EMERGING TRENDS( Only for hifsa shaukat , do not send any chat messages for this homework).
TUNDE
article_5.pdf
This article was downloaded by: [Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University] On: 14 June 2015, At: 14:43 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Click for updates
Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20
A critical review of lean supply chain management frameworks: proposed framework Naga Vamshi Krishna Jastia & Rambabu Kodalib a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani,Pilani, Rajasthan 333031, India b Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India Published online: 12 May 2015.
To cite this article: Naga Vamshi Krishna Jasti & Rambabu Kodali (2015): A critical review of lean supply chain management frameworks: proposed framework, Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, DOI: 10.1080/09537287.2015.1004563
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1004563
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
A critical review of lean supply chain management frameworks: proposed framework
Naga Vamshi Krishna Jastia and Rambabu Kodalib* aDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani,Pilani, Rajasthan 333031, India;
bDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
(Received 6 August 2014; accepted 27 December 2014)
Lean supply chain management (LSCM) is one of the emergent fields of research. The present study objective is to per- form review on existing LSCM frameworks and proposes a new LSCM framework. The study collected 30 LSCM frameworks with the help of extensive literature survey. The sample of LSCM frameworks have been classified based on novelty of the framework, contribution of various researchers to develop LSCM framework, verification status and modes of verification methodology used by the researchers, and also the degree of standardisation of LSCM elements. The study found that many researchers have proposed novel frameworks, lack of participation of practitioners and to some extent consultants in the field of LSCM framework development. It was also found that a huge number of incoherent elements were used to propose the LSCM frameworks. The study findings will give direction to the future researchers to propose a unified LSCM framework that will help to find out the coherent set of elements in the field of LSCM frameworks. Finally, the study proposes a comprehensive LSCM framework with the help of standard elements in the field of LSCM.
Keywords: lean principles; lean supply chain management; framework; review; constructs
1. Introduction
In the present global scenario, physical distribution sys- tem plays a vital role in organisational productivity, qual- ity and profits. The aforementioned factors helped the physical distribution system to develop into a broadened area and later it emerged as supply chain management (SCM). According to Williamson, Harrison, and Jordan (2004), SCM can be defined as ‘the management of the interconnection of organisations which relate each other through upstream and downstream linkages between the different processes that produce value in the form of products and services to the ultimate consumer’. The SCM and manufacturing activities are closely related to each other in any organisation. The development of SCM also influences the performance of manufacturing activities. Manufacturing is continuously evolving since its development from the age of craft production to mass production and later on to lean production (LP) and agile manufacturing. These developments provoked to develop the field of SCM very rapidly. In the present scenario, the SCM is one of the key areas to determine the success and failure of the organisation with respect to customers (Christopher and Towill 2001). These thoughts led to survival of any organisation depending on ‘getting right products, at the quality and quantity, at right price, at right time and to the right customer’. To achieve these objectives the organisations have started to use IT-based
solutions, whereas, some other organisations have adopted and implemented advanced management con- cepts in addition to IT-based solutions. Finally, this idea formed two distinct paradigms, i.e. Lean supply chain management (LSCM) and agile supply chain.
In the present era, the manufacturing organisations are facing a huge number of problems with highly com- plex, complicated and prolonged supply chains due to globalisation (Chopra, Meindl, and Kalra 2007; Rudberg and Olhager 2002; Simchi-Levi, Kaminsky, and Simchi- Levi 2008). There onwards, few researchers (Oliver, Delbridge, and Lowe 1993; Ryan 2001) have partici- pated in the research of LSC and have come out that lean principles can be used to improve SCM from manu- facturing to the logistics operations by improved respon- siveness to demand variations and reduced operating cost. The same study observed that many organisations have been benefited with LSCM through a closer rela- tionship with key suppliers of the organisations. Subse- quently, many researchers (Ariff and Ahmed 2005; Lewis 2006) have implemented lean principles in SCM activities and reported that the output of the organisa- tions increased with a specific level of input. With that many researchers have started to come out with empiri- cal and conceptual studies to build theory related LSC. Chen and Paulraj (2004) have reported that many research studies have proposed its own theories and
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
Production Planning & Control, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1004563
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
frameworks to enhance SCM in the field of operations research. This kind of approach is resulted to develop directionless theories and frameworks. According to Soni and Kodali (2013), to develop unidirectional theories and frameworks in the field of SCM, the researchers should perform critical review of existing theories as well as frameworks and identify the gaps in the field of research then develop a new theory to fulfil the gap in the par- ticular field based on existing theories. The study has observed that majority of the frameworks were devel- oped without proper review of existing theories and frameworks in the field of LSC. Most of the LSC frame- works have been restricted to implement particular sector instead of generalisation of the frameworks (Perez et al. 2010). However, Anand and Kodali (2008a) and Gomes and Mentzer (1988) have expressed that the stable and unidirectional theory and concepts of LSC are not yet fully developed. To overcome all these limitations, the present study has focused to give unidirectional, gener- alised and appropriate theory building with the help of existing literature in the field of LSCM.
The present study is organised as follows: Section 2 is devoted to literature review on LSCM and research question is raised to answer in the present research. Section 3 discusses guidelines to identify frameworks from LSC literature. Section 4 discusses the complete methodology and classification scheme used to classify existing LSC frameworks and gives a critical review of the existing LSC frameworks. Section 5 is used to pro- pose a LSC conceptual framework and also illustrates its merits when compared with existing LSC framework. Section 6 describes the importance of each pillar in the LSC framework proposed in the present study. Section 7 is used to discuss the findings and implications of the present study. Finally, Section 8 is used to conclude the present study.
2. Literature review
Hines, Holweg, and Rich (2004) traced LP growth over the years from its inception and reported that LP has emerged as a manufacturing philosophy from just a pro- duction technique. The impact of LP resulted in organ- isations adopting the lean practices beyond boundaries of the organisations. As a result, the organisations have started to implement LP procedures, techniques, practices and tools (which will be referred to as ‘elements’ from now on) in SCM and product development activities. Of late, Womack and Jones (1994) have proposed the con- cept of Lean Enterprise (LE). Moreover, in the same research study, they have also proposed the concept of LSC and lean product development. The same study defined LE as a strategy, as the organisations have opera- tionally synchronised although their functions are legally separated. According to Anand and Kodali (2008a), the
adaptation of lean principles from manufacturing to the SCM activities is not a simple process. The reasons are: manufacturing processes focused on flow of material than information, manufacturing waste is possible to identify and quantify that is not possible in SCM activi- ties to measure information flow waste, manufacturing processes can be controlled through top management and employees of the organisation, but SCM requires atten- tion from entire supply chain from suppliers to cus- tomers. However, the main focus of lean principles is to identify waste in the process. Waste is an activity, which does not create any value to the customer or product. In SCM, wastes are created by improper information flow, material flow and funds in the system. According to Baum (2004), information and inventory have close rela- tionship in the system and dependent on each other. One of the objectives of lean principles is to restrict inventory in the system. It is clearly reflected that the need of avoiding information waste in the SCM is to bring down inventory levels of the organisation. It is a well-known fact that the information is considered to a major cause of wastes in the SCM system. Hence, many researchers have started to implement lean principles in the field of SCM.
Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) have proposed LE combination of lean product development, lean manufac- turing, lean procurement and lean distribution. The study clearly identified the difference between LE proposed by Womack and Jones (1994) and LE proposed by Karlsson and Åhlström (1996). Womack and Jones (1994) have proposed the definition of LE, which goes beyond the boundaries of the organisation. On the other hand, Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) have proposed the con- cept of LE, which predominantly addressed the issues within the boundaries of the organisations. The present study has adopted ‘Karlsson and Åhlström (1996) LE concept’ to review the concept of LSC. Vitasek, Manrodt, and Abbott (2005) defined LSC as ‘a set of organisations directly linked by upstream and down- stream flows of products, services, information and funds that collaboratively work to reduce cost and waste by efficiently pulling what is needed to meet the needs of individual customers’.
The concept of LSC strategy advises to make collab- oration with the clients and work together to accomplish joint goals. Toyota also implemented a similar kind of strategy to attain LSC excellence. Toyota always com- municates with their customers and suppliers as well as considers their opinions before implementing any changes in the SCM activities (Sezen and Erdogan 2009). However, many organisations have struggled to implement LSC principles due to the lack of awareness and improper implementation procedures. Many studies have discussed the LSCM as a cost reduction and waste removal strategy. Perez et al. (2010) have presented a
2 N.V.K. Jasti and R. Kodali
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
framework of LSCM with seven dimensions. All dimen- sions are derived from the literature, but the study has performed very limited number of literature review. However, the same study has proposed a framework to implement in pork industry, which leads the generalisi- bility of the framework is lacking. Lamming (1996) have performed an initial work on lean supply chain and focused on lean supply, exclusive of other aspects of SCM. Francis (1998) has worked on LSCM with limited focus on lean information systems only. However, the same study lacks in the overall approach towards the set of procedures constituting LSCM. Nabhani and Shokri (2009) proposed a model with a combination of six sigma methodologies and lean principles can be imple- mentable in SCM activities in a food distribution organ- isation. However, the lean principles proposed in that research are mostly concentrated on plant-based activities and did not focus much on complete SCM as a whole. Taylor (1999) has investigated on lean relationships with supply chain and did not reveal any kind of elements to achieve excellence in the field of LSCM. Cox, Chicksand, and Palmer (2007) have implemented lean strategies in beef, lamb and pig supply chains and revealed there was a positive impact on SCM. But, the study did not reveal the constructs of lean supply chain.
Anand and Kodali (2008a) have reviewed LSC litera- ture and identified gaps existing in the present literature. The same study has reported that many research studies focused only on individual aspects of LSC and very few research studies focused on both upstream and down- stream activities of the organisation. Secondly, most of the studies focused only on upstream activities of LSCM. The same study has proposed a framework based on researcher’s experience in the field of LSCM. Reichhart and Holweg (2007) also reported similar kind of observation from LSC literature. Soni and Kodali (2012) have investigated leagile SCM elements and performed empirical analysis to identify leagile elements suitable for Indian manufacturing industry. The same study restricted to identify lean, agile and leagile elements from the existing frameworks in lean, agile and leagile, respectively. Taylor (2006) and Adamides et al. (2008) have implemented value chain analysis techniques and revealed opportunities for strategic change in a UK agri- food supply chain. The same study also discussed a pri- mary framework of an integrated SCM actions based on the application of lean principles. The same study has clearly elaborated how to implement lean practices in agri-supply chain. The complete review of literature clearly revealed that the framework proposed in the field of LSCM was mostly based on a case study approach methodology. Henceforth, generalisation of these frame- works is very difficult due to its limited focus in the par- ticular sector. Hence, the present study has reviewed the frameworks of LSCM to identify its limitations and
proposed a comprehensive conceptual LSCM framework to fulfil the gaps in the field of LSCM frameworks in terms of generalisation of the frameworks. To fulfil the required task, the present study has raised six research questions and tries to trace the gaps based on these six questions raised in the present research in subsequent sub-section.
2.1. Research questions
The present study investigates the rate of novel frame- works proposed when compared with the adoption of existing frameworks. Generally, any new field of research encourages greater number of novel frameworks than adaption of existing frameworks (Soni and Kodali 2013). In order to verify the aforementioned statement, the present study tries to answer the following research question 1(RQ1).
RQ1: What is the present status of framework development in the field of LSCM?
The study further finds out the contribution of academi- cians, practitioners and consultants in the development of LSCM frameworks. According to Soni and Kodali (2013), academicians contributed more towards theory building, while practitioners and consultants contributed to verify or practice the theories. To verify the aforemen- tioned statement, the study raises another basic research question 2 (RQ2).
RQ2: What is the contribution of academicians/ practitioners/consultants in the development of LSCM frameworks?
For any field of research to reach maturity stage as a discipline, the proposed theory should be supported by working on the study practice (Croom, Romano, and Giannakis 2000; Storey et al. 2006; Tranfield and Starkey 1998). Hence, the study tries to answer the research questions 3 and 4 (RQ3 and RQ4).
RQ3: How frequently are these proposed LSCM frameworks validated?
RQ4: What kinds of modes are used to verify the LSCM frameworks?
The success rate of any manufacturing philosophy or strategy depends on what type of elements proposed in a particular framework. The present study tries to find out the elements used to develop LSCM framework and also standardisation of elements in the field of LSCM. Hence, the study raised two research questions i.e. research questions 5 and 6 (RQ5 and RQ6).
RQ5: what are the elements used to develop a pro- posed framework?
Production Planning & Control 3
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
RQ6: What is the degree of standardisation of the elements in the field of LSCM?
In order to find out the answers to aforementioned six research questions and also to critically analyse the inconsistencies presented in the existing LSCM frame- works, the study has identified the frameworks and anal- ysed on various aspects. The subsequent section tries to find out what is a framework.
3. Identification of existing LSCM frameworks
The term framework is one of the popular phrases in the field of operations research. However, many researchers have confused in defining what a framework is. Few researchers discussed the framework as a group of ele- ments to implement in an organisation. On the other hand, some other researchers discussed that the frame- work is represented with the help of diagrams or graphi- cal representation. Many researchers have used the term framework and model interchangeably. It clearly indi- cates that there is a lot of confusion to define the frame- work and to differentiate with the model. Hence, the present study conducted a literature review to find out an appropriate definition of the framework. Aalbregtse, Hejka, and McNeley (1991) reported that a framework consists of the complete picture of the business goals and also presents a systematic implementation methodol- ogy to accomplish the organisation business goals. Hakes (1991) reported that a sound framework should answer the connection between the concepts and the practical application. A framework consists of a set of fundamen- tal assumptions and principles that discuss the actions to be performed (Popper 1994). Struebing and Klaus (1997) reported that a framework consists of the complete plan of implementation and ensure each step of build-up procedures also. According to Yusof and Aspinwall (2000), a model answers the question ‘what is’, whereas, a framework answers the question ‘how to’. Anand and Kodali (2010, 2008b) concluded that the framework is a guiding torch to the organisation employees to imple- ment any philosophy in the organisation. In order to identify LSCM frameworks, Soni and Kodali (2013) raised the following three questions:
Q1: Does the LSCM framework describe all elements presented in the system?
Q2: Does the LSCM framework illustrate the complete association among the elements presented in the system?
Q3: Does the LSCM framework describe the methodol- ogy of implementation in practical sense?
If the proposed LSCM framework answers all three questions affirmatively, then the study is considered as a
framework in the present research. Subsequently Section 4 provides the five steps of methodology to review and identify inconsistencies presented in the LSCM frameworks.
4. Research methodology
The complete methodology consists of five steps, which are given as follows: STEP 1: The present study considered the year 1988 as the starting point to collect literature from four online data portals and Google online search also. The reason to select the year 1988 as the starting point is because in that year the term LP was introduced. The end point of articles collection is the year 2013. Hence, the present study considered 26 years’ of period to review literature in the field of LSCM. STEP 2: The study collected 748 articles from the total online data portals. The study filtered all articles based on focus of journal and finally the study found 546 lean related articles in 24 operations research journals in four online data portals i.e., Emerald, Science Direct, Taylor and Francis, and Springer Link. Table 1 shows the list of selected journals that are considered in the current study. The study found that out of 546 lean related articles, only 118 articles are addressing the issues of LSCM. Other than these articles, the study also included Google search and textbooks materials to find out existing LSCM frameworks in the literature. STEP 3: In order to find out the LSCM frameworks from the collected literature, the study used the afore- mentioned guidelines to find out the total LSCM frame- works existing in a sample of the literature. The study found 30 LSCM frameworks (given in Appendix 1) from the LSCM literature. However, the present study is pro- jecting all these LSCM frameworks only as a sample of the existing frameworks in the literature. It is an impossi- ble task to collect the complete set of LSCM framework proposed in the literature. STEP 4: The research question raised in Section 2 will be answered in the present step through the classification of the sample of LSCM frameworks with focus on vari- ous aspects. The present study has divided the classifica- tion scheme into two broad categories i.e. generic criteria and LSCM specific criteria.
4.1. Generic criteria
4.1.1. Novelty of framework
The study focuses to find out whether the framework is built on existing LSCM framework or not. If the frame- work is not based on existing LSCM framework, then the study considered it as a novel framework. Otherwise, the proposed framework is considered as an adapted
4 N.V.K. Jasti and R. Kodali
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
framework. This kind of classification scheme will help to find out the present trend of theory building in LSCM frameworks. If the study finds higher number of novel framework in the literature, it is a clear indication of lack of research efforts to generalise the existing LSCM frameworks. If the results are altered, then it indicates that the research is developed within the restricted boundary. The present classification scheme helps to answer research question 1 (RQ1).
4.1.2. Source of the framework
According to Yusof and Aspinwall (2000), the frame- works can be classified into three categories based on researcher’s background i.e. academic-based, practi- tioners-based and consultants-based framework. Aca- demic-based framework represents the framework developed based on academic research in academic institutions. The framework, which is developed from the industry implementation procedures or a case study, it can be categorised as a practitioners-based framework. If the framework is proposed based on experience of experts, then it is called consultants-based framework. This kind of analysis will help to find out the gap between theory building and practice in the field of LSCM. The present section of classification is helping to answer the research question 2 (RQ2).
4.1.3. Framework verification
The present classification will help to find out an answer to research question 3(RQ3). The study tries to find out whether the proposed framework was verified by the researcher. The framework consists of a set of elements and presents the path to implement these elements in the real practice environment. If the framework was imple- mented in practice, then the framework is considered as verified. The framework verification can be useful to find out the drawbacks of the framework. Based on identified drawbacks, the framework is modified and rebuilt to suit- able real-time environment or experience or feedback. This kind of theory building is good to any field of research (Anand 2009). The verified frameworks always encourage practitioners to implement in the organisation.
4.1.4. Mode of verification
The proposed framework can be verified by applying various methods, i.e. case study, survey, focus study, Delphi, and combination of these methodologies. Case study approach uses qualitative data collected from inter- views or secondary data. Survey approach generally uses quantitative data collected from various people. Delphi and focus study get the opinion of various experts to verify the proposed framework. The mode of verification study will help future researchers to find out what are
Table 1. List of selected journals considered in the current study.
Journal name Acronym No. of articles Percentage (%)
International Journal of Operations & Production Management IJOPM 122 22.34 International Journal of Production Research IJPR 83 15.20 International Journal of Production Economics IJPE 53 9.71 Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management JMTM 40 7.33 Production Planning & Control PPC 39 7.14 Supply Chain Management An International Journal SCMIJ 24 4.40 Industrial Management and Data Systems IMDS 17 3.11 Management Decision MD 16 2.93 International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management IJPPM 14 2.56 International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications IJLRA 13 2.38 International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management IJPDLM 13 2.38 Integrated Manufacturing Systems IMS 12 2.20 Benchmarking :An International Journal BIJ 11 2.01 Computers & Industrial Engineering CIE 11 2.01 Business Process Management Journal BPMJ 9 1.65 International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology IJAMT 9 1.65 Journal of Operations Management JOM 9 1.65 Total Quality Management & Business Excellence TQMBE 9 1.65 Assembly Automation AA 9 1.65 The International Journal of Logistics Management IJLM 8 1.47 The TQM Journal TQMJ 8 1.47 The TQM Magazine TQMM 6 1.10 Construction Management & Economics CME 6 1.10 European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management EJPSM 5 0.92
TOTAL 546 100
Production Planning & Control 5
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
possible modes of verification methods available and are also useful to answer the research question 4 (RQ4) raised in Section 2.
4.2. LSCM specific criteria
4.2.1. Framework elements
In general, each framework proposed has some common or essential practices and tries to develop the complete framework through building-up the relationship between those elements. The present step is useful to find out what are the elements used to develop a framework and also useful to find out the standard elements used in the field of LSCM. Hence, the present classification scheme is useful to answer the research questions 5 and 6 (RQ5 and RQ6) raised in Section 2. STEP 5: After completion of classification of the frame- works, the study analyses the classification data to find out an answer to the research question posed in Section 2 and also finds out the inconsistencies presented in the sample of the LSCM framework considered in the pre- sent study.
4.3. Classification and analysis of LSCM frameworks
The present study collected 30 LSCM frameworks with the help of extensive literature survey to perform classification and analysis as per generic criteria and LSCM specific criteria explained in earlier sub-section. The complete details of the classification and analysis of the existing frameworks is given subsequently as a part of the present sub-section.
4.3.1. Novelty of framework
Generally any operations management research field should require novelty or originality of theory building to establish it as one of the promising research field. At the same time modifying existing theories as per present day requirements also plays a vital role in developing a coherent theory building in the field of any research. Hence, the study tries to analyse the same issue in the present sub-section. Table 2 shows the frequency dis- tribution of a number of frameworks that are novel or adapted.
Table 2 clearly indicates that 93.33% of the frame- works fall in the category of novel frameworks. This kind of trend is good for growth of LSCM but at the same time too much of novelty theory building leads to incoherent focus of research in the field of LSCM. Only 6.67% of the frameworks were belonging to the category of adapted frameworks. Hence, the researchers should give equal importance to build theory based on the existing theories, i.e. adapted framework.
4.3.2. Source of framework
The frequency of frameworks published as academic-, practitioners- and consultants-based frameworks is given in Table 3. Table 3 reveals that 66.67% of the existing LSCM frameworks are proposed by academic research- ers. The study also reveals that only 30% of the frame- works are proposed by consultants. One of the important observations is that contribution of practitioners to develop frameworks did not exist. The study also identi- fied that only one framework proposed a combination of consultants and academicians. Hence, the present study suggests that there is an urgent requirement to bring all three fields of researchers under one umbrella to develop a more practical oriented framework with a strong theo- retical background in the field of LSCM.
4.3.3. Framework verification
The main objective of the framework is to help to the industry managers to implement research practices in the specific area of the organisation. Hence, the researchers should verify the proposed framework that encourages industry managers to implement already verified frame- work in their organisation. The verification of proposed theory plays a vital role to develop useful and appropri- ate theory in any research field (Flynn et al. 1990). Table 4 gives the frequency of frameworks that are veri- fied in the selected sample of LSCM framework. The study observes from Table 4 that only 36.67% of the frameworks were verified by applying various research methodologies. A few frameworks were only generally proposed by the researchers to bring out some novelty thought in the field of research (Soni and Kodali 2013). These kinds of research framework are only useful to
Table 2. Frequency distribution of number of frameworks those are novel or adapted.
Source Frequency Framework articles
Academician-based 20 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 Consultants-based 9 9, 19, 13, 12, 26, 7, 22, 23, 15 Practitioners-based 0 Academic- and consultant-based 1 17
Total 30
6 N.V.K. Jasti and R. Kodali
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
show a new approach to deal with the concerned issues to the future researchers. The researchers have proposed frameworks especially for implementation purpose, those frameworks should be verified in the real-time scenario.
4.3.4. Mode of verification
It is important to find out the verification methodology used by various researchers to verify the proposed LSCM framework. Table 5 gives the frequency of modes of verification for applicability of frameworks.
Table 5 clearly reveals that most of the frameworks were verified by applying case study verification research methodology. Only few researchers have used survey research methodology to verify the proposed framework. The remaining research methodologies were not used by any of the researchers to verify the proposed framework.
4.3.5. Elements of frameworks
The study found that the proposed frameworks addressed a wide range of concerns in the field of LSCM. So the comparison of these frameworks on same scale is more difficult as well as in some cases it is an impossible task. However, it is important to find out the most popular
elements as well as standard elements in the field of LSCM. To do this, the study dealt with
• What are the lean elements used to develop LSCM framework by various researchers?
• Did the researchers have considered any standard lean elements to build selected LSCM framework?
The same kind of approach was followed by Soni and Kodali (2013), Mishra, Anand, and Kodali (2006), Sharma and Kodali (2008a, 2008b) to develop a concep- tual framework in the field of SCM, world class mainte- nance, total quality management and manufacturing excellence frameworks, respectively. The frequency of occurrence of lean supply chain elements in various LSCM frameworks is given in Table S1.
From Table S1, the study found 129 unique lean sup- ply chain elements. The phrase or words of the elements have been considered to find the meaning of the element. The same-meaning elements are clubbed and considered that element as a single element. For example, supplier relationship/building and maintaining long-term relation with customers and suppliers/strategic alliances and long-term partnerships between customers and suppliers/ the development of supplier associations/supplier alli- ances/build trust based alliances with ethical supply
Table 3. The frequency of frameworks published as academic-, practitioners- and consultants-based frameworks.
Novel/adapted Frequency Framework articles
Novel frameworks 28 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 Adapted frameworks 2 10, 3
Total 30
Table 4. The frequency of frameworks that are verified in the selected sample of LSCM framework.
Verified Frequency Framework articles
Yes 11 1, 2, 4, 10, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 27, 30 No 19 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29
Total 30
Table 5. The frequency of modes of verification for applicability of frameworks.
Mode of verification Frequency Framework articles
Case study 9 1, 2, 4, 15, 18, 20, 21, 27, 30 Survey 2 10, 16 Focus study 0 Delphi 0 Multiple 0 Not mentioned 19 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29
Total 30
Production Planning & Control 7
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
chain partners/develop strategic long-term partners/long- term partnerships/long-term agreements/establishing long-term purchasing and supply commitments/close relationships with suppliers and customers/supplier collaboration. It is observed that the objective of the aforementioned entire set of elements is to maintain the long-term relationship with suppliers. The study does not believe that all these 129 elements are independent of each other. The study believes that if the researchers have performed principal component analysis on these elements, all these elements will fall under suitable independent elements.
All these elements are two categories: broader in nat- ure and issue specific that means the framework addresses the specific issue. For instance, the elements like ‘Just-in-time (JIT) production’, ‘continuous improve- ment (CI)’, ‘elimination of waste’, ‘customer focus’ and ‘supplier management’ are in broader sense as proposed by the researchers. Other elements like ‘supplier loca- tion’, ‘kanban’, ‘small lot size’, ‘ single piece flow’ and ‘milk run’ are issue specific or subset of broader domain elements. General observation of the present study is that the generic frameworks have broader elements when compared with the issue specific frameworks. However, the main purpose of the present study is to identify the standard LSCM elements instead of comparing the LSCM frameworks just based on strengths and weakness of the frameworks. Majority of the researchers like Barla 2005, Lamming (1993) have discussed LSCM with respect to supplier relationships and related issues only. Other group of researchers have proposed frameworks including manufacturing as well as supply chain activities, which are playing a vital role to implement LSCM in the organisation (Anand and Kodali 2008a; Nightingale 2005). Few researchers have reported that in order to attain excellence in LSCM, the organisations should implement lean principles in the manufacturing, supply chain as well as in product development proce- dures (Azevedo, Carvalho, and Cruz-Machado 2011). The different views of researchers on LSCM resulted in accumulation of a lot of incoherent elements, which is seen in frequency analysis of LSCM frameworks. The frequency analysis of the elements clearly revealed a deficiency in standardisation of elements used to develop LSCM frameworks. Only 6.97% of the elements repeated more than five times in the sample of LSCM frameworks considered in the present study. The study also revealed that only 27.13% of the elements are repeated more than two times. It clearly reveals that the different perspectives of the researchers in the field of LSCM have resulted in the development of incoherent and large number of elements. In order to find out the standard elements in the field of LSCM, the study con- sidered the elements that repeated more than once in the sample of frameworks considered as a standard element.
In the process, the study identified only 35 elements from the literature. The study formed a team of 12 mem- bers with 6 academicians, 3 practitioners and 3 consul- tants to standardise these 35 elements. The team also helped to find out the various standard elements from these 129 elements, which was also backed up by litera- ture survey to identify the standard elements.
Adamides et al. (2008) have revealed importance of supporting collaboration in the development and manage- ment of lean supply networks. Narasimhan and Das (2001) also discussed that the higher the strategic align- ment of purchasing strategy with manufacturing strategy which impacts positively on both SCM and manufactur- ing performance. The performance of SCM is also linked to the processes and enhancement programmes carried out at the production level (Voss 1995). Many research- ers such as Blackhurst, Wu, and O’Grady (2005), Childerhouse, Aitken, and Towill (2002), the magnitude of the effects of product development features on SCM performance and importance of maintaining strong pro- duct development teams to implement effective SCM strategies. The degree of collaboration among SCM strat- egy and product development strategy resulted in posi- tive impact on the SCM performance and product development performance, which is proved in a case study approach (Doran et al. 2007). The variety of the product is effecting on SCM performance of the organ- isation. The differences among created variety, produced variety, transported variety and customer requirements resulted in lower SCM performances. Hence, the present study has performed similar kind of analysis on LE, LM, LPD frameworks in order to identify standard lean ele- ments, which helped to improve the performance of SCM activities and overall organisational performance also. In the process, the study found 82 LSCM related standard elements to propose a comprehensive LSCM framework.
The research team also tried to find out the broader areas of the LSCM elements to propose the pillars of the framework. The team suggested that if the number of elements repeated is more than 20% of the framework, then those elements have been considered as pillars of the framework. Accordingly, the study has identified seven elements as pillars. These seven elements are fur- ther filtered out to four pillars of the framework after removing overlapping of the domain. The team sug- gested additional four pillars with the experience of team members as well as based on analysis performed on lean manufacturing, LE and lean product development. In total, the study identified eight pillars and 82 sub- elements from the extensive literature survey, frequency analysis and inputs from the experts. The research team have distributed all 82 elements among eight pillars with the help of thorough discussion among the team mem- bers. The pillars of LSCM framework and respective
8 N.V.K. Jasti and R. Kodali
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
Table 6. The pillars of LSCM framework and respective elements.
S. No Pillars Sub-elements
1 Information Technology Management Use of EDI to communicate between departments Centralised database for documentation Enterprise resource planning system Information technology employed at customer base Effective and transparency information flow throughout supply chain Use of bar coding and scanner in logistics systems Electronic commerce Modelling analysis and simulation tools Computer-aided decision-making supporting systems
2 Supplier Management Strategic supplier development Supplier evaluation and certification Long-term supplier partnership Supplier involvement in design Supplier feedback Supplier proximity Single source and reliable suppliers or few suppliers Cost-based negotiation with suppliers Manage suppliers with commodity teams Joint decisions towards cost savings
3 Elimination of waste Standard products and processes Standard containers Focused factory production Design for manufacturing Flexible manufacturing cells or U-shape manufacturing cells Visual control Single minute exchange of die Andon 5S Point of use tool system Seven wastes throughout supply chain
4 JIT production JIT deliveries throughout supply chain Single piece flow Pull production Kanban Production levelling and scheduling Synchronised operational flow Plant layout Point of usage storage system Pacemaker Small lot size
5 Customer relationship management Specification of value in terms customer point view Post sales service to customer Customer involvement in design Continuous evaluation of customers feedback Customer enrichment Concurrent engineering Group Technology Delivery performance improvement Takt time Quality function deployment Failure mode and effect analysis
(Continued)
Production Planning & Control 9
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
elements are given in Table 6. Finally, the study pro- poses a comprehensive LSCM framework with the help of extensive literature survey as well as inputs from expert team members that includes academicians, practi- tioners and consultants. The conceptual LSCM frame- work is given in Figure 1.
5. A conceptual framework of LSCM excellence
In the previous section, the study has proposed a com- prehensive LSCM framework to achieve excellence in supply chain activities. Generally, the frequently used elements cannot be separated from the field of any research. The proposed LSCM framework elements have been frequently used in the field of LSCM framework. Hence, the proposed LSCM framework is being treated as an excellence framework. However, the importance of checking the reliability and validity of these proposed pillars cannot be ruled out. Hence, it is proposed for future research work in the field. If the reliability and
validity on the pillars of the proposed framework are car- ried out, then the important elements can be identified and these elements may be used as an integral part of LSCM in a particular organisation. The proposed LSCM framework contains the following features as compared with the existing sample of LSCM framework in the literature:
(1) The proposed framework includes 9 pillars and 87 elements identified from the literature in the field of LSCM.
(2) The framework proposed is based on the opin- ion of consultants, practitioners and academi- cians. It overcomes the general inadequacy presented in the sample of existing LSCM framework.
(3) One of the main limitations of the existing LSCM frameworks is the abstractness of the framework. To overcome this limitation, the present study made an attempt to propose
Table 6. (Continued).
S. No Pillars Sub-elements
6 Logistics management Time windows delivery requirements or tight time windows Effective logistics network design Consultants as logistics managers Consignment inventory or vendor managed inventory Advance material requirement planning and scheduling structure Use of third party logistics for transportation system Milk run or circuit delivery Master the demand forecasting process Postponement A, B, C material handling Elimination of buffer stocks
7 Top management commitment Create vision and objective to lean supply chain Employee training and education in LSCM Organisation structure and associated relationships Cross-enterprise collaborative relationships and trust Joint planning of processes and products with suppliers Resources allocation Develop learning culture specific organisation Holistic strategy for integrating system or organisational policy deployment Employee empowerment Stable and long-term employment Leadership development
8 Continuous Improvement Multi-skilled workforce Built in quality system Value stream mapping through supply chain New product development Statistical process control Quality improvement teams or quality circles Cross functional teams within the organisation Use of flat hierarchy Value engineering
10 N.V.K. Jasti and R. Kodali
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
comprehensive LSCM framework. The number of pillars and elements used in the proposed framework are much higher than the sample of existing LSCM frameworks. It clearly indicates a comprehensive nature of the framework. However, it may be possible to miss out some of the elements. According to Weick (1979), it is impossible to build a framework with all the characteristics together such as general, accu- racy and simple.
(4) The sample of reviewed LSCM frameworks contains a majority of the elements recognised in the proposed LSCM framework.
6. Pillars of comprehensive framework of LSCM
The proposed comprehensive LSCM framework in the present study has 9 pillars and 87 elements proposed under these 9 pillars. The present section tries to bring out the importance of each pillar and how these pillars are integral part of the comprehensive LSCM framework proposed in the present research work.
6.1.1. Top management commitment
Betchel and Jayaram (1997) have reported that the SCM activities’ plan require some strategy formulation to implement in the organisation. The action of top-level management is compulsory to implement any kind of operational strategy in the organisation. The top manage-
ment should provide necessary infrastructure and training to the organisation employees (Kouzes and Posner 1995). According to Roth, Giffi, and Seal (1992), one of the objectives of top management commitment is to cre- ate the enthusiasm and inspiration in the organisation employees to accomplish the organisation’s goals. How- ever, around 7% of the existing LSCM frameworks were proposed as one of the elements to achieve excellence in the field of LSCM frameworks. All aforementioned fac- tors influenced to include top management commitment as one of the important pillars in the proposed LSCM framework.
6.1.2. Supplier relationship management
In contemporary scenario, the manufacturing of products to high quality standards is not the only criteria, but also delivering the products to the customer at right time, at right quantity, at right place, at right cost also plays an important role in the success of the organisation. All these activities are always integrated with the suppliers. The suppliers play a vital role in the success of any organisation (Chin et al. 2004). Hence, many organisa- tions have focused on maintaining long-term relationships with the suppliers (Park et al. 2010). Around 70% of the frameworks have proposed suppliers’ relationship related elements in the existing LSCM framework. Hence, the present study also proposed supplier relationship manage- ment as one of the important pillars to implement the pro- posed LSCM framework in the organisation.
C ontinuous Im
provem ent
JIT P
roduction
S upplier m
anagem ent
E lim
in atio
n o
f w aste
Inform ation T
echnology M anagem
ent
C ustom
er relationship m anagem
ent
L ogistics m
anagem ent
Lean Supply Chain Management
Top management commitment and leadership
Figure 1. The conceptual LSCM framework.
Production Planning & Control 11
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
6.1.3. Customer relationship management
In the present global scenario, the success of the organisa- tions is based on how well the organisation delivered the products and services to the customer (Boydell, Burgoyne, and Pedler 1991). The organisations should give equal importance to both internal and external customers to pro- vide better services to the final customer (Robson 1986). Many organisations have started to maintain long-term relationship with the customers and performed analysis on various needs of these customers to provide better service in terms of cost and warranties with the help of flexible manufacturing system (Grant and Schlesinger 1995). Moreover, the frequency analysis shows that around 26.67% of the frameworks have proposed customer rela- tionship related elements to achieve better results in LSCM activities. Hence, the present study also proposed customer relationship management as one of the important pillars in the proposed framework.
6.1.4. Information technology
The success of present complex supply chain depends on how well the information flows across the supply chain activities. The use of information technology is prerequi- site to control information flow across the supply chain activities (Tan, Lyman, and Wisner 2002). In the present scenario, the organisations are not considered as indepen- dent entities, but the organisations should work as a part of multi-organisations, multi-echelon networks, delivered products and services to the end user (Christopher 1992; Lambert and Cooper 2000). The supply chain literature clearly revealed that integration of multi-company net- works is very much significant (Burgess 1998; Cooper, Lambert, and Pagh 1997; de Leeuw, van Goor, and van Amstel 1999; Mason-Jones and Towill 1999; Norek and Pohlen 2001). Moreover, the information technology util- isation is a necessary requirement to maintain and con- trol these multi-networks as well as to improve supply chain effectiveness (Lee and Billington 1992; White and Pearson 2001). Around 57% of the frameworks have proposed Information Technology related elements to achieve excellence in the field of LSCM. Hence, the pre- sent study also included Information Technology as a pillar in the proposed LSCM framework.
6.1.5. JIT manufacturing
The concept of SCM is initiated and developed in the manufacturing organisations (Vrijhoef and Koskela 2000). According to Huang, Uppal, and Shi (2002), vari- ous new methodologies and tools were developed by manufacturing organisations to improve productivity, customer satisfaction, lead time reduction and quality. The SCM concepts were used initially in the Toyota pro- duction system as a part of the JIT delivery system
(Krafcik 1988). It clearly indicates that JIT operations and SCM operations are mutually integrated with each other. Around 36.66% of the frameworks have proposed JIT as an element of LSCM framework. Hence, the pre- sent study also considered it as one of the pillars to achieve excellence in the field of LSCM.
6.1.6. Elimination of waste
Initially Toyota organisation engineers have applied com- monsense and practical knowledge to reduce setup time and defects in the manufacturing operations. They have identified waste activities in the manufacturing opera- tions. According to them, waste is an activity that is not required to the customer for their needs. According to Ohno’s, the waste can be classified into seven wastes: over production, inventory, motion, over-processing, defects, transportation and waiting (Imai 1997; Liker 2004; Monden 1993; Taylor and Brunt 2001; Womack, Jones, and Roos 1990). According to Anand and Kodali (2008a), all seven wastes are applicable and also identi- fied in LSCM activities also. Around 60% of the frame- works have proposed it as one of the elements to implement in LSCM frameworks. Hence, the present study also recommends it as one of the pillars to achieve excellence in the field of LSCM.
6.1.7. Continuous improvement
CI is one of the important alternatives to improve organ- isational output performance (Corbett and Rastrick 2000; Milakovich 1991). The main objective of CI is to imple- ment initiatives that are improving the success rate and reducing the failure rate of activities in the organisations (Juergensen 2000). It is achieved by incremental improvement of products, processes and services with the help of teamwork over a period of time. All these factors influenced the researchers (16.66% of the frame- works) to propose CI as one of the elements in the LSCM frameworks. It indicates that a significant impor- tance was not given by various researchers for CI. How- ever, the literature clearly indicates that CI is a very important element to achieve excellence in LSCM activi- ties. Hence, the present study has given importance to CI as one of the pillars to achieve excellence in LSCM.
6.1.8. Logistics management
One of the roots of SCM exists in the field of logistics management. The focus of SCM is to develop coordina- tion, collaboration as well as long-term relationship building throughout the channel members, which are not a part of logistics management (Ballou 2007). It clearly indicates that SCM activities have much broader focus than logistics management. The frequency analysis
12 N.V.K. Jasti and R. Kodali
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
indicates that few researchers have used logistics man- agement as a part of LSCM framework. However, logis- tics management cannot be separated from SCM activities. Hence, the present study recommends logistics management as one of the pillars to implement in the comprehensive LSCM framework for any organisation.
7. Discussion
The present study tries to find out the inconsistencies presented in the sample of the frameworks studied. The study raised certain issues in the form of research ques- tions to address inconsistencies in the sample of the existing frameworks as well as to propose future actions required to develop an innovative LSCM framework. One of the important observations from the study is that most of the frameworks fall in the category of novel framework. It clearly indicates that theory building is incoherent in the field of LSCM frameworks, but it also indicates that appropriate amount of theory building has already taken place in the field of LSCM framework. Hence, the study reveals its opinion that the future frameworks could be developed based on the existing framework. This kind of methodology will help to develop coherent theory building in the field of LSCM frameworks. The present study also reveals a lack of par- ticipation from the practitioners-based frameworks when compared with academic-based and consultants-based frameworks. The practitioners are generally practice in real industrial environment. According to Soni and Kodali (2013), the practitioners plays vital role to develop more practicable and realistic frameworks in any field of research. However, the practitioners can be help- ful to identify limitation of implementation of various elements, which is useful to propose realistic and imple- mentable of framework in the field of research. The study suggests that the contribution of practitioners and to some extent consultants in the field of LSCM frame- works, if increases, that may result in developing a widely acceptable framework. The study also suggests that if the academicians collaborate with practitioners and consultants to develop the framework, such efforts will result in building sound theory grounding and prac- tice sense of the frameworks. This kind of frameworks is very less in number in the field of LSCM framework.
The present study also reveals that the number of LSCM frameworks, which have undergone verification process is significantly less. This kind of trend definitely will increase the gap between the theory and practice. Hence, the study suggests that the researchers should take responsibility to test or verify the proposed frame- works by applying various verification methodologies. It will help to develop innovative LSCM frameworks that encourage the practitioners and organisation manage- ments to implement these frameworks to achieve
excellence in the field of LSCM frameworks. Malhotra and Grover (1998) reported that the case study and qual- itative approaches are generally used to verify emergent field theories in the initial stage of research before it reaches to the maturity stage. The study also observed that the case study verification approach was used by many researchers to verify the proposed LSCM frame- works. Hence, the study supports the fact that the LSCM is in initial stage of development. Another observation from the present study is the incoherence of elements used to develop LSCM frameworks. This kind of results will occur only when the scope and focus of the frame- works are different from each other and also the prob- lems addressed by these frameworks are very different. However, for any field to reach maturity stage it requires a set of coherent elements. Generally, principle compo- nent analysis will help to find out descriptive set of main elements of the frameworks and subsequently the remaining sub-elements can be identified through various processes. Such kind of practices definitely will help to find out the coherent set of elements and pillars to develop the frameworks in the field of LSCM. One of the important features of the proposed framework in the present study has been developed with consultation of academicians, practitioners and consultants.
7.1. Implications
The study contributes in the field of theory building as well as practical domain of LSCM frameworks. The study has given clear guidelines to identify LSCM frameworks from the literature. The study is also useful to the researchers to distinguish the framework from the model. The study identified the possible research methodologies to verify the proposed LSCM frameworks and also frequently used research methodology to verify the existing LSCM frameworks. The present study sug- gests to perform reliability and validity analysis to find out suitable and coherent set of elements as well as pil- lars from the proposed conceptual LSCM framework.
The proposed LSCM framework pillars are derived based on frequently used elements in the existing frame- work. Hence, the proposed LSCM framework can be useful as a ready reference to the consultants and practi- tioners to identify pillars of LSCM field. The practition- ers and managers can use these pillars to identify the weak areas in their organisation to implement the LSCM principles. The managers generally struggle to bench- mark operations in the organisation. In this kind of situa- tions, the proposed framework can be taken as a reference to benchmark all activities across the organisa- tion. The present study suggests performing an appropri- ate statistical analysis to find out a feasible set of elements to formulate the LSCM strategy to implement in the organisation.
Production Planning & Control 13
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
8. Conclusion
The field of LSCM is one of the emergent areas in the field of operations management, which resulted in many researchers contributing to develop the frameworks. The present study observed that no research review articles were available to find out inconsistencies and inadequa- cies in the existing framework of LSCM. This kind of analysis is useful to develop a coherent set of elements in the field of LSCM frameworks. Hence, the present study conducted literature survey and identified 30 LSCM frameworks based on guidelines given earlier in Section 3. These 30 frameworks are focused as a sample set of LSCM frameworks instead of a complete set of LSCM frameworks. One of the main focuses of the pre- sent study is to find out the inconsistencies presented in the LSCM framework with the help of research ques- tions posted earlier in Section 2. The study found that the participation of practitioners in the field of LSCM frameworks were very low as compared with academi- cians and consultants. The present study also revealed that many proposed frameworks are novel frameworks and not verified by using any kind of research methodol- ogy. The study found that case study research methodol- ogy is the most popular one to verify the proposed frameworks. The study also investigated to find out the elements that have been used by various researchers to propose LSCM frameworks and to know the degree of standardisation of the elements in the field of LSCM. The study identified that a huge number of dissimilar elements were used by researchers to propose the LSCM frameworks. All these elements fall in the various func- tional areas of the organisation such as inventory man- agement, operations management, supplier and customer relationship management, top management commitment, etc. Hence, the identification of standard elements from the literature is a difficult task due to a huge number of elements used by the researchers to propose LSCM frameworks.
The limitations of present study are not performed to any kind of verification on proposed frameworks, it will consider as a future part of the research due to scope research work. The study suggests that the future researchers need to dedicate their efforts to find out the suitable coherent elements by using exploratory techniques such as principle component analysis based on respective sector. The study also suggests verifying reliability and validity of proposed concep- tual framework of LSCM to implement in the organisations.
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1004563.
Notes on contributors
Naga Vamshi Krishna Jasti did his BTech (Mechanical Engineering) from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad and ME (Mechanical Engineering) from BITS Pilani, Rajasthan. He completed his PhD from BITS Pilani. He is presently assistant professor with Department of Mechanical Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus, Pilani, India. He is also in-
charge for Bharat Forge and SKF India Ltd, Pune collaboration programmes for the past eight years. He has over eight years of teaching experience at under graduate and graduate levels. His areas of research interest are lean manufacturing and green manufacturing.
Rambabu Kodali is presently a director, National Institute of Technology, Jamshed- pur, India. Prior to appointment, Rambabu Kodali was a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering of BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus, India and also ‘Shri S.K. Birla Chair Professor’ from 2 April 2012 to 2 August 2012. He was a group leader (HOD) of Mechanical Engineering Group
and Engineering Technology Group from 1994 to 2004, respec- tively, to 2010. He has 27 years of teaching/research experience and 16 years of administrative experience as a group leader (HOD). He has published around 200 papers in various national and international journals. His research areas are: Toyota production system, lean manufacturing, manufacturing excellence, FMS, innovative product design and development, supply chain management and manufacturing management. He has supervised nine PhDs and currently supervising three more. He has completed 11 research projects in FMS, Computer Inte- grated Manufacturing Systems, World-class manufacturing and manufacturing excellence. He has developed 4 on-campus degree programmes and 14 offcampus degree programmes at BITS Pilani. He has developed and established the state-of-the- art FMS laboratory apart from modernising various Mechanical Engineering laboratories at BITS Pilani, Pilani campus, Pilani, India.
References
Aalbregtse, R. J., J. A. Hejka, and P. K. McNeley. 1991. “TQM: How Do You Do It?” Automation 9 (1): 30–32.
Adamides, E. D., N. Karacapilidis, H. Pylarinou, and D. Koumanakos. 2008. “Supporting Collaboration in the Development and Management of Lean Supply Networks.” Production Planning and Control 19 (1): 35–52.
Anand, G. 2009. “Design and Assessment of Lean Manufactur- ing Systems.” PhD thesis, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India.
Anand, G., and R. Kodali. 2008a. “A Conceptual Framework for Lean Supply Chain and Its Implementation.” Interna- tional Journal of Value Chain Management 2 (3): 313–357.
Anand, G., and R. Kodali. 2008b. “Development of a Conceptual Framework for Lean New Product Development Process.” In- ternational Journal of Product Development 6 (2): 190–224.
14 N.V.K. Jasti and R. Kodali
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
Anand, G., and R. Kodali. 2010. “Development of a Frame- work for Implementation of Lean Manufacturing Systems.” International Journal of Management Practice 4 (1): 95–116.
Ariff, T. F. M., and S. Ahmed. 2005. “Making the Lean Manu- facturing Supply Chain Leap across Small and Medium Scale Industries (SMIs) in Malaysia.” Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Mechanical & Materials Engineering (ICRAMME 05), Kuala Lumpur, May 30–31, Paper No. 37, 278–284.
Azevedo, S. G., H. Carvalho, and V. Cruz-Machado. 2011. “A Proposal of LARG Supply Chain Management Practicesand a Performance Measurement System.” International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning 1 (1): 7–14.
Ballou, R. H. 2007. “The Evolution and Future of Logistics and Supply Chain Management.” European Business Review 19 (4): 332–348.
Barla, S. P. 2005. “A Case Study of Suppliers Selection for Lean Supply by Using Mathematical Model.” Logistics Information Management 16 (6): 451–459.
Baum, D. 2004. “Creating the Lean Enterprise.” Profit, November, 44. Accessed May 14, 2014. http://www.oracle.com/oramag/ profit/04-nov/p44lean.html
Betchel, C., and J. Jayaram. 1997. “Supply Chain Management: A Strategic Perspective.” International Journal of Logistics Management 8 (1): 15–34.
Blackhurst, J., T. Wu, and P. O’Grady. 2005. “PCDM: A Deci- sion Support Modeling Methodology for Supply Chain, Pro- duct and Process Design Decisions.” Journal of Operations Management 23: 325–343.
Boydell, T., J. Burgoyne, and M. Pedler. 1991. The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development. London: McGraw-Hill.
Burgess, R. 1998. “Avoiding Supply Chain Management Failure: Lessons from Business Process Re‐Engineering.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 9 (1): 15–23.
Chen, I. J., and A. Paulraj. 2004. “Understanding Supply Chain Management: Critical Research and a Theoretical Frame- work.” International Journal of Production Research 42 (1): 131–163.
Childerhouse, P., J. Aitken, and D. Towill. 2002. “Analysis and Design of Focused Demand Chains.” Journal of Operations Management 20: 675–689.
Chin, K. C., V. M. R. Tummala, J. P. F. Leung, and X. Tang. 2004. “A Study on Supply Chain Management Practices: The Hong Kong Manufacturing Perspective.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 34 (6): 505–524.
Chopra, S., P. Meindl, and D. V. Kalra. 2007. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall.
Christopher, M. 1992. Logistics and Supply Chain Manage- ment. London: Pitman publishing.
Christopher, M., and D. R. Towill. 2001. “An Integrated Model for the Design of Agile Supply Chains.” International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 31 (4): 235–246.
Cooper, M. C., D. M. Lambert, and J. D. Pagh. 1997. “Supply Chain Management: More than a New Name for Logistics.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 8 (1): 1–14.
Corbett, L., and K. Rastrick. 2000. “Quality Performance and Organizational Culture.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 17 (1): 14–26.
Cox, A., D. Chicksand, and M. Palmer. 2007. “Stairways to Heaven or Treadmills to Oblivion?” British Food Journal 109 (9): 689–720.
Croom, S., P. Romano, and M. Giannakis. 2000. “Supply Chain Management: An Analytical Framework for Critical Literature Review.” European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 6 (1): 67–83.
Doran, D., A. Hill, K. Hwang, G. Jacob, and Operations research group. 2007. “Supply Chain Modularisation: Cases from the French Automobile Industry.” International Journal of Production Economics 106 (1): 2–11.
Flynn, B. B., S. Sakakibara, R. G. Schroeder, K. A. Bates, and E. J. Flynn. 1990. “Empirical Research Methods in Opera- tions Management.” Journal of Operations Management 9 (2): 250–284.
Francis, M. 1998. “Lean Information and Supply Chain Effec- tiveness.” International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 1 (1): 93–108.
Gomes, R., and J. T. Mentzer. 1988. “A Systems Approach to the Investigation of Just-in-time.” Journal of Business Logis- tics 9 (2): 71–88.
Grant A. W. H, and L. A. Schlesinger. 1995. “Realize Your Customers Full Profit Potential.” Harvard Business Review 73: 59–72.
Hakes, C. 1991. Total Quality Management: The Key to Busi- ness Improvement. London: Chapman and Hall.
Hines, P., M. Holweg, and N. Rich. 2004. “Learning to Evolve: A Review of Contemporary Lean Thinking.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 24 (10): 994–1011.
Huang, S. H., M. Uppal, and J. Shi. 2002. “A Product Driven Approach to Manufacturing Supply Chain Selection.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 7 (4): 189–199.
Imai, M. 1997. Gemba Kaizen: A Commonsense, Low-cost Approach to Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Juergensen, T. 2000. Continuous Improvement: Mindsets, Capability, Process, Tools and Results. Indianapolis, IN: The Juergensen Consulting Group.
Karlsson, C., and P. Åhlström. 1996. “Assessing Changes towards Lean Production.” International Journal of Opera- tions & Production Management 16 (2): 24–41.
Kouzes, J. M., and B. Z. Posner. 1995. The Leadership Chal- lenge: How to Keep Getting Extraordinary Things Done in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Krafcik, J. F. 1988. “Triumph of the Lean Production System.” Sloan Management Review 30 (1): 41–51.
Lambert, D., and M. Cooper. 2000. “Issues in Supply Chain Man- agement.” Industrial Marketing Management 29 (1): 65–83.
Lamming, R. 1993. Beyond Partnership, Strategies for Innova- tion and Lean Supply. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
Lamming, R. 1996. “Squaring Lean Supply with Supply Chain Management.” International Journal of Operations and Pro- duction Management 16 (2): 183–196.
Production Planning & Control 15
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
Lee, H., and C. Billington. 1992. “Managing Supply Chain Inventory: Pitfalls and Opportunities.” Sloan Management Review 33 (3): 65–73.
de Leeuw, S., A. R. van Goor, and R. P. van Amstel. 1999. “The Selection of Distribution Control Techniques.” The Interna- tional Journal of Logistics Management 10 (1): 97–112.
Lewis, M. A. 2006 “Lean Production and Sustainable Competi- tive Advantage.” In Supply Chains and Total Product Sys- tems: A Reader, edited by E. Rhodes, J. P. Warren, and R. Carter, 306–326. Milton Keynes: The Open University.
Liker, J. 2004. The Toyota Way: 14 Management Principles from the World’s Greatest Manufacturer. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Malhotra, M. K., and V. Grover. 1998. “An Assessment of Sur- vey Research in POM: From Constructs to Theory.” Journal of Operations Management 16 (4): 407–425.
Mason-Jones, R., and D. Towill. 1999. “Using the Information Decoupling Point to Improve Supply Chain Performance.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 10: 13–26.
Milakovich, M. E. 1991. “Total Quality Management in the Pub- lic Sector.” National Productivity Review 10 (2): 195–213.
Mishra, R. P., G. Anand, and R. Kodali. 2006. “Development of a Framework for World-classmaintenance Systems.” Jour- nal of Advanced Manufacturing Systems 5 (2): 141–165.
Monden, Y. 1993. Toyota Production System: An Integrated Approach to Just-in Time. 2nd ed. Norcross, GA: Industrial Engineering and Management Press, Institute of Industrial Engineers.
Nabhani, F., and A. Shokri. 2009. “Reducing the Delivery Lead Time in a Food Distribution SME through the Implementa- tion of Six Sigma Methodology.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 20 (7): 957–974.
Narasimhan, R., and A. Das. 2001. “The Impact of Purchasing Integration and Practices on Manufacturing Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 19: 593–609.
Nightingale, D. 2005. “Lean Supply Chain Management Princi- ples and Practices.” Accessed November 10, 2012. http:// ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-852j-inte grating-the-lean-enterprise-fall-2005/lecture-notes/7_lean_sup_ ch_mg.pdf
Norek, C. D., and T. L. Pohlen. 2001. “Cost Knowledge: A Foundation for Improving Supply Chain Relationships.” The International Journal of Logistics Management 12 (1): 37–51.
Oliver, N., R. Delbridge, and J. Lowe. 1993. World Class Manufacturing: Further Evidence from the Lean Production Debate. Oxford: Blackwell.
Park, J., K. Shin, T. Chang, and J.Park. 2010. “An Integrative Framework for Supplier Relationship Management.” Indus- trial Management and Data Systems 110 (4): 495–515.
Perez, C., R. de Castro, D. Simons, and G. Gimenez. 2010. “Development of Lean Supply Chains: A Case Study of the Catalan Pork Sector.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 15 (1): 55–68.
Popper, K. R. 1994. The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality. London: Routledge.
Reichhart, A., and M. Holweg. 2007. “Creating the Customer- responsive Supply Chain: A Reconciliation of Concepts.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 27 (11): 1144–1172.
Robson, M. 1986. The Journey to Excellence. Chichester, NH: Wiley.
Roth, A. V., C. A. Giffi, and G. M. Seal. 1992. “Operating Strategies for the 1990s: Elements Comprising World-class Manufacturing” In Manufacturing Strategy – Process and Content, edited by C. A. Voss. London: Chapman and Hall.
Rudberg, M., and J. Olhager. 2002. “Manufacturing Networks and Supply Chains: An Operations Strategy Perspective.” Omega 31 (1): 29–39.
Ryan, P. 2001. “Suppliers’ Perspectives of Lean Operation and Business-to-business Relations from the Periphery of an Industrial Market.” Irish Marketing Review 14 (1): 5–14.
Sezen, B., and S. Erdogan. 2009. “Lean Philosophy in Strategic Supply Chain Management and Value Creating.” Journal of Global Strategic Management 3 (1): 68–73.
Sharma, M., and R. Kodali. 2008a. “TQM Implementation Ele- ments for Manufacturing Excellence.” The TQM Magazine 20 (6): 599–621.
Sharma, M., and R. Kodali. 2008b. “Development of a Frame- work for Manufacturing Excellence.” Measuring Business Excellence 12 (4): 50–66.
Simchi-Levi, D., P. Kaminsky, and E. Simchi-Levi. 2008. De- signing and Managing the Supply Chain. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Soni, G., and R. Kodali. 2012. “Evaluating Reliability and Validity of Lean, Agile and Leagile Supply Chain Constructs in Indian Manufacturing Industry.” Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations 23 (10–11): 864–884.
Soni, G., and R. Kodali. 2013. “A Critical Review of Supply Chain Management Frameworks: Proposed Framework.” Benchmarking: An International Journal 20 (2): 263–298.
Storey, J., C. Emberson, J. Godsell, and A. Harrison. 2006. “Supply Chain Management: Theory, Practice and Future Challenges.” International Journal of Operations and Pro- duction Management 26 (7): 754–774.
Struebing, L., and L. A. Klaus. 1997. “Smaller Business Think- ing Big.” Quality Progress, February, 23–27.
Tan, K. C., S. B. Lyman, and J. D. Wisner. 2002. “Supply Chain Management: A Strategic Perspective’.” International Journal of Operations and Production Management 22 (6): 614–631.
Taylor, D. 1999. “Parallel Incremental Transformation Strategy: An Approach to the Development of Lean Supply Chains.” International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applica- tions 2 (3): 305–323.
Taylor, D. H. 2006. “Strategic Considerations in the Develop- ment of Lean Agri-food Supply Chains: A Case Study of the UK Pork Sector.” Supply Chain Management: An Interna- tional Journal 11 (3): 271–280.
Taylor, D., and D. Brunt. 2001. Manufacturing Operations and Supply Chain Management: The Lean Approach. London: Thomson Learning.
Tranfield, D., and K. Starkey. 1998. “The Nature, Social Organiza- tion and Promotion of Management Research: Towards Policy.” British Journal of Management 9 (4): 341–353.
Vitasek, K., K. B. Manrodt, and J. Abbott. 2005. “What Makes a Lean Supply Chain.” Supply Chain Management Review 9 (7): 39–45.
16 N.V.K. Jasti and R. Kodali
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
Voss, C. 1995. “Operations Management – From Taylor to Toyota – And beyond?” British Journal of Management 6: S17–S29.
Vrijhoef, R., and L. Koskela. 2000. “The Four Roles of Supply Chain Management in Construction.” European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management 6 (3–4): 169–178.
Weick, C. K. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. 2nd ed. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.
White, R., and J. Pearson. 2001. “JIT, System Integration and Customer Service.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 31 (5): 313–333.
Williamson, E. A., D. K. Harrison, and M. Jordan. 2004. “In- formation Systems Development within Supply Chain Man- agement.” International Journal of Information Management 24: 375–385.
Womack, J. P., and D. T. Jones. 1994. “From Lean Production to the Lean Enterprise.” Harvard Business Review 72 (2): 93–103.
Womack, J. P., D. T. Jones, and D. Roos. 1990. The Machine That Changed the World: The Story of Lean Production. New York: Rawson Associates.
Yusof, S. M., and E. Aspinwall. 2000. “Total Quality Manage- ment Implementation Frameworks: Comparison and Review.” Total Quality Management 11 (3): 281–294.
Appendix 1. Lean supply chain management frameworks
(1) Ambe, I.M. and Badenhorst-Weiss, J.A. (2010), “Strategic supply chain framework for the automo- tive industry”, African Journal of Business Manage- ment, Vol. 4, No. 10, pp. 2110–2120.
(2) Anand, G. and Kodali, R. (2008), “A conceptual framework for lean supply chain and its imple- mentation”, International Journal of Value Chain Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 313–357.
(3) Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2011), “A proposal of LARG Supply Chain Man- agement Practices and a Performance Measurement System”, International Journal of e-Education, e- Business, e-Management and e-Learning, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 7–14.
(4) Barla, S.P. (2005),“A case study of suppliers selec- tion for lean supply by using mathematical model, Logistics Information management, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 451–459.
(5) Blanchard, D. (2010), Supply chain management best practices, Second edition, John Wiley & Sons, UK.
(6) Cutcher–Gershenfeld, J. and Bertelli, D. (1999), “Lean Aircraft Initiative Implementation Workshop #3: Customer and Supplier Integration Across the Supply Chain” Available at: http://dspace.mit. edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/1663/RP99_01_38.pdf?se quence=1, (accessed on 25 November 2012).
(7) Despres, A.T., Monahan, B. and Lukez, R. (2006), “ Lean Procurement: The Future of Supply Chain Management in a Demand-Driven World”, available at : http://www.oracle.com/us/media/057011. pdf, (accessed 21 November 2012).
(8) Drohomeretski, E. and Manica, R. (2007), “Logís- tica Enxuta: gerando diferenciais para acadeia de suprimentos”, Congresso Internacional de Adminis- tração – Gestão Estratégica parao Desenvolvimento Sustentável, Ponta Grossa, PR.
(9) Ducharme, L. and Lukansky, P. (2002), “The lean Supply chain”, PharmaChem Magazine, available at: http://www.lda-us.com/Articles/4_TheLeanSup plyChain.pdf, (accessed 13 November 2012).
(10) Found, P. and Rich, N. (2007), “The meaning of lean: cross case perceptions of packaging busi- nesses in the UK’s fast moving consumer goods sector”, International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 157–171.
(11) Gonzalez-Benito, J. and Suarez-Gonzalez, I. (2001), “Effect of organisational variables in JIT purchasing implementation”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 39, No. 10, pp. 2231–2249.
(12) Hawkey, B. (2008), “Discovering the lean supply chain: transforming supply chain operations into a lean differentiator”, available at: http://www.lean ceo.com/discovering-the-lean-supply-chain-transform ing-supply-chain-operations-into-a-lean-differentiator, (accessed on 22 November 2012).
(13) Helmold, M. (2011), “Driving value in the upstream chain management through lean princi- ples”, International Journal of Lean Thinking, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 1–8.
(14) Lamming, R. (1993), Beyond Partnership, Strate- gies for Innovation and Lean Supply. Prentice- Hall, Hemel Hemstead, UK.
(15) Lean strategies group, LLC. (2000), lean supply chain, available on: http://www.lean-strategies.com/sup plysystem.htm, (accessed on 25 October 2011).
(16) Levy, D.L. (1997), “Lean production in an interna- tional supply chain”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 94–102.
(17) Manrodt, K.B., Thompson, R.H. and Vitasek, K. (2009), “Lean practices in the supply chain”, Available at: http://www.joneslanglasalle.co.in/Documents/ JLL-LeanPracticesInSupplyChain.pdf, (accessed 15 November 2012).
(18) Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D.R. (2000), “Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your sup- ply chain to the marketplace”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 4061– 4070.
(19) McKee, R. and Ross, D. (2006), “From lean manufacturing to lean supply chain: A foundation for change”, Available at: http://swe.lawson.com/ www/resource.nsf/d3dbeb5369147641c1256cfa004 de6a3/c5b77a0d4b008951c125705700504981/$FILE/ Lawson_Whitepaper_2_A4_LowRes.pdf, (accessed on 28 November, 2011).
(20) Nightingale, D. (2005), “Lean Supply Chain Management Principles and Practices”, available at: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astro nautics/16-852j-integrating-the-lean-enterprise-fall- 2005/lecture-notes/7_lean_sup_ch_mg.pdf, (accessed 10 November 2012).
(21) Perez, C., de Castro, R., Simons, D. and Gimenez, G. (2010), “Development of lean supply chains: a case study of the Catalan pork sector”, Supply Chain
Production Planning & Control 17
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 55–68.
(22) Poirier, C.C. (2009), “ Applying lean concepts to eliminate non-values across the supply chain net- work”, available at www.csc.com, (accessed 4 November 2012).
(23) QAD Inc. (2003), “Streamlining for Success: The Lean Supply Chain”, available at: http://www.qad. com/Public/Documents/streamlining_for_success. pdf, (accessed 14 November 2012).
(24) Qi, Y., Zhao, X. and Sheu, C. (2007), “Lean, Agile, and Legile Supply Chain: A Cumulative Model”, available at: http://iceb.nccu.edu.tw/proceed ings/APDSI/2007/papers/Final_134.pdf, (accessed 20 November 2012).
(25) Schniederjans, M.J., Schniederjans, D.G. and Schniederjans, A.M. (2009), Topics in Lean Supply Chain Management, World Scientific Press, Hackensack, NJ.
(26) Stummer, R. (2009), “Top five ways to lean your supply chain”, available at: http://www.man
monthly.com.au/news/top-five-ways-to-lean-your- supply-chain, (accessed 22 November 2012).
(27) Taylor, D.H. (2006), “Strategic considerations in the development of lean agri-food supply chains: a case study of the UK pork sector”, Supply Chain Man- agement: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 271–280.
(28) Tommelein, I.D., Ballard, G. and Philip Kaminsky, P. (2008), “Supply Chain Management for Lean Project Delivery”, Available at: http://ieor.berkeley. edu/~kaminsky/Reprints/PROOF_IT_GB_PK_08.pdf, (accessed 5 November 2012).
(29) Wright, N. (2010), “Lean and agile Supply chain”, Scandinavian Brewers’ Review, Vol. 67, No. 4, pp. 16–21.
(30) Wu, T. (2008), “Responsive lean supply chain Case study in a Japanese vehicle manufacturer in the UK”, Available at: http://ebiz.uoregon.edu/ poms2008/FullPapers/008-0679.pdf, (accessed 8 November 2012).
18 N.V.K. Jasti and R. Kodali
D ow
nl oa
de d
by [
E m
br y-
R id
dl e
A er
on au
ti ca
l U
ni ve
rs it
y] a
t 14
:4 3
14 J
un e
20 15
- Abstract
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Literature review
- 2.1. Research questions
- 3. Identification of existing LSCM frameworks
- 4. Research methodology
- 4.1. Generic criteria
- 4.1.1. Novelty of framework
- 4.1.2. Source of the framework
- 4.1.3. Framework verification
- 4.1.4. Mode of verification
- 4.2. LSCM specific criteria
- 4.2.1. Framework elements
- 4.3. Classification and analysis of LSCM frameworks
- 4.3.1. Novelty of framework
- 4.3.2. Source of framework
- 4.3.3. Framework verification
- 4.3.4. Mode of verification
- 4.3.5. Elements of frameworks
- 5. A conceptual framework of LSCM excellence
- 6. Pillars of comprehensive framework of LSCM
- 6.1.1. Top management commitment
- 6.1.2. Supplier relationship management
- 6.1.3. Customer relationship management
- 6.1.4. Information technology
- 6.1.5. JIT manufacturing
- 6.1.6. Elimination of waste
- 6.1.7. Continuous improvement
- 6.1.8. Logistics management
- 7. Discussion
- 7.1. Implications
- 8. Conclusion
- Supplemental data
- Notes on con�trib�u�tors
- References
- Appendix 1. Lean supply chain management frameworks
