What do we really mean by supply chain management?
In this brief excerpt from his book, Future Logistics Challenges , Leif Enarsson of Sweden's Gothenburg University wonders why after all these years we still haven't arrived at a common definition of supply chain management.
Over the years many buzzwords have emerged in the field of logistics, with "supply chain management" (SCM) and all its variants being the most common examples. There is nothing new in these terms. Logistics management is still a developing discipline, and natural development over time does not equate to truly new concepts.
Nevertheless, researchers continue to discuss and debate the meaning of the term supply chain management. Every new book about logistics, it seems, contains another definition of SCM. To me this is an absurd situation, because there is nothing truly new, even if we do give it a new name or definition.
According to the academics Lambert and Stock1 and others, the definition of supply chain management is much broader than that of logistics. This is a common argument. For example, the Council of Logistics Management (CLM) (now the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals) revised the definition of logistics in 1998:
Logistics is that part of the supply chain process that plans, implements, and controls the efficient, effective flow and storage of goods, services, and related information from the point-of-origin to the pointof- consumption in order to meet customers' requirements.
Lambert, Cooper, and Pagh offered the following definition that same year2:
Supply chain management is the integration of key business processes from end user through original suppliers that provide products, services, and information that add value for customers and other stakeholders.
That definition covers most business activities. Christopher's definition3 is more customer-focused:
The management of upstream and downstream relationships with suppliers and customers to deliver superior customer value at less cost to the supply chain as a whole.
The standpoint that logistics management is more internal than supply chain management strikes me as somewhat strange given that integration between different players has always been fundamental to logistics management.
To illustrate how the definition and concept of supply chain management have multiplied, consider that in 1999, 30 papers were presented at a conference, resulting in at least 20 different variations on the SCM theme.4 These included:
Supply chain network
Supply management
Capacity-based supply chain
Supply chain dynamics
Networkwide supply chain
Lean supply chain
Supply network
Web supply chain
Supply demand
Seamless supply chain
Supply integration
Demand chain
Information management
Supply coalitions
Similarly Day, Burnett, and Forrester5 found that the term "supply chain management" was frequently used but the concept had inherited a multiplicity of meanings—in other words, there were disagreements about what definition best describes SCM. They also found that literature surveys create more confusion than general agreement on a definition.
Here are some examples of how fragmented the definitions have been. Olsen and Ellram's definition6 had a broad discussion about the "buyer-supplier relationship." New7 argued that supply chain management crosses boundaries between operations and industrial economics, marketing, economic geography, and industrial sociology. (Under that description, supply chain management includes nearly everything in business—hardly a meaningful definition.)
Another definition was that of Mattsson,8 who said the supply chain consisted of a line of actors who are in a dependent relationship with one other, and through which material, payment, and information flow. But this could also be seen as a traditional defi- nition of logistics.
SCM is what you make of it
All of these variations and the lack of clarity in the definition lead to the conclusion that SCM is what you make of it; in other words, it can involve anything, depending on the situation. In that view, it is hardly a new theory, nor is it a new scientific field.
Leaving aside the discussion of the proper definition of SCM and its relationship to logistics for a moment, let's look more closely at the concept itself and its possible advantages. The supply chain concept extends to include a focus on production and involves both the supply and distribution sides of the company. As the chain expands, the distance between the manufacturer and the end consumer increases, both geographically and from an operational point of view. At the same time, there is a strong trend toward more and more customer-oriented products and production, which requires close relationships between suppliers and customers.
This trend points out the need for a form of supply chain or, more generally, a system for integration and closer relationships. But is the "supply chain" concept the solution to this challenge? A chain of companies is only a part of a whole, complex system. There has to be a focus on all of the relationships and the dependencies, which is a big challenge indeed.
Currently, SCM research is dominated by information technology (IT)-related projects that often involve IT-based modeling and simulation. As a result, SCM consultants and researchers are building models in one limited field, often without a deeper knowledge of established theory, practical usefulness, economic benefits, or the effects of their developments on the system as a whole.
In today's world, businesses are shaped by complexity, fast-changing conditions, and constant development. This causes instability in many respects, but is this situation really new? Have not people in all periods of history thought that their own times were more dynamic and more changeable than any before them? Today, however, we can better predict change than we could in the past. This means that we can control development and that the rate of development is low today compared to previous periods.
Companies are trying to respond to dynamic developments and complexity, striving to achieve stability and to carry out operations more efficiently. The goal of IT development, to a great extent, is to create a better (which often means simpler and easier) way to conduct business.
In this dynamic world, we create new theories and new concepts such as supply chain management. What are the criteria for the new theories, and how are new conceptions related to them? Sometimes it seems that the degree of popularity—how often it is used, mentioned, or referred to—is the determining factor.
What kind of chain?
If we want to keep the "chain" concept, then the most appropriate name might be "value chain." But in some respects, it would be more correct to call the supply chain the "demand chain." One important reason is that demands for more effective support often come from customers. A discussion about supply and demand, moreover, leads to the conclusion that all actors in the supply chain can be seen both as customers and suppliers, depending on the position from which you view the chain. Regardless of the viewpoint, the end of the chain is always the final customer.
If we treat the supply chain as a theory, we can compare it with other theories and draw some conclusions. For instance, the marketing channel theory focuses on the distribution and demand side of a company; it can be argued that this is only part of the chain, but this depends on where the company is situated in the chain. The value chain primarily focuses on internal activities and physical flows, so that support activities are related to external activities. In comparison with supply chains, the value chain pays very little attention to information systems. The network theory considers the whole network, its actors, activities, and relationships. The supply chain is only one part of a network, and therefore it only gives us one part of the entirety. Finally, the business logistics theory includes the whole material flow and the different activities within it. Business logistics does not focus on integration and the information system in the same way that the supply chain concept does. In logistics, information systems are natural and necessary tools for managing the flow in all its aspects; it is not the major management focus that it is in the supply chain theory.
It is quite possible to compare and find differences between the supply chain concept and established concepts. Yet isn't the supply chain concept a result of striving for new ideas—ideas that contain very little in the way of substantial new facts? In fact, we could just as well call supply chain management "cash flow management" or "information management."
It should be obvious to anyone that I have a reserved attitude towards new concepts, and in my logistics research world, I believe that this is a healthy approach.
Endnotes: 1. Douglas M. Lambert and James R. Stock, Fundamentals of Logistics Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993).
2. Douglas M. Lambert, Martha C. Cooper, and Janus D. Pagh, "Supply Chain Management: Implementation Issues and Research Opportunities." The International Journal of Logistics and Management (1998).
3. Martin Christopher, Logistics and Supply Chain Management. (London: Prentice Hall, 1998)
4. Leif Enarsson, "Supply Chain Management: Just a Simple System, or a Determining Solution?" Paper given at the 15th International Conference on Production Research, University of Limerick, Ireland (1999).
5. Marc Day, John Burnett, and Paul Forrester, "Assessing Control Sspects in U.K. Ceramic Tableware Supply Chain." Paper presented at the 15th International Conference on Production Research, University of Limerick, Ireland (1999).
6. Rasmus F. Olsen and Lisa M. Ellram, "Buyer-Supplier Relationships: Alternative Research Approaches," European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management (1997).
7. Steve New, "Supply Chains: Some Doubts." Paper presented at the International Purchasing and Supply Education and Research Association, Cardiff, United Kingdom (1994).
8. Stig-Arne Mattsson, "Effective Material Flow in Supply Chains Through Integration." Paper presented at the Federation of European Production and Industrial Management Societies (FEPIMS) Conference, Helsinki, Finland (1998).
Editor's Note: This article is an edited excerpt from Future Logistics Challenges, (ISBN 9788763001700). The book can be purchased for UK £36, US $64, or EUR 53. For more information, go to International Specialized Book Services (www.isbs.com) or visit the Copenhagen Business School Press web site, www.cbspress.dk. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.
The North American robotics market saw a decline in both units ordered (down 7.9% to 15,705 units) and revenue (down 6.8% to $982.83 million) during the first half of 2024 compared to the same period in 2023, as North American manufacturers faced ongoing economic headwinds, according to a report from the Association for Advancing Automation (A3).
“Rising inflation and borrowing costs have dampened spending on robotics, with many companies opting to delay major investments,” said Jeff Burnstein, president, A3. “Despite these challenges, the push for operational efficiency and workforce augmentation continues to drive demand for robotics in industries such as food and consumer goods and life sciences, among others. As companies navigate labor shortages and increased production costs, the role of automation is becoming ever more critical in maintaining global competitiveness.”
The downward trend was led by weakness in automotive manufacturing, which traditionally leads the charge in buying robots. In the first half of 2024, automotive OEMs ordered 4,159 units (up 14.4%) but generated revenue of $259.96 million (down 12.0%). The Automotive Components sector was even worse, orders 3,574 units (down 38.8%) for $191.93 million in revenue (down 27.3%). Declines also happened in the Semiconductor & Electronics/Photonics sector and the Plastics & Rubber sector.
On the positive side, Food & Consumer Goods companies ordered 1,173 units (up 85.6%) for $62.84 million in revenue (up 56.2%). This growth reflects the increasing reliance on robotics for efficiency in food processing and packaging as companies seek to address labor shortages and rising costs, A3 said. And the Life Sciences industry ordered 1,007 units (up 47.9%) for revenue of $47.29 million (up 86.7%) as it continued its reliance on robotics for efficiency and precision.
Economic activity in the logistics industry expanded for the 10th straight month in September, reaching its highest reading in two years, according to the latest Logistics Managers’ Index (LMI) report, released this week.
The LMI registered 58.6, up more than two points from August’s reading and its highest level since September 2022.
The LMI is a monthly measure of business activity across warehousing and transportation markets. A reading above 50 indicates expansion, and a reading below 50 indicates contraction.
The September data is proof the industry is “back on solid footing” according to the LMI researchers, who pointed to expanding inventory levels driven by a long-expected restocking among retailers gearing up for peak-season demand. That shift is also reflected in higher rates of both warehousing and transportation prices among retailers and other downstream firms—a signal that “retail supply chains are whirring back into motion” for peak.
“The fact that peak season is happening at all should be a bit of a relief for the logistics industry—and economy as a whole—since we have not really seen a traditional seasonal peak since 2021,” the researchers wrote. “… or possibly even 2019, if you don’t consider 2020 or 2021 to be ‘normal.’”
The East Coast dock worker strike earlier this week threatened to complicate that progress, according to LMI researcher Zac Rogers, associate professor of supply chain management at Colorado State University. Those fears were eased Thursday following a tentative agreement between the union and port operators that would put workers at dozens of ports back on the job Friday.
“We will have normal peak season demand—our first normal seasonality year in the 2020s,” Rogers said in a separate interview, noting that the port of New York and New Jersey had its busiest month on record this past July. “Inventories are moving now, downstream. That, to me, is an encouraging sign.”
The LMI is a monthly survey of logistics managers from across the country. It tracks industry growth overall and across eight areas: inventory levels and costs; warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices; and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The report is released monthly by researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP).
Dockworkers at dozens of U.S. East and Gulf coast ports are returning to work tonight, ending a three-day strike that had paralyzed the flow of around 50% of all imports and exports in the United States during ocean peak season.
The two groups “have reached a tentative agreement on wages and have agreed to extend the Master Contract until January 15, 2025 to return to the bargaining table to negotiate all other outstanding issues. Effective immediately, all current job actions will cease and all work covered by the Master Contract will resume,” the joint statement said.
Talks had broken down over the union’s twin demands for both pay hikes and a halt to increased automation in freight handling. After the previous contract expired at midnight on September 30, workers made good on their pledge to strike, and all activity screeched to a halt on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday this week.
Business groups immediately sang the praises of the deal, while also sounding a note of caution that more work remains.
The National Retail Federation (NRF) cheered the short-term contract extension, even as it urged the groups to forge a longer-lasting pact. “The decision to end the current strike and allow the East and Gulf coast ports to reopen is good news for the nation’s economy,” NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay said in a release. “It is critically important that the International Longshoremen’s Association and United States Maritime Alliance work diligently and in good faith to reach a fair, final agreement before the extension expires. The sooner they reach a deal, the better for all American families.”
Likewise, the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) said it was relieved to see positive progress, but that a final deal wasn’t yet complete. “Without the specter of disruption looming, the U.S. economy can continue on its path for growth and retailers can focus on delivering for consumers. We encourage both parties to stay at the negotiating table until a final deal is reached that provides retailers and consumers full certainty that the East and Gulf Coast ports are reliable gateways for the flow of commerce.”
And the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) commended the parties for coming together while also cautioning them to avoid future disruptions by using this time to reach “a fair and lasting agreement,” NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons said in an email. “Manufacturers are encouraged that cooler heads have prevailed and the ports will reopen. By resuming work and keeping our ports operational, they have shown a commitment to listening to the concerns of manufacturers and other industries that rely on the efficient movement of goods through these critical gateways,” Timmons said. “This decision avoids the need for government intervention and invoking the Taft-Hartley Act, and it is a victory for all parties involved—preserving jobs, safeguarding supply chains, and preventing further economic disruptions.”
Supply chain planning (SCP) leaders working on transformation efforts are focused on two major high-impact technology trends, composite AI and supply chain data governance, according to a study from Gartner, Inc.
"SCP leaders are in the process of developing transformation roadmaps that will prioritize delivering on advanced decision intelligence and automated decision making," Eva Dawkins, Director Analyst in Gartner’s Supply Chain practice, said in a release. "Composite AI, which is the combined application of different AI techniques to improve learning efficiency, will drive the optimization and automation of many planning activities at scale, while supply chain data governance is the foundational key for digital transformation.”
Their pursuit of those roadmaps is often complicated by frequent disruptions and the rapid pace of technological innovation. But Gartner says those leaders can accelerate the realized value of technology investments by facilitating a shift from IT-led to business-led digital leadership, with SCP leaders taking ownership of multidisciplinary teams to advance business operations, channels and products.
“A sound data governance strategy supports advanced technologies, such as composite AI, while also facilitating collaboration throughout the supply chain technology ecosystem,” said Dawkins. “Without attention to data governance, SCP leaders will likely struggle to achieve their expected ROI on key technology investments.”
The U.S. manufacturing sector has become an engine of new job creation over the past four years, thanks to a combination of federal incentives and mega-trends like nearshoring and the clean energy boom, according to the industrial real estate firm Savills.
While those manufacturing announcements have softened slightly from their 2022 high point, they remain historically elevated. And the sector’s growth outlook remains strong, regardless of the results of the November U.S. presidential election, the company said in its September “Savills Manufacturing Report.”
From 2021 to 2024, over 995,000 new U.S. manufacturing jobs were announced, with two thirds in advanced sectors like electric vehicles (EVs) and batteries, semiconductors, clean energy, and biomanufacturing. After peaking at 350,000 news jobs in 2022, the growth pace has slowed, with 2024 expected to see just over half that number.
But the ingredients are in place to sustain the hot temperature of American manufacturing expansion in 2025 and beyond, the company said. According to Savills, that’s because the U.S. manufacturing revival is fueled by $910 billion in federal incentives—including the Inflation Reduction Act, CHIPS and Science Act, and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—much of which has not yet been spent. Domestic production is also expected to be boosted by new tariffs, including a planned rise in semiconductor tariffs to 50% in 2025 and an increase in tariffs on Chinese EVs from 25% to 100%.
Certain geographical regions will see greater manufacturing growth than others, since just eight states account for 47% of new manufacturing jobs and over 6.3 billion square feet of industrial space, with 197 million more square feet under development. They are: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee.
Across the border, Mexico’s manufacturing sector has also seen “revolutionary” growth driven by nearshoring strategies targeting U.S. markets and offering lower-cost labor, with a workforce that is now even cheaper than in China. Over the past four years, that country has launched 27 new plants, each creating over 500 jobs. Unlike the U.S. focus on tech manufacturing, Mexico focuses on traditional sectors such as automative parts, appliances, and consumer goods.
Looking at the future, the U.S. manufacturing sector’s growth outlook remains strong, regardless of the results of November’s presidential election, Savills said. That’s because both candidates favor protectionist trade policies, and since significant change to federal incentives would require a single party to control both the legislative and executive branches. Rather than relying on changes in political leadership, future growth of U.S. manufacturing now hinges on finding affordable, reliable power amid increasing competition between manufacturing sites and data centers, Savills said.