Supply chain management: the elusive concept and definition

• Published date: 13 November 2017
• Date: 13 November 2017
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLM-10-2016-0232
• Pages: 1425-1453
• Author: Steve LeMay,Marilyn M. Helms,Bob Kimball,Dave McMahon
• Subject Matter: Management science & operations,Logistics

Supply chain management:

the elusive concept and definition

Steve LeMay

Department of Marketing and Economics, University of West Florida,

Pensacola, Florida, USA

Marilyn M. Helms

School of Business, Dalton State College, Dalton, Georgia, USA

Bob Kimball

Department of Marketing, College of Business, University of West Florida,

Pensacola, Florida, USA, and

Dave McMahon

Graziadio School of Business and Management, Pepperdine University,

Los Angeles, California, USA

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to gather the current definitions of supply chain management in

practical and analytical usage, to develop standards for assessing definitions and to apply these standards to

the most readily available definitions of the term.

Design/methodology/approach –In this research, the authors gathered the current definitions of supply

chain management in practical and analytical usage from journals, textbooks, universities, and industry

associations and online.

Findings –The research ends with proposed definitions for consideration. Discussion and areas for future

research are included.

Research limitations/implications –Involved organizations, supply chain management programs in

higher education, and professional and certifying organizations in the field need to meet and work together to

research consensus on the final definition of the field, realizing that definitions can evolve, but also

recognizing that a starting point is needed in this rapidly growing area.

Practical implications –The authors argue, quite simply, that a consensus definition of supply chain

management is unlikely as long as we continue offering and accepting definitions that are technically

unsound. Many of the current definitions violate several principles of good definitions. For these reasons, they

are either empty, too restrictive, or too expansive. Until we come across or develop a definition that overcomes

these limitations and agree on it, then we will still search for “the”definition without finding it. The field will

become more crowded with definitions, but less certain, and progress will be restricted.

Originality/value –Theoreticians, researchers, and practitioners in a discipline require key terms in a field

to share a nominal definition and prefer to have a shared real or essential definition. Yet in supply chain

management, we find no such shared definition, real or nominal. Even the Council of Supply Chain

Management Professional offers its definition with the caveat: “The supply chain management (SCM)

profession has continued to change and evolve to fit the needs of the growing global supply chain. With the

supply chain covering a broad range of disciplines, the definition of what is a supply chain can be unclear”

(CSCMP, 2016).

Keywords Supply chain management, Definition, Shared, Essential definition, Key term, Nominal

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

When theoreticians, researchers, and practitioners in a discipline gather to discuss a shared

topic, they expect, quite reasonably, to share a common language. They expect key terms to

have at least a shared nominal definition and prefer to have a shared real or formal

definition. Yet in the field we call “supply chain management (SCM),”we find no such shared

definition, nominal, real, or formal. Even the Council of Supply Chain Management

Professionals (CSCMP) offers its definition with the caveat: “The supply chain management

The International Journal of

Logistics Management

Vol. 28 No. 4, 2017

pp. 1425-1453

© Emerald PublishingLimited

0957-4093

DOI 10.1108/IJLM-10-2016-0232

Received 17 October 2016

Revised 8 January 2017

10 April 2017

Accepted 10 April 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

1425

Supply chain

management

(SCM) profession has continued to change and evolve to fit the needs of the growing global

supply chain. With the supply chain covering a broad range of disciplines, the definition of

what is a supply chain can be unclear”(CSCMP, 2016). The purpose of this research is to

gather the current definitions of SCM in practical and analytical usage, to develop standards

for assessing definitions and to apply these standards to the most readily available

definitions of the term.

Does the lack of a clear, common definition matter? Key researchers have thought so.

For example, in 2008, the late Dr Don Bowersox dressed down an audience of academics at a

conference in Pensacola, FL, for failing to come together on a common understanding of the

field. He was preceded on the stage by another academician who closed his part of the

program with “[…] logistics, supply chain management, or whatever this is we’re talking

about,”or words to that effect. Instead of his planned talk, Bowersox delivered a strong

message, summed up as this:”If you, as the academic leaders of this field, don’t know what

you’re talking about, how is anyone else supposed to know?”We sent this summary to

several attendees at that conference and all agreed with it (Keller, 2016).

Other researchers have made the same argument in the process of discussing SCM

definitions or developing definitions of their own (Larson and Rogers, 1998; Ellram and

Cooper, 2014; Skjoett-Larsen and Bagchi, 2005; Lambert et al., 1998; Rossetti and Dooley,

2010). In this analysis, we accept the notion that a consensus definition of SCM is necessary,

that we at least need a systematic approach to defining the term for each circumstance.

But rather than speculate on what the definition is or should be, we analyze definitions

already offered from a quasi-technical perspective, adapted from philosophy, linguistics,

and lexicography. In this approach, we assume a stance advocated by the semanticist,

S.I. Hayakawa (1941): we are taking a scientific approach to the language of the definitions.

We argue, quite simply, that a consensus definition of SCM is unlikely as long as we

continue offering and accepting definitions that are technically unsound. Many of the

current definitions violate several principles of good definitions. For these reasons, they are

either empty, too restrictive, or too expansive. Until we come across or develop a definition

that overcomes these limitations and agree on it, we will still search for “the”definition

without finding it. The field will become more crowded with definitions, but less certain, and

progress will be restricted.

We structure our analysis around four positions.

Many readily available definitions of SCM:

(1) are tautologies, or partially tautological; and

(2) go beyond the fundamental concept of definition, restricting SCM in ways that

inhibit theoretical development in the field.

A consensus definition of SCM:

(1) is unlikely until the technical problems of the definitions are eliminated or

minimized; and

(2) will emerge over time, once we begin to focus on the language of definitions and

allow theory and practice to develop.

This research and analysis contributes to the literature by bringing to the analysis of SCM

definitions another quantitative approach, one similar to that of Rossetti and Dooley (2010),

but aimed at the definitions themselves rather than how a definition might emerge from the

practice of writing online advertisements for supply chain jobs. This research also

contributes by bringing to the analysis of definitions a scientific approach to the definitions

themselves. This scientific approach to language engages the thinking of Hayakawa (1941),

Korzybski (1958), Ajdukiewicz (1960), and Robinson (1950). This analysis also contributes

1426

IJLM

28,4