The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0960-0035.

htm

IJPDLM 39,10

826
Received April 2009 Revised August 2009 Accepted September 2009

The moderating role of barriers on the relationship between drivers to supply chain integration and rm performance
R. Glenn Richey Jr
Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA

Haozhe Chen
College of Business Administration, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA

Rahul Upreti
Supply Chain Management Division, HSBC, USA

Stanley E. Fawcett
Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA, and

Frank G. Adams
Culverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of Alabama, Alabama, USA
Abstract
Purpose Implementation of supply chain management techniques requires thorough integration of processes between supply chain partners in all functional areas, including sourcing, manufacturing, and distribution. Yet insufcient attention has been given to the means by which rms achieve high levels of integration. This study aims to examine moderators impacting supply chain integration barriers. Design/methodology/approach Supply chain integration drivers and moderating barriers to supply chain integration were identied by extensive search of the literature, and in-depth interviews with supply chain managers. A survey was developed to measure levels of supply chain integration drivers, barriers to supply chain integration, and rm performance. The measures were validated using EFA, and the responses analyzed using multiple regression. Findings The study nds that rms with a desire to improve, operating in a challenging competitive environment typically experience high levels of performance. Further, barriers to supply chain integration can actually increase the rms ability to achieve rm performance as the rm is required to make greater efforts to overcome those barriers and develop effective supply chain linkages. Originality/value This study answers a call for additional research into factors that enable and inhibit supply chain integration, and offers an empirical analysis of the moderating effect of supply chain integration barriers on the relationship between integration drivers and rm performance. Keywords Integration, Supply chain management, Performance management Paper type Research paper
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management Vol. 39 No. 10, 2009 pp. 826-840 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0960-0035 DOI 10.1108/09600030911011432

This paper has been through a double-blind peer review in accordance with IJPDLMs review process. This paper will be presented at the 4th Annual Supply Chain Management & Industrial Distribution Symposium (SCMID), 5 November 2009, New Orleans, LA, USA: www.cba.ua.edu/scmid

Introduction Integration is now widely considered the core of successful supply chain management (SCM), both among academics and practitioners; because the implementation of SCM needs the integration of processes from sourcing, to manufacturing, and to distribution across the supply chain (Cooper et al., 1997; Ellram and Cooper, 1990; Mentzer et al., 2001). The increasing number of research studies on this topic has considerably furthered our understanding of integration. Most of the studies have focused on nding the positive outcomes of supply chain integration (e.g. Gimenez and Ventura, 2003; Stank et al., 1999). However, achieving a high level of supply chain integration has proven to be difcult (Fawcett and Bixby Cooper, 2001; Fawcett and Magnan, 2002). Fawcett and Magnans (2002) study found that most companies are still engaged at the early stage of supply chain integration. After an extensive review of integration literature, Pagell (2004) called for more research on the factors that enable and inhibit supply chain integration. Thus, the current study is undertaken to further explore the drivers and barriers of supply chain integration, especially the role of the barriers. The present research makes an important contribution by empirically examining the moderating effect of barriers of integration on the relationship between drivers of integration and rm performance. Because the positive relationship of supply chain integration and rm performance has been supported by numerous previous studies, we intentionally focus on the constructs of main interest in the current study. The paper is organized as follows. Relevant literature is reviewed and synthesized rst to develop a conceptual model, followed by research methodology. The results are then presented along with discussion. Conclusion and implications are discussed nally. Conceptual development While researchers have conceptualized supply chain integration in various ways, in essence, integration refers to the extent to which separate parties work together in a cooperative manner to arrive at mutually acceptable outcomes. Accordingly this denition encompasses constructs pertaining to the degree of cooperation, coordination, interaction and collaboration (OLeary-Kelly and Flores 2002, p. 226). As Pagell (2004) suggested, the majority of the research on integration addresses the positive relationship between integration and performance (e.g. Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Rodrigues et al., 2004; Stank et al., 2001), and there is a lack of study on the factors that enable and inhibit supply chain integration. Without a clear understanding of the effects of relevant factors, successful implementation of supply chain integration will remain a formidable challenge. Due to the lack of existing literature to draw upon, interviews with supply chain managers helped us narrow down to the most relevant factors of supply chain integration. In general, all the factors can be categorized either as external/internal or drivers/barriers. Managers have suggested that a key driver of their companies supply chain integration is external environment, including the general economic environment, suppliers, customers, competitors, etc. While most managers reported their companies desire to improve their companies supply chain practices, they also admitted that internal planning failure and external monitoring failure are the two most critical barriers to their supply chain integration. Because of the exploratory nature of the current study, we focus on these concepts that were identied in the interviews. Detailed hypotheses development is provided in the next section.

The moderating role of barriers

827

IJPDLM 39,10

828

Drivers of supply chain integration Internal drivers of supply chain integration Internally, desire to improve rm performance through development of more effective and efcient trade relationships appears to be a critical driver of supply chain integration. Desire to improve refers to a rms orientation on continuous improvement of its processes and performance. A rms orientation may have signicant impact on its selection of strategies and approaches to achieve specic goals. In other words, a rms desire to improve may determine specic approaches the rm chooses to implement its strategies for the purpose of creating superior and continuous performance (see Gatignon and Xuereb 1997). While almost all rms claim that they intend to improve business performance over time, this construct measures the degree that a rm wants to improve its practices in certain areas. Although most managers have realized the critical importance of supply chain integration, in reality, few companies have truly adopted and disseminated a formal SCM denition; and even fewer have meticulously mapped out their supply chains so that they know who their suppliers suppliers or customers customers really are (Fawcett and Magnan, 2002). In contrast, when a rm truly understands the meaning of SCM, it is more likely to embrace a supply chain philosophy (Mentzer et al., 2001). Authors have argued that SCM as a management philosophy seeks synchronization and convergence of intrarm and interrm operational and strategic capability into a unied, compelling marketplace force (e.g. Mentzer et al., 2001; Ross, 1998). With a strong intention to improve (i.e. desire to improve), a rm is likely to consider supply chain integration as an effective approach to enhance business performance and achieve other goals. In other words, a rms desire to improve has positive impact on its supply chain integration. Environmental drivers of supply chain integration The external environment a rm operates in also plays a critical role of the rms adoption and implementation of supply chain integration. First, the fast-changing market demands require companies to integrate supply chain processes in order to be more responsive. Customers are demanding products consistently delivered faster and more reliably, which requires close coordination within the rm and with suppliers. For example, postponement as a type of popular supply chain strategy is largely facilitated by integration of various functional areas. As van Hoek (1998) suggested, when customer demands become less and less predictable, companies are more likely to implement supply chain integration to achieve postponement; because the relevance of delaying nal manufacturing and shipment of goods increases. The shortening product life cycles also force rms to integrate both internal and external processes in order to better compete in the market. It is hard to imagine how a rm can be successful today with lengthy and fragmented processes. Second, competition in the market place also plays an important role in integration implementation. Under high competitive intensity, the diffusion of new ideas and practices will be more rapid (Williams, 1994). Because companies need to allocate resources more effectively and efciently in order to keep competitive parity or achieve competitive advantage (Hunt and Morgan, 1995), supply chain integration appears to be an excellent option.

Fourth, the shift of channel power to downstream also impacts the adoption of supply chain integration. Power is dened as the inuence one-channel member has over another channel member. Williams (1994) found that channel power has signicant inuence on adoption process of electronic data interchange (EDI), a type of supply chain integration practice. As another example, the radio frequency identication (RFID) initiative started by Wal-Mart pushes the upstream suppliers to quickly adopt the technology and integrate their processes with retailers such as Wal-Mart. Based on above discussion, it can be concluded that a rms desire to improve and the environmental factors are critical drivers of supply chain integration. Since the positive link between supply chain integration and rm performance has been supported by numerous studies, in order to remain research focus we hereby propose: H1. H1a. H1b. Drivers of supply chain integration are positively related to rm performance. Orientation on continuous improvement of the processes effecting supply chain integration is positively related to rm performance. Levels of environmental drivers of supply chain integration are positively related to rm performance.

The moderating role of barriers

829

Barriers to supply chain integration Even though some factors are driving rms to improve SCM through integration, the reality is not optimistic (e.g. Fawcett and Magnan, 2002). In past literature and our interviews, managers have reported many difculties in the process of implementing supply chain integration. However, the research on the effects of the barriers to supply chain integration is still lacking, which limits our ability to nd effective solutions to these issues. Thus, it is worthwhile to investigate effects of these barriers to supply chain integration. As discussed previously, factors inuencing supply chain integration can be either internal or external. Although barriers to supply chain integration may also exist either within a rm or outside a rm, it is more meaningful to examine the barriers with an internal perspective; because these are the factors that a rm can directly control. Therefore, the current study focuses on investigating the internal mechanisms that pose as obstacles to supply chain integration. The interviews with supply chain managers identied a list of internal issues that hinders the implementation of supply chain integration, and most of them fall into two categories: internal planning failure and external monitoring failure. Internal planning failure refers to the lack of an effective planning mechanism that facilitates the synergy of business processes; and external monitoring failure refers to the lack of an internal mechanism that effectively monitors the external environment. Although integrations importance and benets are widely recognized, the traditional functional management approach still impacts many managers mindset and the decision-making processes. Bowersox et al. (2000) indicated that while purchasing, production, logistics, and marketing have worked independently to integrate within their own functions, there has been less progress made toward cross-functional integration. Managers spend a signicant amount of resources navigating the waters of their own harbor (Fawcett and Magnan, 2002). A major

IJPDLM 39,10

830

reason for this lack of motivation toward integration is a fragmented planning system. Instead of striving for common goals, each functional area works for its own interest to achieve its own performance objectives. Disjointed performance measurement systems, a typical type of internal planning failure, lead different functional areas in various directions. For example, while the production department might heavily focuses on cutting the costs, the sales department might only strive for bigger sales volume, which will make supply chain integration an impossible mission. Thus, van Hoek (2000) argued that because mechanisms for both internal and external integration can be found in the measurement and control of operations, it is important to develop integrative measures for the entire organization. In other words, internal planning failure is a major barrier to supply chain integration. In todays environment, competition is among supply chains rather than among individual companies (Christopher, 2005). Therefore, rms must realize that integration does not happen in a vacuum and an external perspective is critical. This requires rms to have an effective information system to monitor external environment, including their customers, suppliers, and competitors, to make appropriate decisions regarding supply chain integration. First, rms need to monitor the changing customer needs and better manage business processes to create superior customer value. Marketing scholars have long argued that in order to be market oriented, rms must generate market intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs, disseminate the intelligence across departments, and respond to it through functional coordination (e.g. Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Slater and Narver, 1995). Second, rms should also benchmark other companies competitors, suppliers, or customers. According to Camp (1989, p. 7), benchmarking is the search for those best practices that will lead to superior performance of a company. Because a rms depth of knowledge is an important predictor of adoption of radical and incremental innovations, such exposure to external environment has been considered as a critical driver of the adoption of best practices, including supply chain integration (Daugherty et al., 1994). In another study, Jayaram et al. (2000) found that the effectiveness of a rms information system infrastructure signicantly improves the integration of its business processes. Without an effective external monitoring system, a rm will encounter difculties in integrating its business processes to remain competitive in the marketplace. Stated differently, external monitoring failure is another important barrier to supply chain integration. While it is important to understand the negative effects of internal planning and external monitoring on supply chain integration, it is also imperative to explore their impacts on the relationships between other integration drivers and rm performance. To be more specic, the current study identies a rms desire to improve and environment as key drivers of supply chain integration. However, how will the positive relationships between these drivers and rm performance be affected by the barriers to supply chain integration? While intuition may lead managers to believe that integration drivers impacts on rm performance will be lower when integration barriers are at a higher level, we propose that the moderating effects in the opposite direction integration drivers positive impacts on rm performance are stronger when integration barriers are at higher. As discussed previously, poor internal planning and external monitoring hinders the effective supply chain integration (see Jayaram et al., 2000; Slater and

Narver, 1995). It thus can be expected that rm performance will suffer and be subprime when these barriers manifest at a high level. In other words, when integration barriers are present, a rm often does not perform well and is less competitive in the market. In such a case, the importance of integration drivers is magnied. First, when the rm has a strong desire to improve its performance, it is more likely to embrace a supply chain philosophy and implement supply chain integration (Mentzer et al., 2001). This kind of willingness will contribute to a more signicant improvement in rm performance. Second, the push from suppliers, customers, and competitors will force a rm to change its existing practices and integrate business processes to remain competitive. Similarly, this will result in a more signicant impact on rm performance. H2. Barriers to supply chain integration act as a moderator to strengthen the positive relationships between the drivers of supply chain integration and the rm performance.

The moderating role of barriers

831

These relationships are shown visually in Figure 1.

Sample and data collection An extensive review of the literature and in-depth interviews with supply chain professionals provided the foundation for the research. To document how managers view supply chain integration and rm performance, a survey method was employed and a questionnaire was developed, employing the NAPM/ISM scale as a template. This questionnaire was modied with the help of an advisory board, consisting of practitioners and academics, and a pretest was conducted. The survey was further rened and another round of data collection was undertaken covering members of Institute of Supply Management (ISM), Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP), and APICS. The survey process followed Dillmans (1978) total design method and 581 usable surveys were received. Respondent and non-respondent

Figure 1. The moderating role of barriers on the relationship between drivers of supply chain integration and rm performance

IJPDLM 39,10

proles were compared after requesting demographic data from non-respondents; no response bias was found. Operational measures An exploratory factor analysis using principle components and varimax rotation was conducted on each construct, i.e. drivers, integration barriers, and rm performance, using random samples containing approximately one half of the complete data. This was followed by a conrmatory factor analysis using principle components and varimax rotation to assess the replicability of the results. EFA on the environmental drivers suggests that variables can be summarized by two factors as shown in Table I. One variable was discarded due to high cross loadings. The Cronbachs alpha of this analysis is computed to be 0.814. The CFA (see Table II) conrms these results with the Cronbachs alpha of 0.796. Integration barriers related variables could be summarized by two factors as shown in Table I. Seven variables were discarded due to either high cross loadings or low loading on each factor. The reliability, as measured by Cronbachs alpha, was 0.736. These results are validated using a CFA (see Table II) on the complete data set. The Cronbachs alpha is computed to be 0.764. EFA on the performance related variables yields a single dimension as shown in Table I. Rotation of the variables yielded worse results; hence, they were left unrotated. The Cronbachs alpha is computed to be 0.932. Again the results were validated using a CFA (see Table II) on the complete data set. This analysis yields the Cronbachs alpha of 0.930. One variable was removed due to lack of t. Analysis and results The hypotheses were tested by using a two-step procedure involving moderated multiple regression analysis. In the rst step, H1 concerning the inuence of drivers on the rm performance was tested using multiple regression analysis. Step two tested the relationships between drivers and rm performance and the barriers of supply chain integration that moderate these effects (H2). Moderated multiple regression was used as suggested by Stone and Hollenbeck (1989) and utilized by Morgan and Piercy (1998). Each of two independent variables was rst independently regressed on to the performance outcome in a standard linear expression (Y b0 b1 X). Then each equation was re-estimated including: . each of the moderator variables (Y b0 b1 X b2 Z ); and . adding the interaction term of the independent and moderator variables (Y b0 b1 X b2 Z bXZ ). Changes in R 2 were assessed to determine if there were signicant increases when the cross product (XZ) entered into the regression equation. This provided an indication of the inuence of the moderator variable. Table III shows the results of hypothesis testing. The second column of the table shows the regression coefcients (B) of the independent variables when rm performance is regressed on them individually. It is clear that both the coefcients are signicant at the 1 percent level. Hence H1 is supported. The right hand portion of Table III provides the results of moderated regression when entering integration barriers as moderator variables into the model. Internal

832

Group 2

Factors 0.814 56.248 3.685 1.377 0.164 0.672 0.276 0.639 0.253 0.703 0.740 0.079 0.632 0.698 0.227 0.025 0.715 0.231 0.881 0.231 0.685 0.798 0.308 0.824 20.027 0.797 0.820 0.795 0.698 0.716 0.747 0.688 0.724 0.747 0.763 0.805 0.780 2.630 0.804 0.235 0.683 0.068 0.754 0.205 0.144 0.865 0.191 0.736 63.554 1.184 0.932 57.398 6.888

Group 1 Drivers of supply chain integration Desire to improve Environment Barriers to supply chain integration Internal planning External monitoring failure failure

Group 3 Firm performance Firm performance

Cronbachs alpha Percent of variance Eigen values

Variables Opportunity to build the best team of SC partners Need to compete against other global SCs Desire to focus on core competence Customers initiated integration efforts Desire to improve customer satisfaction Economic globalization Channel power shifted downstream Desire to improve SC productivity Suppliers initiated integration efforts Lack of employee loyalty/motivation Difcult to evaluate contribution of SC members Inadequate information system Non-aligned performance measures Difcult to establish relationships based on shared risks and rewards No systematic approach to measuring customer requirements Ability to handle unexpected challenges Overall customer satisfaction Orders fulllment lead times Product innovation lead times Inventory costs Market penetration Overall product cost Overall product quality Firm protability Productivity Responsiveness to customer requests On-time delivery

The moderating role of barriers

833

Table I. Exploratory factor analysis results

834

IJPDLM 39,10

Factors 0.796 52.777 3.491 0.745 0.316 0.640 0.021 0.733 0.217 0.166 0.872 0.170 0.724 0.236 0.145 0.738 0.170 0.867 0.239 0.650 0.267 0.636 0.192 0.701 0.680 0.046 0.580 0.232 0.667 0.778 0.277 0.847 0.077 0.764 63.808 1.259 0.930 58.982 2.767

Cronbachs alpha Percent of variance Eigen values

Variables Opportunity to build the best team of SC partners Need to compete against other global SCs Desire to focus on core competence Customers initiated integration efforts Desire to improve customer satisfaction Economic globalization Channel power shifted downstream Desire to improve SC productivity Suppliers initiated integration efforts Lack of employee loyalty/motivation Difcult to evaluate contribution of SC members Inadequate information system Non-aligned performance measures Difcult to establish relationships based on shared risks and rewards No systematic approach to measuring customer requirements Ability to handle unexpected challenges Overall customer satisfaction Product innovation lead times Inventory costs Market penetration Overall product cost Overall product quality Firm protability Productivity Responsiveness to customer requests On-time delivery

Table II. Conrmatory factor analysis results

Group 1 Drivers of supply chain integration Desire to improve Environment Barriers to supply chain integration Internal planning External monitoring failure failure Group 2 Group 3 Firm performance Firm performance 1.061 6.488 0.791 0.810 0.724 0.710 0.755 0.724 0.750 0.779 0.805 0.820 0.771

Moderating variable (MV) Internal planning failure B Variable entered into model

External monitoring failure

Independent variable (IV)

b
0.291 0.297 0.302 0.166 0.182 0.201 0.019 * * * 0.016 * * 0.005 * 0.006 * *

R2

DR 2

R2 0.290 0.291 0.296 0.167 0.170 0.187

DR 2 0.001 0.005 * 0.006 * 0.019 * * *

Desire to improve

0.525 * * *

Environment

0.408 * * *

IV IV, MV IV, MV, IV MV IV IV, MV IV, MV, IV MV

0.540 0.535 2 0.075 * * 0.332 2 0.360 0.347 * 0.407 0.414 2 0.128 * * 20.004 2 0.567 0.637 * * *

0.539 0.539 2 0.018 0.277 2 0.308 0.395 * 0.409 0.419 2 0.077 * 20.094 2 0.517 0.731 * * *

Notes: The difference in R2 was calculated using the F-test; * p , 0:1; * * p , 0:05; * * * p , 0:001

The moderating role of barriers

835

Table III. Standardized regression coefcients

IJPDLM 39,10

836

planning failure is found to have important interaction effects between desire to improve and rm performance (DR 2 0:005; p , 0:1) indicating that the internal planning failure is a signicant moderator in this model and that the rm performance is positively affected. Similarly, External Monitoring Failure is found to be a signicant moderator between desire to improve and rm performance (DR 2 0:005; p , 0:1). Hence H2 is supported at the 10 percent level for the model with desire to improve as an independent variable. When the rm performance was regressed on environment, it was found that both the dimensions, i.e. internal planning failure (DR 2 0:019; p , 0:001) and external monitoring failure (DR 2 0:019; p , 0:001) are signicant moderators. Hence H2 is supported at the 1 percent level for the model with environment as an independent variable. Therefore, data support H1 at the 1 percent signicance level. However, H2 is fully supported at the 10 percent level and partially supported at 1 percent level (the relationship between desire to improve and rm performance is not moderated by any of the dimensions of the integration barrier at 1 percent level). The nal model is shown in Figure 2. Discussion Firms ability to harvest the performance benets of SCM depends on rms ability to successfully implement supply chain practices. These practices include encouraging functional areas to share information and pursue objectives with a broader scope than single-function goals, and to overcome the integration barriers that limit supply chain integration. As rms struggle for means of implementing new sources of competitive advantage, the ability of the organization to achieve organizational, rather than

Figure 2. The nal model

functional goals, and establishing supply chain-wide objectives, rather than narrow, single rm-focused goals, is crucial to businesses performance. While this study conrms the positive relationships between drivers of integration and rm performance, its main contribution is to examine the moderating effects of integration barriers on these relationships. Although counter-intuitive, internal planning failures and external monitoring failures examined in this study signicantly amplied the strength of environmental supply chain integration drivers relationship to rm performance. Barriers to supply chain integration also displayed a similar, but weaker impact on the relationship between rm performance and the supply chain integration driver, desire to improve. These ndings suggest that more challenging, competitive environments provide rms with stronger incentives to enact organizational change that overcomes obstacles to implementing SCM practices. Further, it demonstrates that organizational commitment to improvement is only minimally affected by obstacles to implementing SCM practices. This strongly illustrates the need to align the interests and incentives of the rms functional areas, as well as the interfacing functions of rms across the supply chain to senior managers. The results displayed in Table IV of the study indicate that rms oriented toward improvement through integrated operations tend to devote more effort toward developing internal integration, increasing levels of communication and cross-functional activities among a rms own functional departments as opposed to integrating with suppliers or customers. Increasing levels of integration with suppliers and customers offers the rm the opportunity to harvest even greater benets to the supply chain as a whole, improving visibility of demand among across the supply chain so that each rm in the supply chain may more efciently and effectively plan and execute operations (Christopher, 2005). Limitations and future research As with all exploratory research, this study has limitations. The sample for this study was drawn from organizations inherently interested in supply chain issues, and further research should include a broader range of industries, such as service industries and small business. In a related matter, although the measures used for this study were rigorously tested, they should be employed in a broader industry context in order to verify their validity. The study was cross-sectional, and additional research should include measurements of the variables of interest over time. Given that this research has indicated that the effects of supply chain barriers actually enhance the main effects of competitive environmental drivers of supply chain integration on rm performance, a natural next question to ask is, is this magnifying

The moderating role of barriers

837

Type of integration Internal integration cross functional within the rm Forward integration with rst tier customers Backward integration with rst tier suppliers

Mean 4.67 4.33 4.26

SD 1.59 1.64 1.62 Table IV. Level of engagement in supply chain integration activities

Note: On a scale of 1-7, where 1 is not engaged and 7 is totally engaged

IJPDLM 39,10

effect constant, or are there levels of competitive intensity above or below which this moderating effect is reversed or does not hold? Further exploration is also needed into the question of why the moderating impact of barriers to supply chain integration had so little impact on the driver of supply chain integration, desire to improve.

838

References Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Stank, T.P. (2000), Ten mega-trends that will revolutionize supply chain logistics, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 1-16. Camp, R.C. (1989), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance, Quality Press American Society for Quality Control, Milwaukee, WI. Christopher, M. (2005), Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 3rd ed., Pearson Education, London. Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M. and Pagh, J.D. (1997), Supply chain management: more than a new name for logistics, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 1-14. Cooper, M.C., Ellram, L.M., Gardner, J.T. and Hanks, A.M. (1997), Meshing multiple alliances, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 67-89. Daugherty, P.J., Droge, C. and Germain, R. (1994), Benchmarking logistics in manufacturing rms, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 9-18. Dillman, D.A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1990), Supply chain management, partnerships, and the shipper-third-party relationship, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-10. Fawcett, S.E. and Bixby Cooper, M. (2001), Process integration for competitive success: benchmarking barriers and bridges, Benchmarking, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 396-412. Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2002), The rhetoric and reality of supply chain integration, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 339-51. Frohlich, M.T. and Westbrook, R. (2001), Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain strategies, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 185-200. Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.-M. (1997), Strategic orientation of the rm new product performance, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. pp-77-90. Gimenez, C. and Ventura, E. (2003), Supply chain management as a competitive advantage in the spanish grocery sector, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 77-88. Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1995), The comparative advantage theory of competition, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 1-15. Jayaram, J., Vickery, S.K. and Droge, C. (2000), The effects of information system infrastructure and process improvements on supply-chain time performance, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 Nos 3/4, pp. 314-30. Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18. Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001), Dening supply chain management, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-26.

Morgan, N.A. and Piercy, N.F. (1998), Interactions betwenn marketing and quality at the SBU level: inuences and outcomes, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 190-208. OLeary-Kelly, S.W. and Flores, B.E. (2002), The integration of manufacturing and marketing/sales decisions: impact on organizational performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 221-40. Pagell, M. (2004), Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations, purchasing and logistics, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 459-87. Rodrigues, A.M., Stank, T.P. and Lynch, D.F. (2004), Linking strategy, structure, process and performance in integrated logistics, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 65-94. Ross, D.F. (1998), Competing through Supply Chain Management, Chapman & Hall, New York, NY. Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), Market orientation and the learning organization, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74. Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P.J. and Ellinger, A.E. (1999), Marketing/logistics integration and rm performance, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 11-24. Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B. and Closs, D.J. (2001), Performance benets of supply chain logistical integration, Transportation Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 2/3, pp. 32-46. Stone, E.F. and Hollenbeck, J.R. (1989), Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting moderator variables: empirical evidence and related matters, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 3-10. van Hoek, R. (1998), Logistics and virtual integration, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 508-23. van Hoek, R. (2000), The role of third-party logistics providers in mass customization, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 37-46. Williams, L.R. (1994), Understanding distribution channels: an interorganizational study of EDI adoption, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 173-203. About the authors R. Glenn Richey Jr (PhD The University of Oklahoma) is an Associate Professor of International Marketing and Supply Chain Management and a Morrow Faculty Excellence Fellow at The University of Alabama. His international and domestic research interests include: inter-organizational exchange relationships; logistics and reverse logistics; retailing strategy; resource management; and supply chain management, preparedness and disaster recovery. Dr Richeys work has appeared in peer reviewed scholarly journals including but not limited to Business Horizons, Industrial Marketing Management, International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Business Logistics, Journal of International Management, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of World Business, Management Decision, Organizational Dynamics, Supply Chain Management Review, Thunderbird International Business Review, and Transportation Research: Part E. Prior to entering academe, Dr Richey worked for ten years in purchasing/procurement management, operations management, sales management, retail consulting and supply chain management. R. Glenn Richey Jr is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: grichey@cba.ua.edu Haozhe Chen (PhD The University of Oklahoma) is an Assistant Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at East Carolina University. He has published in Business Horizons, Industrial Marketing Management, International Journal of Logistics Management,

The moderating role of barriers

839

IJPDLM 39,10

840

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics, Supply Chain Management Review, and Transportation Research: Part E. His industrial background includes eight years managerial experience in international trade in China. Rahul Upreti (PhD The University of Alabama) is an Assistant Vice President at HSBC North America. His research interests include closed-loop supply chains, inventory management, logistics, and nancial services operations. In recent years, Dr Upretis work has been focused on the applications of Operations Research and statistical techniques in the nancial services industry. Prior to entering academia, Dr Upreti worked for ve years in supply chain management, marketing, and market research functions. Stanley E. Fawcett (PhD Arizona State University) is the Donald L. Staheli Professor of Global Supply Chain Management at Brigham Young University Marriott School of Management. He received his PhD at Arizona State University and taught at Michigan State University before joining the faculty at the Marriott School. Stans current teaching and research interests focus on collaborative business model design and global supply chain strategy. Stan has published over 100 articles and six books on supply-chain related topics such as supply chain design, information technology as a collaboration enabler, leading change through learning, performance measurement, and trust. Stan is a member of the Academy of Management, the Council for Supply Chain Management Professionals, the Decision Sciences Institute, and Institute of Supply Management. He has taught executive development programs Asia, Europe, and North and South America. Frank G. Adams (MBA The University of Alabama) is a Doctoral Student in the Marketing Program at the University of Alabamas Cullverhouse College of Commerce and Business Administration researching in the eld of supply chain strategy. Mr Adams business career included customer service management, purchasing management and operations management roles in the medical device industry.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints