Marcadores Moleculares
5.4 Marcadores moleculares
supply chain performance
The ultimate aim of SCM is to improve both efficiency (i.e. cost reduction) and effectiveness (i.e., customer service) in a strategic framework to obtain a competitive advantage and profitability (Mentzer et al., 2001). However, trade-off exists between product variety and supply chain performance. A variety control strategy, including tactical elements such as modularity, cellular manufacturing (i.e. process flexibility) and postponement, reduces the negative impact of product variety on supply chain performance (Scavarda et al., 2010). Each variety control tactic enhances supply chain flexibility and agility, both of which are key factors in managing product variety in the supply chain (Christopher, 2000; Nair, 2005; Blecker and Abdelkafi, 2006; Davila and Wouters, 2007; Jacobs et al., 2011a). In addition, supply chain flexibility and agility have a positive influence on resource efficiency and customer focus outcomes (Narasimhan and Jayaram, 1998; Hiroshi and David, 1999; Tummala et al., 2006). Variety control strategy can have a direct positive impact on cost efficiency (see Graves and Tomlin, 2003; Anderson, 2004) and customer service (see Davila and Wouters, 2007). However, supply chain flexibility is one of the essential capabilities needed to mitigate the trade-off between product variety and supply chain performance (Scavarda et al., 2010). Simultaneously, flexibility is one of the essential aspect of supply chain performance (Beamon, 1999). Thus, in order to achieve the twin aims of cost efficiency and customer service, flexibility and agility are fostered as an internal function capability and an external response competence respectively.
Supporting variety control is of strategic importance for manufacturers. Thus, this research looked at three general aspects of the structure of strategies utilised to mitigate the impact of
84
product variety on supply chain performance: modular production in the product-based strategy, cellular manufacturing in the process-based strategy and postponement in the structure-based strategy. These strategies are based on the most fundamental variety control strategies suggested by a number of different researches, as explained in the previous chapter (Yeh and Chu, 1991; McCutcheon and Raturi, 1994; Fisher et al., 1999; Galvin and Morkel, 2001; Salvador et al., 2002; Hu et al., 2008; Scavarda et al., 2010).
Supply chain flexibility represents an internally focused capability and is associated with the adaptability of the firm’s internal supply chain functions of purchasing, engineering, manufacturing and distribution, whereas agility refers to externally-focused competences focusing more on speed at the organisational level, such as market responsiveness, delivery reliability and frequency of product introduction (Swafford et al., 2008). Bernardes and Hanna (2009) also clarified conceptual differences between the terms in flexibility, agility and responsiveness that are often used interchangeably in operations management. Thus, building on previous research, this research also proposes supply chain flexibility as a distinct but advanced and required capability and antecedent for supply chain agility. Accordingly, the structure of the flexibility concept considers the dimensions of manufacturing, procurement and distribution. Thus, supply chain flexibility involves: 1) production volume, production mix and engineering change flexibility in manufacturing, 2) material order change (quantity and time) flexibility in procurement and 3) delivery flexibility in distribution (Silveira, 1998; Swafford et al., 2006; Swafford et al., 2008). On the other hand, agility relates mainly to the speed of manufacturing and distribution activities in the supply chain. Improving supply chain agility requires: 1) reducing the product development cycle and manufacturing and delivery lead time, 2) increasing the level of product customisation in manufacturing and 3) improving customer service, delivery reliability and responsiveness to
85
market needs (Zhang and Sharifi, 2000; Van Hoek et al., 2001; Swafford et al., 2006; Swafford et al., 2008).
Beamon (1999) developed a framework for the mix of performance measures pertinent to supply chain systems, including three types of measures regarded as crucial components of a supply chain performance measurement system: resource, output and flexibility. Resource performance reflects value in the form of achieving efficiency while output performance refers to value added in terms of a firm’s ability to provide high levels of customer service. Lastly, flexibility performance reflects value added in terms of a firm’s ability to respond to changes such as demand uncertainty, new product introduction and supplier shortages (Beamon, 1999; Khan et al., 2009). Accordingly, this research considers cost efficiency in terms of resource performance and customer service in terms of overall output performance in the supply chain. Cost efficiency involves minimising the total cost of four items: 1) resources, 2) distribution, 3) manufacturing and 4) inventory (Beamon, 1999; Sezen, 2008). Customer service relates to customer responsiveness, satisfaction and customer value (Lee and Billington, 1993; Beamon, 1998; Treville et al., 2004). Thus, the following eight items were defined as composing the customer service structure: 1) fill rate, 2) on-time delivery, 3) customer response time, 4) quality, 5) manufacturing lead time, 6) customer complaint reduction, 7) customer satisfaction and 8) stock-out reduction (Beamon, 1999; Ramdas and Spekman, 2000; Sezen, 2008; Khan et al., 2009).
As a result, considering the trade-off between product variety and supply chain performance, the proposed model is designed to investigate the relative effect of a variety control strategy on supply chain performance (related to Q2.1) depending on the level of customisation (related to Q2.2). Figure 3.2 illustrates the conceptual framework used to
86
improve supply chain performance. Table 3-1 illustrates the details of the research constructs, items, code and related references.
Figure 3-2 Research framework 2
Table 3-1 Research constructs, items and related references
Structure Variable Related literature
Variety control strategy (VCS 1-3)
Modular production
(Ulrich and Tung, 1991; Salvador et al., 2002; Blecker and Abdelkafi, 2006; Scavarda et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2011b).
Postponement (Whang and Lee, 1998; Van Hoek et al., 2001;
Nair, 2005; Scavarda et al., 2010)
Cellular manufacturing
(Yeh and Chu, 1991; Ko and Egbelu, 2003; Abdi and Labib, 2004; Blecker and Abdelkafi, 2006; Scavarda et al., 2010)
Supply chain flexibility
(FL1-6)
Change quantity of suppliers’ orders (Narasimhan and Das, 1999; Swafford et al., 2008)
Change delivery times of orders placed with
suppliers (Narasimhan and Das, 1999; Swafford et al., 2008)
Change production volume (Gerwin, 1987; Sethi and Sethi, 1990; Swafford et
al., 2008)
Changes in production mix (Sethi and Sethi, 1990; Duclos et al., 2003;
Swafford et al., 2008)
Implement engineering change orders in production (Gerwin, 1993; Swafford et al., 2008) Alter delivery schedules to meet changing customer
requirements
(Slack, 1983; Duclos et al., 2003; Swafford et al., 2008)
Supply chain agility
Rapidly reduce product development cycle time (Goldman et al., 1995; Agarwal et al., 2006;
Swafford et al., 2008; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009)
87
(AG1-7)
Swafford et al., 2008)
Rapidly increase the level of product customisation (Van Hoek et al., 2001; Swafford et al., 2008; Hallgren and Olhager, 2009)
Rapidly improve level of customer service (Goldman et al., 1995; Sharifi and Zhang, 1999;
Swafford et al., 2008)
Rapidly improve delivery reliability (Sharifi and Zhang, 1999; Swafford et al., 2008)
Rapidly improve responsiveness to changing market
needs (Goldman et al., 1995; Swafford et al., 2008)
Rapidly reduce delivery lead time (Goldman et al., 1995; Swafford et al., 2008)
Cost efficiency
(CE1-4)
Minimise total cost of resources used (Beamon, 1999; Sezen, 2008)
Minimise total cost of distribution (including
transportation and handling costs) (Beamon, 1999; Sezen, 2008)
Minimise total cost of manufacturing (including
labour, maintenance, and re-work costs) (Beamon, 1999; Sezen, 2008; Zelbst et al., 2009)
Minimise total cost related with held inventory (Beamon, 1999; Ramdas and Spekman, 2000;
Sezen, 2008)
Customer service (CUS1-8)
Order fill rate (Beamon, 1999; Sezen, 2008)
On-time delivery (Beamon, 1999; Kim, 2006b; Sezen, 2008)
Customer response time (Beamon, 1999; Vickery et al., 2003; Sezen, 2008)
Quality (Beamon, 1999; Sezen, 2008)
Manufacturing lead time (Beamon, 1999; Sezen, 2008)
Customer complaints reduction (Beamon, 1999; Ramdas and Spekman, 2000;
Kim, 2006b; Sezen, 2008)
Customer satisfaction (Beamon, 1999; Ramdas and Spekman, 2000)
Stock-out reduction (Beamon, 1999)