Supply Chain Integration and Chain Efficiency: The ...

Journal of Applied Science and Engineering Management (2013) 13-23

Volume 1, Number 1 Journal of Applied Science and Engineering Management journal homepage: www.nvlscience.com/index.php/asem

Supply Chain Integration and Chain Efficiency: The Importance of Changing Perspective toward Whole Chain Integration Parisima Nassirnia1*, Ross Robinson2 1 2

College of Business, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia Institute for Supply Chain and Logistics, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Article history : Received: November 5, 2012 Revised: January 15, 2013 Accepted: January 28, 2013

Firms are attempting to restructure their business processes to be integrated into the whole-of-chain activities to prevent value erosion through inefficient and fragmented supply chains. There has been lack of attention to integration and efficiency of the whole chain in the current literature. In consequence, there are many inefficient and disintegrated chains. This paper focuses on integration and chain efficiency relationships; but within the framework of maritime-related chain and supply chain systems. Some papers have recognized the important need for a much more adequate conceptual framework within which to understand these relationships. This paper discusses a more adequate basis for understanding integrating mechanisms; the importance of a cohesive statement of chain efficiency and its drivers; and a framework for defining, implementing and evaluating of integration for the whole of chain. The output of this paper is a new conceptual framework for supply chain integration based on the some current critical supply chain integration literature and some detailed studies of globally oriented bulk coal export chains in Australia [1], [2]; and it calls for more case studies to test this sort of thinking in other real world chains in order to get more insight toward the implementation of supply chain integration and creating efficient chains.

Keywords : Supply chain integration, Port-oriented integration, Chain efficiency.

1. Introduction By the year 2000 logistics and supply chain researchers and professionals expressed the need not only for “internal” efficiency on firms but also efficiency in the distribution chains of products from the producers or suppliers to buyers or customers. In 1999, for example, Poirier noted that „the new supply chain game is becoming a competition between effective supply network rather than individual cooperation‟ [3, p.7]. About the same time researchers reporting in the maritime-related literature had become interested in the efficiency and the maritime and port-dependent chains – particularly in export or import trade chains. This paper focuses, therefore, on the chain integration and efficiency relationships in both the „mainstream‟ logistics and supply chain literature and on the maritime-related literature. It

*

Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected]

14

Nassirnia and Robinson

also focuses on papers and publications in the „post-2000‟ period although earlier important and relevant work before this date is noted as well. 2. Supply Chain Integration and Chain Efficiency in Production Industry The term „integration‟ has been applied in many studies to describe the scope, effectiveness and level of dyadic business relationships or supplier-buyer relationships. SCI literature as part of supply chain management (SCM) literature suffers from lack of clarity and consistency in definitions [4], [5]. In addition, not many authors have tried to provide formal definition for SCI [6], [7]. The summary of some of these defections is shown in Table1.

Reference [6] [8, p.226]

[7, p.460]

[9] [11, p.4]

Table 1. Summary of some different definitions for “Integration”. Definition of Integration a strategy for improving business performance in highly competitive environments „the extent to which separate parties work together in a cooperative manner to arrive at mutually acceptable outcomes‟ „a process of interaction and collaboration in which manufacturing, purchasing and logistics work together in a cooperative manner to arrive at mutually acceptable outcomes for their organization‟ coordination and integration mechanisms to facilitate logistics operations across the supply chain network „a continuous process of improvement of the interactions and collaborations among supply chain network members to improve their ability to work together to reach mutually acceptable outcomes for their organisation‟

Some firms choose to cooperate to reduce cost and increase mutually acceptable outcomes rather than competing for higher share of a fixed profit [11]. However, the best statement so far about „SCI‟ was revealed recently by [11, p.1] as „a competitive business approach for enterprises‟ and note further that „integration is a continuous process of improvement of the interactions and collaborations among supply chain network members to improve their ability to work together to reach mutually acceptable outcomes for their organisation‟ [11, p.4]. The relationship between integration and performance has been widely investigated in a number of papers in Supply Chain Integration (SCI) context [4]. Most of them have tried to provide a list of integrative mechanism that can help focal firms to increase their scope of integration with their upstream or downstream suppliers or customers in order to increase their operational performance. For instance, in a recent literature review paper in the context of supply chain integration , 22 variables (supply chain integration mechanisms) were extracted from the previous literature for integration of a focal firm with its first tier supplier and customers within three dimensions of SCI: Information Integration, Coordination and Resource Sharing and Organizational Relationship Linkages [12]. Variables such as information sharing, information technology integration, collaborative planning, joint demand forecast and joint replacement forecast were suggested for information integration of SCI [12]. The positive relationship between firm‟s performance and integration of focal firm with its suppliers and customers was confirmed in this research as well [12].

15

Supply Chain Integration and Chain Efficiency

Frohlich and Westbrook [13] explained the scope and level of integration of a focal firm with its suppliers and customers in supply chain as 'arcs of integration' and identified five distinct types of arcs of integration based on the direction and degree of each arc. The results of their research strongly supported the idea that companies with the most extensive arcs (scope) of integration with supplier and customer would have the highest rates of performance improvement. Ten years later, Childerhouse and Towill [15] confirmed statistically Frohlich and Westbrook‟s framework for arcs of integration after testing it through statistical analysis on 50 value streams of different industries. In a recent literature review, Fabbe-Costes and Jahre [16] reported that half of their respondents concluded that SCI scope was positively related to business performance, i.e., firms with wider SCI scope enjoyed higher bottom line performance. „Seamless supply chain linkages improve an organisation‟s ability to evaluate the performance of upstream supply chain partners beyond the immediate first-tier suppliers. The gains in performance to the focal firm can be in the form of improved efficiencies and responsiveness‟ [17, p.6841]. The bulk of literature has reported that integration of focal firm with wider scope of suppliers or customers will benefit the focal firm (and not the whole chain) by reducing waste and improving performance [18]. However, „there has been a clear preference for measuring the performance of the focal firm only, and this is by way of using subjective measures‟[4, p.42]. Instead, in much of the literature the focus has been to provide integration mechanisms for focal firms in order to improve their business performance, but it is not the final purpose of SCI. In fact, the purpose of SCM is to manage firms and functional elements within a chain in order to increase the overall performance of the whole chain. As a supply chain becomes more integrated, coordination and effective use of assets will improve the output of the system by reducing waste [19] and lead to higher quality products, enhanced productivity and machine utilisation, and ultimately, increased logistics efficiency and flexibility [18]. According to this perspective every element in the chain should act in a way that maximizes the total profit of the whole system and not just a part of it. It was shown in quantitative research by Hosoda & Disney [20, p.1301]that „a significant amount of benefit comes from each player in the supply chain doing what is the best for itself and the supply chain, rather than doing what is the best for its own selfish interests (or for local cost minimization)‟. Hence, whole chain integration in order to improve the efficiency of the whole chain is an essential issue in SCI context. To find out how well real-supply chains are integrated, in a recent study, 72 chains from different industries within 3 different countries were investigated [21]. The result of their research revealed that from 72 value streams only 2 chains were fully integrated [21]. This result shows that despite of importance of whole chain integration, most of the value streams are not completely integrated; many of them are disintegrated or partly integrated. Therefore, a lot of value is eroded within disintegrated and inefficient chains because of low capacity utilization, excessive inventory, duplicate actions,…and finally poor coordination among supply chain members. Table 2 highlights some of the papers which have been done in relationship to SCI and performance.

16

Nassirnia and Robinson Table 2. Summary of some papers which have been done in relationship to SCI and performance

Ref No.

Objective of the research

Research context

Type of performance

Method

Data

[12]

-To identifying key dimensions and variables for SCI -To developing a conceptual framework for measuring SCI

Production

Firm‟s performance

Qualitative

Literature review, Interview

[22]

-To analyse internal and external integrations in the aeronautics sector focusing on the first-tier supplier in relation with its second-tier suppliers and its customers ( OEM)

Production


Qualitative

Interviews, focus groups, literature review

[13]

-To considering upstream supplier and downstream customer integration during the analysis of manufacturers‟ supply chain integration strategies.

Production


Statistical analysis

Survey

[15]

-To verify the link between breadth of SCI and supply chain performance.

Production


comparative analysis

Secondary use of data, interview, survey

[23]

-To investigate the relationships among information integration, logistics integration, long term relationships, and the effects on performance

Production



[24]

-To investigates the nature and level of SCI in container shipping

Maritime


Scenario analysis

Survey, case study

[21]

-To find out how well integrated are real-world supply chains?

Production

Not clear

Quick scan

Archival material, interview

[25]

-To find out how do firms in the industry evaluate their SCP in transport logistics?

Trans



Survey

[17]

- To understand how effective integration takes place between a firm and its 3PLS. -To examine whether there is any difference in performance between firms that integrate with 3PLs versus firms that do not

Production



Survey

This led to the question “why most supply chains are disintegrated? And "how can our knowledge help us to create integrated chains and avoid value erosion within the chains?” One fact is that most of the literature in the SCI context has focused on the dyadic relationships or a limited scope of integration between focal firms and first or second tier suppliers and customers; and although integration of the whole chain was considered important in their discussion, very few measured SCI in an extended scope[26]. Therefore, it seems the management of supply chains has been left to chance. What we can see from most of literature in SCI content is solutions and strategies to increase the integration of a focal firm in order to maximize its performance. Lack of applicable solutions for SCI as a whole is obvious in the literature. For instance, in a research about rhetoric and reality of SCI, it was revealed that supply chain practice seldom resembles the theoretical ideal [27]. In fact ‟most companies are currently engaged at the first level of SCM sophistication‟ [27, p.359].

17


One common traditional assumption in the management of supply chains is to separate elements of a system and focus on each element to increase its individual performance. However, it is very important to remember that performance maximization of each element in a system does not maximize the performance of the whole system. „Supply chain performance depends on how well supply chain partners work together and not on how well each partner performs individually, as firms pursue different goals‟ [18, p.6852]. The conflict between firms‟ goals leads to the creation of conflicts among members‟ operational actions and cause the erosion of values within the chain. The next problem that arises by separating the elements of a system for analysis is through elimination of chain members‟ dependencies and inter-actions of the whole system. These eliminations can alter our understanding of the system and lead us to wrong judgment and analysis of the whole system. Therefore, it can be concluded that partial optimization of a chain does not provide solutions to making the whole chain integrated and efficient. However, the findings of researchers for extending the scope of integration of a focal firm embedded in a chain can help us to achieve our goal for whole chain integration. For example, it was found in many papers that integration of material and information flow between two parties can increase their level of integration and can help to improve the operational performance of players (for more info see: [12], [23], [28–30]. Nevertheless, what these studies have provided are some guidelines for whole of chain integration. This leaves the main problem unsolved - and that is:” How can integration of a whole chain occur?” The answer to this question is not straight forward as chain complexity is a major challenge, but we can find some points in our current literature that can lead us to applicable solutions for SCI as a whole. Some of these points are listed here: 2.1. Need for a system thinking and holistic approach to SCI SCI needs both intra- and inter-company integration across the entire SC in order to work as a single entity. Towill [31] highlighted this idea that the wider scope of integration is more likely to be aiming for a seamless supply chain where „all players think and act as one‟ [31]. However, two decades later, Sweeney [33 , p.15 & p.20] still draws our attention to focus on 'wider cross-functional and inter-organisational integration' and a 'more holistic' approach to SCI‟ and it was noted in another paper that 'despite extensive research in the area of SCI, a comprehensive and integrated approach is missing‟ [12, p.1]. Thus, this discussion reminds us that whole-of-chain integration and integrative efficiency is not achievable unless we look at all elements within a chain as a whole and assume the chain to operate as a single entity. 2.2. Applying a point of control over the whole chain As it was discussed before, different firms within a chain have different goals that might be sources of conflict and value erosion in a chain. In reality, managing these conflicts is not possible unless we put a point of control over all players in the chain to coordinate and manage their behaviour and actions in a direction that minimizes overall cost and maximizes the whole chain‟s output. In supporting of this idea, Childerhouse & Towill mentioned that supply chain relationships need a single point of control and a “dominant player” such as

18


“product champion” that should manage the synchronisation and coordination of the supply chain [28]. 2.3. Redesign the chain Another major weakness of SCI literature which according to Lambert is the weakness of whole literatures in SCM context, is that fewer efforts have been done to recognize supply chain members because „the authors appear to assume that everybody knows who is a member of supply chain‟[33, p.103]. Therefore, for making a whole chain efficient, we should be able to map the chain and the key members of the chain, its point of origin (where a supporting supplier exists) and its point of consumption (end consumer) at the first stage. Then, by analysis of value propositions and core competencies within the chain, and the appropriate evaluation of existing and future supply chain relationships, we are able to design a successful integrated chain in order to increase the overall benefits for the chain and chain members[27]. 2.4. Attention to long term plans There are evidences that companies are more willing to have day to day or operational business relationships rather than long-term relationships [24], [30]. One possible reason is lack of trust among companies to reveal their long-term business plans for each-other [34]. A practical example for this case is dis-continuation of integration in the export coal chain of Australia (Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal) which was stopped after 3 years because the members of the chain did not have any long term plan for integration [1]. Integration mechanisms can mostly help to smooth day to day business operations and as Fawcett and Magnan argued „real collaboration goes beyond information exchange‟ and that the „SCM is a long-term journey‟ and „a strong focus on immediate returns limits companies‟ ability to transform cultures and establish long term relationships‟ [27, p.359 & 360]. 2.5. Attention to the role of a firm’s power Only a few authors include business conditions or power in their research model [4, p.52]. Especially, there has been little if any recognition of the work of Cox and others (see [35], [36]) who take the view that power relationships are fundamental in chain structuring and operations. However, a limited number of studies have took up this challenge and have considered the role of business conditions and/or power in their analysis but just in dyadic relationships between players and not in a wider scope and among all chain‟s players. For example, it was found that more interdependencies and balanced power between two parties in a dyadic relationships leads to higher performance, while greater asymmetric dependence and power imbalances leads to lower performance [37]. Hence, „power and business conditions should be measured in SC integration research since these are among the main factors shaping and influencing integration‟ [4, p.53] .

19


2.6. A fair and motivated reward system Motivating different firms within the chain to cooperate is another challenge in SCI implementation. First, this is obvious that if the reward which a company receives in exchange of its contribution to the whole chain is less than what it could receive before cooperation, the firm will not cooperate to make an efficient chain. For this reason the reward must be big enough to motivate companies to cooperate. Second, „without the promised redistribution of benefit, each player has no incentive for making its contribution to the chain‟ [20, p.1308]. For implementing a fair reward distribution, „the work of Nash (1951) and others in game theory and cooperation equilibrium can be used for sharing benefits of cooperation‟ [38, p.19]. These key principles are the principle of individual rationality, the principle of symmetry and the principle of linear invariance (for more information see [38]). This mainstream literature provides an essential background to SCI issues; but the focus of this research is on applicability of those backgrounds on maritime chains. Therefore, it is important to describe, briefly, the maritime context of this research. 3. Supply Chain Integration And Efficiency In Maritime Industry By 2000 there were many changes taking place in freight transport, operations and the freight markets. Increased volumes of freight, extensive containerisation, changes in the shipping markets and networks and extensive rationalisation and restructuring of the third party service provider firms (3PSPs) and third party logistics providers (3PLs) to create new efficiencies in reliability, quality of services and time demanded by shippers were taking place. Ports as four-modal nodes where ocean ships, short-sea/river ships, and road and rail modes converge [39] and also as critical bottleneck infrastructure, came under particular scrutiny. Chain firms were, in fact, focusing on internal restructuring as well as on the critical issue of chain integration and efficiency. The maritime research literature reflected the changing function of ports as elements in value-driven chains rather than as stand-alone service providers and questioned issues related to their integration into supply chains [40]. Subsequent research has focused on many related issues such as the factors which impact on the level of integration in the supply chain, the efficiency of supply chain interfaces and links, supply chain costs and profitability and the key importance of chain structures in influencing the port's ability to attract and/or to service shipping and therefore its importance in port choice modelling [41]. Notteboom and Rodrigue stressed the need to consider logistics integration and inland freight distribution networks for port regionalization [42]; and Woo, Pettit and Beresford added logistics elements value added activities to the port‟s performance evaluation framework [43]. Song and Panayides [44] developed a model consisting of six conceptualized parameters including for example value added services and the degree of inter-connectivity with inland modes of transport in order to evaluate the extent of port integration in supply chains. Lam extended the idea of integration to container shipping as an integrated chain and suggested that integration 'can bind the partners in a cooperative relationship that enables the organisations to accomplish their goals

20


collectively and efficiently' [30,p.68]; and in 2011 Lam and van de Voorde defined, at least conceptually, four integration scenarios in container shipping chains [24]. Recent and continuing empirical and detailed case study research into nationally significant export coal chains focused through east coast Australian ports (Goonyella coal chain in Queensland and Hunter Valley coal chain in New South Wales) has underlined the critical need for a whole-of-chain approach and a more effective conceptualisation of the integration/chain efficiency relationships [1], [2]. In the first case study, by 2001, privatization of the coal terminal and rapid growth of coal demand caused an inefficient chain with complex contractual relationships, high demurrage cost and delay in coal deliver. Consequently, ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) interfered in the case and granted 'authorisation' to the coal terminal to impose efficiency to the chain through regulation and QMS (Queue Management System) which changed the business model of the chain from supply push to demand pull creating a more stable system. However, this plan was stopped after 3 years because it was not considered appropriate as a long term solution. What was needed in this case was the need for long-term investment plans along with operational adjustment which could guaranty the long-term integration [1]. In the second case study, from mid-2000 the pressure on chain infrastructure facilities in Hunter Valley coal chain increased due to a growing demand and till 2007 some unsuccessful efforts were done to control the chain. For instance CBS (Capacity Balancing System) was stopped on 2006 because it was not fair enough for all the members of the chain. Finally, in Aug 2009 the Hunter Valley Coal Chain Coordinator Limited (HVCCC) was established as a model for an incorporated coordinator to propose a framework to improve information sharing and coordination of chain activities. It also could make long term agreement with terminal providers and also rail and trucking companies. As a result, integrative chain efficiency was achieved in the Hunter Valley coal chain through the mutual adjustment and implementation of operational efficiency along with investment efficiency [2]. 4. Discussion and Conclusion Two recent case studies of bulk coal export chain in Australia (Goonyella coal chain in Queensland and the Hunter Valley coal chain in New South Wales) provide evidence of efforts to implement SCI in the maritime industry. In the Goonyella coal export chain case study, the single point of control over the whole chain was imposed by a regulator and efficiency was achieved across the whole chain through regulation [1]. However, in the case of Hunter Valley coal chain, integration happened through cooperation of the members of the chain and single intelligent cooperative equilibrium model was used to improve chain efficiency through mutual adjustment and implementation of operational efficiency along with investment efficiency [2]. Based on the current literature review, it is clear that the integration of a whole chain is not possible except to view it as a whole entity and put a power or point of control to monitor and integrate the whole chain. This point of control can be external, from an organization out of the chain, such as a regulator in the Goonyella chain; or internally, through the internal

21


cooperation of all chain members and their cumulative intelligence to integrate their chain in order to maximize total benefit of the chain and increase their amount of value captured from the chain. The new conceptualisation argues the need for a more precise definition of the structure, dynamics and the objective function of the port-oriented chain, the mechanisms of integration and the nature of integrative efficiency in the long and short term and the key elements of chain design and control; and it proposes a number of specific and interrelated conceptual building blocks. Hence, as Larson and Halldorsson pointed out that „current research needs to complement conceptual work and surveys on SCI with more longitudinal in-depth research of SCI in action‟[45, p.27], this paper highlights the need of more in depth case studies and a holistic approach toward implementation of whole-of-chain integration and achieving higher efficiencies for the whole chain. References [1]

[2] [3] [4]

[5] [6] [7]

[8]

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

R. Robinson, “Regulating efficiency into port-oriented chain systems: export coal through the Dalrymple Bay Terminal, Australia,” Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 89– 106, Apr. 2007. R. Robinson, R. Weston, and S. Everret, “Port-Oriented Supply Chain Integration : Critical Efficiency Issues,” in IAME 2012, 2012, pp. 1–14. C. . Poirier, Advanced Supply Chain Management. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 1999. T. van der Vaart and D. P. van Donk, “A critical review of survey-based research in supply chain integration,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 42–55, Jan. 2008. I. Chen, a Paulraj, and a Lado, “Strategic purchasing, supply management, and firm performance,” Journal of Operations Management, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 505–523, Oct. 2004. R. Narasimhan and A. Das, “The impact of purchasing integration and practices on manufacturing performance,” vol. 19, pp. 593–609, 2001. M. Pagell, “Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations, purchasing and logistics,” Journal of Operations Management, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 459–487, Oct. 2004. Ol.-K. S.W and B. . Flores, “The integration of manufacturing and marketing/sales decisions: impact on organizational performance,” Journal of Operations Management, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 221–240, 2002. P. Romano, “„Co-ordination and integration mechanisms to manage logistics processes across supply networks,” Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, no. 9, pp. 119–134, 2003. S. Palomero and R. Chalmeta, “A guide for supply chain integration in SMEs,” pp. 1–29, 2012. I. Sadler, Logistics and Supply Chain Integration. London: SAGE Ltd., 2007. R. Alfalla-Luque, C. Medina-Lopez, and P. K. Dey, “Supply chain integration framework using literature review,” Production Planning & Control, no. May 2012, pp. 1–18, Mar. 2012. M. T. Frohlich and R. Westbrook, “Arcs of integration: an international study of supply chain strategies,” Journal of Operations Management, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 185–200, 2001. P. Childerhouse and D. R. Towill, “Arcs of supply chain integration,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 49, no. 24, pp. 7441–7468, 2011. P. Taylor, P. Childerhouse, and D. R. Towill, “Arcs of supply chain integration,” International Journal of Production Research, no. May 2012, pp. 37–41, 2010.

22


[16] N. Fabbe-Costes and M. Jahre, “Supply chain integration and performance: a review of the evidence,” The International Journal of Logistics Management, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 130, 2008. [17] J. Jayaram and K.-C. Tan, “Supply chain integration with third-party logistics providers,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 125, no. 2, pp. 262–271, Jun. 2010. [18] J. Jayaram, K. C. Tan, and S. P. Nachiappan, “Examining the interrelationships between supply chain integration scope and supply chain management efforts,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 48, no. 22, pp. 6837–6857, 2010. [19] K. Ramdas and R. Spekman, “Chain or Shackles : Understanding What Drives,” vol. 2000, no. August, pp. 3–21, 2000. [20] T. Hosoda and S. M. Disney, “The governing dynamics of supply chains: The impact of altruistic behaviour,” Automatica, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 1301–1309, Aug. 2006. [21] P. Childerhouse, E. Deakins, T. Böhme, D. R. Towill, S. M. Disney, and R. Banomyong, “Supply chain integration: an international comparison of maturity,” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 531–552, 2011. [22] R. Alfalla-Luque, C. Medina-Lopez, and H. Schrage, “A study of supply chain integration in the aeronautics sector,” Production Planning & Control, no. May 2012, pp. 1–16, Mar. 2012. [23] D. Prajogo and J. Olhager, “Supply chain integration and performance: The effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 135, no. 1, pp. 514–522, Jan. 2012. [24] J. Siu, L. Lam, and E. Van De Voorde, “Scenario analysis for supply chain integration in container shipping,” Maritime Policy & Management :, no. May 2012, pp. 37–41, 2011. [25] K.-H. Lai, E. W. . W. T. Ngai, and T. C. . C. E. Cheng, “An empirical study of supply chain performance in transport logistics,” International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 321–331, Feb. 2004. [26] N. Fabbe-Costes and M. Jahre, “Supply chain integration improves performance: the Emperor‟s new suit?,” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 835–855, 2007. [27] S. E. Fawcett and G. M. Magnan, “The rhetoric and reality of supply chain integration,” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 339–361, 2002. [28] P. Childerhouse and D. R. Towill, “Arcs of supply chain integration,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 49, no. 24, pp. 7441–7468, 2011. [29] P. Childerhouse, S. M. Disney, and D. R. Towill, “Tailored toolkit to enable seamless supply chains,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 42, no. 17, pp. 3627–3646, Sep2004. [30] J. Siu Lee Lam, “Synchronisation of seaborne cold chains,” in International handbook of maritime business, 2010, pp. 68–78. [31] D. R. Towill, “The seamless supply chain - The predator‟s strategic advantage.pdf,” International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 37, 1997. [32] E. Sweeney, “Supply Chain Integration: Challenges and Solutions,” 2011. [33] D. . Lambert, “The supply chain management and logistics controversy,” in Handbook of Logistics and supply-chain Management, London: Pergamon, 2001, pp. 99–126. [34] H. Forslund and P. Jonsson, “Obstacles to supply chain integration of the performance management process in buyer-supplier dyads,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 77–95, 2009. [35] A. W. Cox, P. Ireland, C. Lonsdale, J. Sanderson, G. Watson, and E. P. (Firm), Supply Chains, Markets and Power: Mapping Buyer and Supplier Power Regimes, vol. 18. New York: Routledge, 2001.

23


[36] A. W. Cox, Business relationships for competitive advantage: managing alignment and misalignment in buyer and supplier transactions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004. [37] A. Duffy, R Fearne, “The impact of supply chain partnerships on supplier performance,” The International Journal of Logistics Management,, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 57–71, 2004. [38] R. Robinson, “Business models, supply chain efficiency and port efficiency: new strategic imperative,” in Handbook of Maritime Business, 2010, pp. 13–37. [39] B. Almotairi and K. Lumsden, “Port logistics platform integration in supply chain management,” International Journal of Shipping And Transport Logistics, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 194–210, 2009. [40] R. Robinson, “Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm,” Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 241–255, 2002. [41] M. Magala and A. Sammons, “A New Approach to Port Choice Modelling,” Maritime Econ Logistics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 9–34, 2008. [42] T. E. Notteboom and J. Rodrigue, “Port regionalization : towards a new phase in port development,” Maritime Policy & Management :, no. August 2012, pp. 37–41, 2005. [43] S.-H. Woo, S. Pettit, and A. K. C. Beresford, “Port evolution and performance in changing logistics environments,” Maritime Econ Logistics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 250–277, 2011. [44] D.-W. Song and P. M. Panayides, “Global supply chain and port/terminal: integration and competitiveness,” Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 73–87, 2008. [45] P. Larson and A. Halldorsson, “Logistics versus supply chain management: an international survey,” International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 17–31, 2004.