faculty Take risks
Take the initiative
Roles of editors Include Cross-Functional
Expertise on Editorial Review Boards
Encourage multi-functional literature reviews
Appreciate the risks being taken by this research
Publish aspects of SCM that pertain to the discipline of the journal
"I think leaders in the field have to push a little bit. As academics we should not only be concerned with [promoting our own reputation]. Part of the reason you get tenure is to argue and fight for the things that are best for the c o m m u n i t y . . . "
"I would put together a team of finance, marketing, ops management, and other academic [disciplines]. First go out and interview a group of practicing chief SC managers and find out what is it about finance they are concerned about, and so forth [with otber functions]... Then start taking that theory and start parceling off the finance aspects of it for the finance joumals,[and so f o r t h ] . . . If SCM is cross-disciplinary we ought to be crossing disciplines in our research."
A strategy to promoting IDR in SCM is t o . . . add well-known authors from other disciplines to their editorial review board."
"One way is to encourage authors who submitted a cross functional topic to thoroughly review literature from all the related disciplines."
"[In reviewing journals], you give a chance to people who are just taking the risk to broaden the field by producing it. And maybe the first set of papers may not be as refined or as comprehensive, but that's the way new development should work."
"The Journal of Marketing ought to publish SCM articles that deal with the marketing aspects of SCM and the Journal of Finance, same thing but substitute the word finance. [JOM] ought to publish SCM articles when it interfaces with operations management."
Continued
428 Interdisciplinary Future of SCM Research
Table A6: Continued
Strategy Representative Comments
A special issue focused on important IDR thematic topics
Realign incentives Recognize the applied
nature of the field
Incentivize relevant applied research
Restructure associations
Align academic orgs with business orgs
Create university centers that bridge academia with business
Create new professional associations not steeped in one discipline.
"Have a special issue where members of the review board are carefully crafted across disciplinary lines"
"I would like to see a compelling argument being made that some of the research we have engaged in is so fundamental that it will actually lead to the creation of leading edge companies if not now, 20, 30, 50 years l a t e r . . . we are applied schools."
"College of businesses will not compete in the future based on theoretical contributions, but rather on addressing relevant inter-functional business problems driven by the need to obtain external funding... These should be rewarded."
"It is probably the minority faculty member that really wants to get in bed with the practicing community because then you have to show your value."
"The sole purpose of [our forum] is from an academic point of view, we learn by listening to the practitioners. The purpose is to really listen, not to tell them what to do with our theories. It builds bridges."
"I think it is from the outside, and by-and-large not from the universities. [We can] promote it through some journals and through some outside bodies. Also, [existing associations] are steeped in their own traditions... and maybe does not have the prestige to do it. Academics maybe can set up a body of our own of wise people so to s p e a k . . . that would set directions for research and from this will flow directions for teaching and what the main SCM problems are."
Note: Table A6 presents a representative set of thought leaders' comments for each category due to space limitations; each comment is made by a different thought leader.
Nada R. Sanders is Professor of Supply Chain Management and Iacocca Chair in the Department of Management at Lehigh University. Prior to that she held the West Chair in Supply Chain Management at the Neeley School of Business at Texas Christian University. She received her PhD and MBA from the Ohio State University. She is author of the book ''Supply Chain Management: A Global Per- spective" and is coauthor of the book ''Operations Management," in its 5'^ edition. She is author of numerous articles that have appeared in journals such as Decision Sciences, Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of Operations Management, Jour- nal of Supply Chain Management, and California Management Review. She was cofounder and associate editor of Foresight, an applied forecasting journal of the International Institute of Forecasters. Her research interests include supply chain
Sanders, Zacharia, and Fúgate 429
management strategy, business forecasting, the role of information technology in the supply chain environment, and the impact of sustainability on organizations.
Zach G. Zacharia is an assistant professor in the College of Business and Eco- nomics, Lehigh University, where he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in supply chain operations management and logistics and transportation. He gradu- ated with a BS in mechanical engineering from the University of Calgary, an MBA from the University of Alberta, and a PhD in logistics with a minor in marketing from the University of Tennessee. He has authored several publications including two articles in the Journal of Operations Management, six articles in the Jour- nal of Business Logistics, and articles in Decision Sciences, Journal of Retailing, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Marketing Management, Journal of International Technology and Information Management, Journal of Vehicle De- sign and Wall Street Journal. He has also written chapters in two books, "Supply Chain Managemenf and "Managing Innovation: The New Competitive Edge for Logistics Service Providers."
Brian S. Fúgate is an associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University. He graduated with a BS in industrial engineering, an MBA, and a PhD from the University of Tennessee. Prior to his PhD, Brian worked in in- dustrial engineering implementing lean and quality improvement initiatives in the automotive industry and in supplier development and logistics management in the airline and consumer products goods industries. Subsequently, he has performed consulting and education services in forecasting, logistics, and supply chain in- formation systems. His research interests include demand management, managing information flows, and sustainability in the supply chain. He has received multiple research awards and is author of numerous articles in academic and professional publications including Supply Chain Management Review, Journal of Business Logistics, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Manage- ment, International Journal of Logistics Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Decision Sciences, Journal of Operations Management, European Journal of Operations Management, and Journal of Relationship Marketing.
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.