Zugl.: Magdeburg, Univ., Diss., 2009

The aim of this research is to investigate collaborative supply chain practices between Taiwanese and Chinese companies. To that end, we seek to address four main objectives: 1) to investigate and provide evidence of collaboration in supply chain management; 2) to evaluate supplier development within supply chain collaboration; 3) to investigate the internal processes of supply chain collaboration; and 4) to examine the outcomes of supply chain collaboration. To explore collaboration in supply chain management, we conduct an extensive review of the state of the art in collaborative supply chain, and we base our investigations and discussions on three real-life companies that practice collaborative supply chain methods in the target countries. Each study contains detailed information on each company, including the company’s background, history, culture, marketing strategy and their collaborative practices. We employ pattern-matching structures to analyse current collaborative practices, which allows us to determine the similarities and differences between theoretical collaboration and collaborative supply chain in practice. We have analysed both the literature and collaborative methodologies used by the companies in each case study, and we have identified a number of key findings that address each of the four research objectives. On one hand there is evidence to support the use of collaboration in supply chain management between Taiwanese and Chinese companies. However, to increase collaboration, we propose agreements between the countries and identification of key suppliers. On the other hand, dominant and powerful partners may prevent good collaboration within the supply chains. Therefore, in order to create an open minded and collaborative culture, we propose greater trust between Taiwanese buyers and Chinese and Taiwanese suppliers. The value in collaborative supply chain can then be realised, which has a positive impact on the business in terms of increasing competitive advantage and customer satisfaction. In addition, such collaborative practices provide the motivation for collaborative supply chain management between Taiwanese buyers and Chinese and Taiwanese suppliers.

Bergische Universiẗat, Bachelorarbeit--Wuppertal, 2006.

Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM) has increasingly been considered important by both industry and academia, organizations around the world seek to extend or disseminate their sustainable practices to their multi-tier supply chains in order to make the whole chain sustainable. Among the main streams of SSCM research, it is surprising that, with a few exceptions, the leadership role of multinational corporations (MNCs) in their supply chains in an emerging economy has been ignored by researchers. Little is known on how MNCs, assuming leadership in their supply chain, have been able to facilitate their supply chain members to learn sustainability practice in an emerging economy context i.e. the mechanisms. To address this gap in the literature, a multiple-case study is designed. Multi-tier supply chains of three MNCs were selected to investigate their proactive sustainability projects in China. They are: Tetra Pak creating a recycling chain in China; Nestlé modernising China’s dairy industry; and IKEA’s sustainable cotton initiative. By adopting Resource Orchestration Theory (ROT), findings related to supply chain leadership, supply chain learning, multi-tier SSCM are presented. A number of testable propositions are advanced. The main findings of the research are that rather than focusing on the ‘low hanging fruits’ of sustainability, MNCs implement proactive sustainable initiatives requiring a strategic thinking and long term significant investment by engaging their multi-tier suppliers and non-traditional supply chain members. They tend to play a leadership role in the implementation process enabled by transformational and transactional leadership styles. These MNCs applied different leadership styles and governance mechanisms on different tiers of suppliers, which render different supply chain structures in the process of supply chain learning, which includes three stages of set up, operating and sustaining. This research contributes to SSCM research in the following ways: first, it may be the first attempt that investigates multi-tier SSCM through supply chain learning and supply chain leadership angles adopting a ROT perspective. This help to explain how MNCs implement sustainable initiatives in China; second, it contributes to supply chain learning literature by differentiating supply chain learning stages and learning content in terms of focal company knowledge resources and supplier learning complexity to explain the implementation of SSCM initiatives; third, leadership at an individual level is well researched and understood but it is not the case for organisational level leadership. This research enriches our understanding of the role of organisational leadership in MNCs’ SSCM; fourth, the research contributes to multi-tier SSCM with a focus on both supply chain governance mechanisms and supply chain structure; fifth, this research extend ROT from within an organization context to supply chains and include three aspects: breadth (resource orchestration across the scope of the supply chain including both internal and external breadth); depth (resource orchestration across multi-tiers of the supply chain); and project lifecycle (resource orchestration at various stages of supply chain learning stages); finally, a complete theoretical framework is developed to tie together the constructs of supply chain learning, supply chain leadership, multi-tier SSCM with ROT. Practically, a step by step methodology, integrating the key factors affecting the implementation of SSCM initiatives including supply chain learning, supply chain leadership, multi-tier supply chain governance and supply chain structure, is proposed. The ‘best practices’ of the researched MNCs provide a feasible roadmap for these organizations to learn from.

This research is an exploratory study of the relationship between two supply chain management (SCM) concepts, namely supply chain structure and supply chain integration. The objective is to enhance the understanding of the extent to which supply chain structure is relevant to the supply chain integration, and of how this relationship between these concepts contributes to the ideas of supply chain quality (SCQ) in the manufacturing industry. The literature review with reference to the structure and integration results in the following structural dimensions: centralisation, formalisation and communication which are likely to have an effect on the supply chain integration; ultimately, on supply chain quality. For the purposes of this research, the conceptual model was developed, and its validity was explored via case-studies. The two manufacturing supply chains including their focal firms and the first-tier suppliers based in Turkey were selected as the case-supply chains. A total of 41 face-to-face, semi-structured interviews were carried out. The findings of the present study suggest that while formalisation and communication are positively related to the supply chain integration, centralisation in which a focal firm designs and manages the whole network negatively affects the supply chain integration. Hence decentralised, formalised supply chains facilitated by the means of communication are proposed in today’s global economy in order for supply chains to achieve integration, hence considered to attain supply chain quality.

The manufacturing sector is a highly dynamic environment subject to continuous change and environmental uncertainty as parts, components and materials are procured and sourced globally. To be competitive, manufacturers must respond to such uncertainties rapidly and with the greatest flexibility in order to procure and maintain the supply of raw materials resources to sustain their manufacturing operations. Thus, the understanding and measuring of the procurement flexibility are key steps in maintaining a competitive advantage. So, the present study examined the theoretical concepts of procurement flexibility and proposed a generalisable measurement scale for manufacturing procurement flexibility. The scale was based on five supplier-manufacturer procurement dimensions of information exchange, supplier integration, product and component delivery, logistics and organisational structure. Further, each of these dimensions was divided into three flexibility elements of range, uniformity and mobility. A measurement scale was developed fiom a review of extant literature on flexibility relationships, purchasing, procurement and supply chain management using Q-Sort methodology. A mail survey of the major industry groups in the Australian manufacturing industry was undertaken. Principal component analysis and multiple regressions were used to examine the relationships between the flexibility dimensions and their elements. The results indicate that there is still much theory formulation and research to be conducted on procurement flexibility measurement scales. The results also revealed that Australian manufacturers have a limited experience with the flexibility issue and in some cases do not have even a procurement strategy. / These results provide important practical information and establish a range of relevant implications for the Australian manufacturing sector and its future competitiveness. This study also provides a basis for the continued development and distillation of procurement flexibility measures. One of the interesting outcomes of the Supplier Manufacturer Procurement Flexibility (ProcFlex) dimensions and the implication for overall Supply Chain Management (SCM) objectives and strateges is that ProcFlex is cumulative. Any inflexibilities and constrictions, like excess and lack of inventory, in procurement activities is accumulated and increases along the supply chain. It is like a 'stock-whip' effect that runs from suppliers to customers as to the reverse of the 'bull whip' effect.

Zugl.: Dortmund, Universiẗat, Diss.

Wiss. Hochsch. für Unternehmensführung, Diss.--Vallendar, 2004.

Zugl.: Duisburg, Essen, Universiẗat, Diss., 2009.

Zugl.: Magdeburg, Univ., Diss., 2008