enriching scor model - tu delft

Faculty of Technology

Policy and Management

MSc Management of

Technology

Anastasios Chorozidis

Graduation Thesis

2009

Enriching SCOR model:

Recapturing the notions of Business Strategy and

Business Sustainability

Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability

I

General Information

Thesis Title: Enriching SCOR model: Recapturing the notions of Business Strategy and


Author: Anastasios Chorozidis

Student Number: 1391577

E-mail Address: TU Delft: [email protected]

Private: [email protected]

Date: October 2009

University: Delft University of Technology

Bachelor Degree: Diploma in Mechanical Engineering

Master: Management of Technology

Participating Faculty: Technology, Policy and Management

Course Code: MOT2910 (30 ECTS)

Graduation Committee:

Chairman: Prof. dr. G.P. van Wee

Transport and Logistics' Organisation (TLO)

Technology, Policy & Management (TPM)

Delft University of Technology

[email protected]

Committee Member: Ir. M.W. Ludema

Transport and Logistics' Organisation (TLO)



[email protected]

Committee Member: Dr.ing. V.E. Scholten

Technology, Strategy & Entrepreneurship (TSE)



[email protected]

External Member: Ir. M. Wolfs

Corporate manager

Supply Chain Management

DSM N.V.

[email protected]


II

Preface

“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric”.

Bertrand Russell (1872 –1970)

This report comes as the outcome of my Master of Science (MSc) graduation thesis project, conducted

at Delft University of Technology. The motivation behind my decision to opt for the specific project lies

on the character and orientation of my studies, as well as on my personal interest to explore the specific

area, having the intuition that a substantial advancement can be derived in this direction.

Regarding the character and orientation of my studies, I have been an MSc student of the program

Management of Technology for the past two years, an MSc offered by the TU Delft faculty of

Technology, Policy and Management (TPM). Beyond the provision of the basic managerial guidelines,

the curriculum of the program predicts the specialization of the students under customized educational

profiles. Among them, Integrated Operations and Supply Chain Management was the one I have chosen

to follow, actually even before the beginning of my master.

The reason I have made up my mind so early on time can be found on the intersection of my educational

background and personal interest. As a Mechanical Engineer with an MSc in Material Science, I had the

opportunity to dive deep in engineering studies quite early in my life. This fact, along with my concise

professional experience, made me see how substantially complementary and vital can business

knowledge be when it comes to engineering matters. In specific, I was rather fascinated when, during a

seminar, I first confronted the engineering world through the prism of Supply Chain Management; so

fascinated that I decided it to be my next educational step.

This brings my review to the domain of Supply Chain Management and the selection of my research

topic. It was during a specialization course titled “Supply Chain Engineering & Management”, when I first

got acquainted with SCOR Model. My initial impression was ambiguous. On one hand, as an engineer, I

was excited with how systematic and overall was the approach of the model. On the other hand, having

one year of managerial studies on my back, during which I was mainly attracted by the Strategic

Management domain, I was stimulated by the superficial approach of the model on Business Strategy. In

fact, I sensed a great room for improvement of the model in this direction, room that if filled, could

result in great advancements, regarding both the model itself and its contribution to the Supply Chain

Management domain. Later on, the concept of Business Strategy was complemented with the one of

Business Sustainability, and together they constituted the directions upon which I explored how SCOR

Model can be improved.

The path from the conception of the research topic to the completion of this report has never been

paved. Apart from dedicated effort, the guidance of my supervisors was several times essential in

overcoming the arising hurdles. In this respect, I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis

coordinator, Ir. M.W. Ludema, for his continuous support and advice during the development of this


III

project. Additionally, I would also like to express my warm thanks to the other members of the

graduation committee, Prof. Dr. G.P. van Wee and Dr. Ing. V.E. Scholten, for their critical feedback

whenever requested. Furthermore, I would like to thank all the supply chain professionals that

contributed in the completion of this research by participating in interviews, and especially Marcel Wolfs

who also undertook the evaluation of the interview results.

Given the unfortunate fact that I was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes during the conduction of this

research, I especially thank my doctors for bringing me back in life and my family and friends for helping

me stand again on my feet.

Delft,

October 2009

Anastasios Chorozidis


IV


V

Executive Summary

Research Background

The Supply-Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model, version 9.0, a sophisticated tool developed by

the Supply Chain Council (SCC), comprises a unique, state-of-the-art approach on how to manage and

improve supply chain operations and constitutes the inspiration behind the development of the specific

proposal. Being the world’s most widely accepted analytical tool within the Supply Chain Management

domain, SCOR Model constitutes the endeavor of SCC to “capture, assess and organize supply chain

managerial issues so as to formulate a framework of supply chain analysis and improvement and a

communications platform among various actors of diverse supply chains”.

Research Problem

No matter how methodical and straightforward the implementation of SCOR Model is, it presents some

characteristic deficiencies that can be accounted to the way it captures a couple of important corporate

notions. On one hand, being a typical benchmarking application, SCOR Model fails to recognize all the

valuable input that can be derived from the Business Strategy notion and thereby leads, at best, in equal

and not superior performance. On the other hand, it deals with Business Sustainability superficially and,

as a result, it does not accomplish to substantially promote the adoption of sustainable solutions.

With respect to benchmarking practices and the pitfalls they may lead into, they are mainly related with

the tendency of implementing companies to unconstructively imitate best-in-class practices. The

repercussions of such irresponsible decisions can be disastrous. In general, the inability of established

companies to think out of the box makes them blindly rely on benchmarking practices and, thereby,

imprisons them in the role of the follower. Here is where the concept of Business Strategy emerges.

On the other hand, looking over the diffusion of the sustainability concept within the Supply Chain

Management domain, the results are not that positive, regardless of the increasingly deteriorating

environmental situation and the fact that Supply Chain Management is the business activity with the

greatest corresponding impact. Explanations can be found on the intentions of managers and

corporations, on the same definition of sustainability and on the processes through which it is

implemented. Overall, the way SCOR Model deals with sustainability should be reexamined and

enriched.

Research Objective

The objective of this research, as it is presented in the following box, is two-fold. This research does not

suffice itself on the exploration of SCOR Model and the infertile criticism of its potential weaknesses.

The idea here is to take a step further and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can

effectively incorporate the business concepts under examination.


VI

Research Questions

Linked to its objective, the central inquiry, or else the exploration starting line, of this research is

described by the following research questions.

Prospective Clients and Research Contribution

This research refers to 1) the SCC, 2) companies and 3) consultancies making use of SCOR model, 4)

researchers from the Supply Chain Management domain and 5) governmental and (non-)governmental

organizations responsible for the promotion of sustainable solutions. The contribution of this research

to each of these prospective clients can take one of the following forms:

Research Framework

Regarding the framework that guides this research, there are two basic notions that characterize it. First

of all, the one of qualitative research, since the endeavor here is more of an explorative nature, and

secondly, the notion of triangulation, a prominent research methodology in the direction of establishing

credibility and trustworthiness on the results of a qualitative research. The research methods used

under triangulation are unstructured interview, archiving data and semi-structured interviews. The data

1. Extraction of guidelines regarding the effective utilization of SCOR Model, when it comes to

topics related to the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability

2. Extraction of design solutions regarding the implementation of the derived conclusions, so

that they can either become part of the model or be used peripherally, in a customized and per-

case basis

3. Inspiration and motivation of individuals and groups of people, willing and authorized to

undertake the continuation of this endeavor on the recognized research directions, towards the

establishment of substantial conclusions and solutions

a) “How can Business Strategy practically contribute to the alleviation of benchmarking

effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”

b) “How can Business Sustainability practically contribute to the successful incorporation of

sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”

1. a) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Strategy concept to the

alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model

b) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Sustainability concept to the

successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR

Model

2. To set the design criteria and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can

effectively incorporate the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts


VII

sources exploited are the opinions of a SC expert, former member of the SCC, relevant literature and

opinions of SC professionals respectively. Specifically, the unstructured interview is used on top of the

other methods and as a mean to validate the research idea and guide the application of the other two

methods. On the basis set by the unstructured interview, the archiving data method searches for

relevant articles and publications that can be used for a meta-analysis on the selected research subject.

Finally, this meta-analysis, along with the guidelines defined by the unstructured interview, set the

grounds for the conduction of four semi-structured interviews, which are meant to capture and

systemize the opinions of SC senior employers, employed by well-established companies and

consultancies, registered as SCOR Model subscribers.

Research Conclusions

There are several conclusions derived from this research, regarding both the concepts of Business

Strategy and Business Sustainability, and the way they are captured by SCOR Model. These conclusions

are organized by subject and are enlisted below:

SCOR Model Business Strategy Approach

The approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy, although systematic, straightforward and concise,

fails to capture the essence of the concept and does not elevate it in the central position it should be

when it comes to Supply Chain Management. It was found that action should be taken in this direction,

however within some constraints. In specific, there are two elements to be kept in mind when

reassessing the Business Strategy approach of SCOR Model. The first is the necessity to keep the role of

the model complementary to the professional experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners;

otherwise it may lose its flexibility, inhibit creativity and become unrealistic and useless. The second is to

keep in mind the perception of several practitioners that Supply Chain Management is mainly an

operational domain; thus, if SCOR Model contradicted this perception and exceeded the role of the

operational/ strategic translation interface, it could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners. After

all, the bidirectional transparency of the model when it comes to Business Strategy has been its basic

advantage and is not to be wasted.

SCOR Model Benchmarking Process

With regard to the benchmarking process taking place within SCOR Model, it was found that it needs to

be altered if it is to substantially contribute in the location of solutions compatible with the core

capabilities of the implementing company. In this direction, SCOR Model needs to, somehow, promote

the occurrence of benchmarking only between companies with similar capabilities. There are two

constraints framing this direction for improvement. On one hand, it should be taken into consideration

that practitioners do not need to be different in every competitive aspect. On the other hand, the

benchmarking character of the model should not be -by any means- compromised. The utilization of

standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally and externally common,

operational language in Supply Chain Management, a language that needs to be not only retained, but

also promoted.


VIII

SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility

The concept of strategic compatibility, as it has been described in this research, needs to be taken into

account by SCOR Model, as an ideal remedy against the recorded benchmarking pitfalls. There are two

elements to keep in mind here. The first refers to the occasional denial of several practitioners to

interfere with business notions. In this respect, SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a

pattern and at a level that it does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners.

Secondly, the incorporation of strategic compatibility in SCOR Model should comply with the model’s

bidirectional transparency. That is, it should promote the interference of business people with

operational concepts, just as it happens in the opposite direction; it should not violate what has already

been effectively established.

Strategic Compatibility Indicators and Metrics

Regarding the subject of defining and measuring strategic compatibility, extra attention needs to be

placed on the selection of the corresponding indicators. There have been located many alternative

indicators and probably there could be found several more. In any case, though, the necessary and

sufficient condition for the selected indicators is that they can be efficiently defined and measured.

Additionally, it should be kept in mind that strategic compatibility is more of a subjective concept than

an objective value. Therefore, it may not be possible to end up with a set of indicators that can be

universally applied. A customizable solution is needed, since it seems to be more suitable in this case.

SCOR Model and Flexibility

Above all, when it comes to the incorporation of new features and concepts, preserving the level of

flexibility characterizing SCOR Model is a prominent prerequisite. It has already been witnessed by

several practitioners that SCOR Model gets complex and rigid, especially as the level of analysis

increases. Apparently, this perception should at least not deteriorate. Therefore, new features have to

be added horizontally and complementarily, so as to avoid rendering the function of the model rigid.

Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain

The SCC perception, presenting corporate disputes between supply chain managers and

environmentalists as the main factor inhibiting the utilization of SCOR Model’s “green” features, is

falsified. Instead, there are several alternative arguments rising to explain corporate resistance to

sustainability. The indifference of the customers, the uncoordinated spasmodic actions of the actors

involved and the fact that sustainability is still out of the corporate agenda are the main ones. Overall,

the common denominator is that the involved parties should act jointly and accordingly so as to

establish the concept of sustainability in Supply Chain Management. With regard now to who should

undertake the responsibility of coordinating the actors and promoting Business Sustainability, SCC and

SCOR Model are not even close.

Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain

Broader organizations are the ones responsible to promote sustainable over conventional solutions. The

contribution of companies in this direction is also considered bound to be limited, bound by the concept

of profitability. As long as there are no economic incentives involved, companies will never care about


IX

sustainability in essence. Therefore, substantial solutions in the sustainability domain can only be

expected from governmental initiatives. Governmental bodies are the only one able, and thus

responsible, to promote sustainability, either through economic incentives or by imposing regulations.

SCOR Model: Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency

The approach of the SCC on Business Sustainability and the way it is captured by SCOR Model are

considered to be more than sufficient, since there is no room for improvement in this direction and

under their authority. Indeed, the inclusion of natural and societal sustainable aspects in Supply Chain

Management is important and urgent. Furthermore, the argument that eco-efficiency is not enough to

provide a company with the “green” stamp is also accurate. However, it would be unrealistic to expect

from the SCC to undertake the promotion of natural and societal sustainable aspects within the Supply

Chain Management domain. SCOR Model is still bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint

pattern.

Research Recommendations

On the basis of these conclusions, several recommendations are extracted, specifically about the

approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy, since improvement of the approach on Business

Sustainability appears to fall out of the SCOR Model scope. These recommendations, along with several

directions for future research are presented below:

Enriching the Performance Attributes Set

Regarding the improvement of SCOR Model’s Business Strategy approach, an enrichment of the

Performance Attributes Set is considered to be a simple, yet constructive move. First of all, there are

numerous examples of such attributes, able to contribute in the described direction. To illustrate,

Innovativeness and Acuity are two of them discovered in the literature, while Strategy, Geography,

Culture, Business Size, Tax, New Product Development and Organizational Structure are the ones

already added by Highlight Consulting B.V. for the same reasons. Additionally, this proposal also

complies with the pertinent improving constraints, since it merely builds upon the already established

approach of the model. That is, it keeps the role of the model complementary to the professional

experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners, and it does not alter the operational character of

the model, an alteration that could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners.


X

Figure A: Enrichment of the Performance Attributes Set

Intermediate Step: Filtering Out Strategically Incompatible Companies

As far as the SCOR Model benchmarking process is concerned, the inclusion of an intermediate step,

which filters out strategically incompatible companies, is considered a substantial step in the described

direction, or else towards the promotion of

benchmarking occurrence merely between

companies with similar capabilities. This step could

intervene in the functioning approach of SCOR

Model just before the benchmarking process takes

place. The recommended solution comes also in

compliance with the constraints characterizing this

direction of improvement, since it builds upon and

does not alter dramatically the current approach of

the model. First of all, it provides practitioners with

the possibility to choose the attributes they want

to be strategically different at. Secondly, it retains

the central role of benchmarking in SCOR Model,

although in a more selective sense. After all, what

this step does is to remove strategically

incompatible companies from the benchmarking

database.

Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility

In respect of describing and defining strategic compatibility within SCOR Model, there are two main

indicators recommended, derived from the literature and supported by the interviews. These are Power

Structure Positioning (PSP) and Value Creation Compatibility (VCC), defined as:

Figure A: Intermediate Step: Filtering Out

Strategically Incompatible Companies

Intermediate Step:Define strategic compatibility on the basis of Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility. Then filter the benchmarking database so that it excludes strategically incompatible companies from the comparison.

Overall

Benchmarking

Database

Filtering

Process

Strategically

Compatible

Database

Excluded by PSP

Excluded by VCC


XI

Power Structure Positioning indicates the positioning of a company in the power structure of the

pertinent industry. Thus, the imitating company can weigh its strategic compatibility to a company,

simply by comparing their positions in the pertinent industry power structure.

Value Creation Compatibility indicates the way a company accumulates value for itself. That is, some

companies are obliged by competition to give out much value to their customers, while others have the

possibility to retain much of this value for themselves. As a result, the imitating company can again

determine its strategic compatibility to a company, simply by comparing their ways of creating and

capturing value.

These indicators, along with the proposed way for their introduction in the model, appear capable of

capturing and applying the concept of strategic compatibility, while remaining in compliance with the

corresponding constraints. First of all, this solution captures strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a

level that it does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners. Secondly, it does

comply with the bidirectional transparency of the model. Thirdly, it allows the customized use of the

added features and offers several degrees of freedom.


Having in mind the necessary and sufficient condition that selected indicators have to be not only

defined, but also measured efficiently, this research has already provided examples of metrics that could

accompany the PSP and VCC indicators. In fact, industrial power structures and profit margins were

recommended respectively, as concepts that can be turned into scales and thereby measure their

corresponding indicators. Apparently, the proposed metrics satisfy the pertinent condition.

Recommendations for Future Research

With respect to the Business Strategy part, recommendations for future research are mainly related to

the assessment of the proposed solutions. There are two basic solutions proposed in this research, them

being the enrichment of the Performance Attributes set and the incorporation of an intermediate step

that filters out strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking database. Both these

solutions should be assessed on the basis of four steps. First of all, the assessment of their actual

contribution and the evaluation of their overall impact should be explored. Secondly, their compatibility

with the characteristics of the current SCOR Model version should be investigated. Thirdly, the located

attributes and indicators respectively should be assessed and, if possible, enriched with other

compatible concepts. Finally, corresponding metrics should be identified and evaluated in both cases. In

general, priority should be given to quantitative approaches, since the next step of performing a

qualitative research is to come up with tangible facts and practical solutions. Whether and how the

concept of innovativeness could be brought in the center of the SCOR Model approach is another topic

to be explored in the Business Strategy direction.


XII

In regard of the Business Sustainability part, the first recommendation is to explore whether the

confrontation of sustainability as a strategic issue can boost the promotion of the concept in the Supply

Chain Management domain. Secondly, the industry factor appears to influence strongly the translation

of sustainability in supply chain terms. Therefore, a second direction for future research is the

examination of the same issue, i.e. the diffusion of sustainability in the Supply Chain Management

domain, but within the borders of a specific industry, e.g. the pharmaceutical or the electronics industry.

Last but not least, since governmental bodies appear to be the most appropriate for promoting the

concept of sustainability in the Supply Chain Management domain, research on how these bodies can be

motivated, how cooperation between them can be stimulated and how tangible and overall solutions

can be produced and diffused is strongly recommended.

Overall, it is the personal belief of the author that it is about time for SCOR Model to take the leap into

the business world. As it is indicated by the literature and as it is supported by the decision of SCC to add

a risk management section in the latest, 10.0, version of the model, the odds are in favor of this leap.

Specifically, given that the Balanced ScoreCard (BSC) is probably the most dominant analytical tool when

it comes to business affairs, linking SCOR Model to BSC seems a rather prosperous move, able to solve

several of the strategic and sustainable issues located in SCOR Model. Whether now this connection is

straightforward or how it could be implemented in real terms, this is definitely an area to be explored.


XIII


XIV

Table of Contents

General Information ................................................................................................................................. I

Preface .................................................................................................................................................... II

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. V

List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ XVI

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... XVIII

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ - 1 -

1.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. - 1 -

1.2. Research Problem ................................................................................................................ - 3 -

1.3. Research Objective .............................................................................................................. - 6 -

1.4. General Research Questions and Conceptual Framework .................................................... - 7 -

1.5. Potential Significance and Urgency ...................................................................................... - 9 -

1.6. Prospective Clients and Research Contribution .................................................................. - 11 -

1.7. Reflection on the Research Scope ...................................................................................... - 12 -

1.8. Summary ........................................................................................................................... - 15 -

2. Research Framework ................................................................................................................. - 17 -

2.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... - 17 -

2.2. Qualitative Research .......................................................................................................... - 18 -

2.3. Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... - 18 -

2.4. Research Methods ............................................................................................................. - 19 -

2.5. Sample Selection ............................................................................................................... - 21 -

2.6. Research Evaluation ........................................................................................................... - 23 -

2.7. Research Limitations .......................................................................................................... - 23 -

2.8. Summary ........................................................................................................................... - 25 -

3. SCOR Model Description, Literature Review & Interview Framework ......................................... - 26 -

3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... - 26 -

3.2. SCOR Model Description .................................................................................................... - 27 -

3.3. Literature Review ............................................................................................................... - 39 -

3.4. Explorative Guidelines, & Interview Framework ................................................................. - 54 -

3.5. Summary ........................................................................................................................... - 65 -


XV

4. Interview Results ....................................................................................................................... - 68 -

4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... - 68 -

4.2. ABC .................................................................................................................................... - 69 -

4.3. Highlight Consulting B.V. .................................................................................................... - 72 -

4.4. Atkins Electronics ............................................................................................................... - 76 -

4.5. Akron Caller ....................................................................................................................... - 80 -

4.6. Summary ........................................................................................................................... - 84 -

5. Design Principles and Conceptual Design ................................................................................... - 88 -

5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... - 88 -

5.2. Results Accumulation and Synthesis to Design Principles ................................................... - 89 -

5.3. Extraction of Design Guidelines .......................................................................................... - 97 -

5.4. Conceptual Design ........................................................................................................... - 100 -

5.5. Design Evaluation ............................................................................................................ - 108 -

5.6. Summary ......................................................................................................................... - 110 -

6. Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................... - 113 -

6.1. Conclusions...................................................................................................................... - 114 -

6.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................................... - 116 -

7. Reflection ................................................................................................................................ - 120 -

References ...................................................................................................................................... - 129 -

Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 134

Appendix A: Qualitative Research Characteristics ............................................................................ 134

Appendix B: Triangulation Method and Qualitative Research .......................................................... 136

Appendix C: Determining the Sample Size ....................................................................................... 141

Appendix D: From Literature Research Questions to Interview Questionnaire ................................. 145

Appendix E: Semi-structured Interview Questionnaire Skeleton ...................................................... 148


XVI

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Summarizing key elements of the chapter.......................................................................... - 16 -

Table 2-1 Explorative Research Elements .......................................................................................... - 18 -

Table 2-2 Sample Selection Criteria ................................................................................................... - 22 -

Table 2-3 Research Limitations and Corresponding Mitigators........................................................... - 24 -

Table 2-4 Summarizing key elements of the chapter.......................................................................... - 25 -

Table 3-1 Description of SCOR Model’s Five Core Management processes ........................................ - 29 -

Table 3-2 Description of SCOR Model’s Product Types ....................................................................... - 30 -

Table 3-3 Description of the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model .......................................... - 33 -

Table 3-4 Simple SCORcard Example ................................................................................................. - 33 -

Table 3-5 Calculation of the Parity Gap .............................................................................................. - 34 -

Table 3-6 Competitive Positioning Chart ............................................................................................ - 34 -

Table 3-7 Calculation of the Competitive Gap .................................................................................... - 35 -

Table 3-8 List of waste types towards pollution calculation within SCOR Model ................................ - 39 -

Table 3-9 List of sustainability-oriented capabilities ........................................................................... - 39 -

Table 3-10 Located Opportunities for Improving SCOR Model ........................................................... - 41 -

Table 3-11 Five Major Dimensions of Advantages, deriving from Capabilities-Based Competition ..... - 45 -

Table 3-12 Findings of the Literature Review on Business Strategy .................................................... - 55 -

Table 3-13 Explorative Questions on Business Strategy ..................................................................... - 59 -

Table 3-14 Findings of the Literature Review on Business Sustainability ............................................ - 59 -

Table 3-15 Explorative Questions on Business Sustainability .............................................................. - 62 -

Table 3-16 Summarizing key elements of the chapter ........................................................................ - 67 -

Table 4-1 Details about the semi-structured interviews respondents ................................................ - 69 -

Table 4-2 Key elements of this chapter: Details about the respondents ............................................. - 85 -

Table 4-3 Key elements of this chapter: Summary of the Arguments on Business Strategy derived from

the Semi-structured Interviews ............................................................................................................. 86

Table 4-4 Key elements of this chapter: Summary of the Arguments on Business Sustainability derived

from the Semi-structured Interviews ..................................................................................................... 87

Table 5-1 Arguments regarding the approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy ........................... - 90 -

Table 5-2 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Benchmarking ........................................ - 91 -


XVII

Table 5-3 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility ........................... - 92 -

Table 5-4 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Literature Indicators ............................... - 93 -

Table 5-5 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Flexibility ................................................ - 93 -

Table 5-6 Arguments regarding the Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply Chain

Management Domain ....................................................................................................................... - 94 -

Table 5-7 Arguments regarding the Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply Chain

Management Domain ....................................................................................................................... - 96 -

Table 5-8 Arguments regarding the Topic of Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency .................. - 97 -

Table 5-9 Design Principles ................................................................................................................ - 98 -

Table 5-10 Summarizing key elements of the chapter ...................................................................... - 112 -


XVIII

List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Scope and Structure of SCOR Model ................................................................................... - 2 -

Figure 1-2 Structure Outline: Introduction ........................................................................................... - 3 -

Figure 1-3 CO2 Emissions by Country from 1990 to 2030 ..................................................................... - 5 -

Figure 1-4 Basic Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. - 8 -

Figure 1-5 Logical Correlations included in the Conceptual Framework ............................................. - 14 -

Figure 2-1 Structure Outline: Research Framework ........................................................................... - 17 -

Figure 2-2 Research framework ......................................................................................................... - 17 -

Figure 2-3 Triangulation Method ....................................................................................................... - 20 -

Figure 3-1 Structure Outline: Literature Review ................................................................................. - 26 -

Figure 3-2 Logical path of the Literature Review section: From the Research Problem Definition to the

Interview Framework ........................................................................................................................ - 27 -

Figure 3-3 Cross-Functional Skeleton of the Process Reference Model .............................................. - 28 -

Figure 3-4 Model Scope and Structure............................................................................................... - 30 -

Figure 3-5 Description of the three levels of the SCOR Model ............................................................ - 31 -

Figure 3-6 The Concept of “Configurability” ....................................................................................... - 36 -

Figure 3-7 Types of Models Simulating the Planning Intervention towards SC Configurability ............ - 36 -

Figure 3-8 Business Scope Diagram ................................................................................................... - 36 -

Figure 3-9 Geographic Map ............................................................................................................... - 37 -

Figure 3-10 Thread Diagram .............................................................................................................. - 37 -

Figure 3-11 Workflow or Process Model ............................................................................................ - 38 -

Figure 3-12 Lowell Framework .......................................................................................................... - 48 -

Figure 3-13 Three Dimensions of Sustainability ................................................................................. - 49 -

Figure 3-14 Three Types of Capital .................................................................................................... - 50 -

Figure 3-15 The “Business Case” of Corporate Sustainability ............................................................. - 51 -

Figure 3-16 The “Natural Case” of Corporate Sustainability ............................................................... - 52 -

Figure 3-17 The “Societal Case” of Corporate Sustainability ............................................................... - 52 -

Figure 3-18 Overview of the Six Criteria of Corporate Sustainability .................................................. - 53 -

Figure 3-19 Continuous-loop model for defining and measuring sustainability performance of

organizations .................................................................................................................................... - 54 -


XIX

Figure 3-20 Interview framework ...................................................................................................... - 64 -

Figure 4-1 Structure Outline: Interview Results ................................................................................. - 68 -

Figure 5-1 Structure Outline: Design Principles and Conceptual Design ............................................. - 88 -

Figure 5-2 Four Steps from Interview Results to Conceptual Design ................................................... - 89 -

Figure 5-3 SCOR Model Current Functioning Approach .................................................................... - 101 -

Figure 5-4 SCOR Model Current Decision-Making Involvement ........................................................ - 102 -

Figure 5-5 SCOR Model Updated Functioning Approach .................................................................. - 104 -

Figure 5-6 Focusing on the Intermediate Step of the SCOR Model Updated Functioning Approach .. - 105 -

Figure 5-7 SCOR Model Updated Decision-Making Involvement ...................................................... - 107 -

Figure 6-1 Structure Outline: Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................... - 113 -

Figure 6-2 Enrichment of the Performance Attributes Set ............................................................... - 117 -

Figure 6-3 Intermediate Step: Filtering Out Strategically Incompatible Companies .......................... - 118 -


- 1 -

1. Introduction

1.1. Overview

Market dynamics have changed dramatically during the 1990’s, forcing executive managers of major

corporate representatives to update and alter the way they used to confront the actual and virtual

movement of products between collaborating actors. Supply chain networks, referring to the system of,

people, technology, activities, information and resources involved in moving a product or service from

supplier to customer (Nagurney, 2006), needed to be better organized and managed so as to improve

the efficiency and effectiveness of the underlined process.

As a result of the initiation of this managerial era, Supply Chain Management came onto the scene,

putting extra attention on the way supply chains, and their connection with the related value chains,

should be managed towards optimizing operations and outcomes. Representative definitions of the

terms Supply Chain and Supply Chain Management can be found on the box to the bottom of the page.

Since then, numerous and diverse approaches have been formulated, all emphasizing on this same

purpose. Among them, Supply-Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model, a sophisticated tool

developed by the Supply Chain Council (SCC), comprises a unique, state-of-the-art approach on how to

manage and improve supply chain operations and constitutes the inspiration behind the development of

the specific proposal.

Supply Chain Definition

There have historically been several attempts to define the term Supply Chain. The approaches of Cooper and

Ellram (1993), La Londe and Masters (1994) and Lambert, Stock, and Ellram (1998) are characteristic examples.

Considered by the author as the most holistic and representative one, the definition of Mentzer et al (2001) is

going to be cited, stating that:

“A supply chain is defined as a set of three or more entities (organizations or individuals) directly involved in

the upstream and downstream flows of products, services, finances, and/or information from a source to a

customer”.

Supply Chain Management Definition

Similarly, multiple were the attempts to describe the notion of Supply Chain Management. The works of Jones

and Riley (1985), Houlihan (1988), Stevens (1989), La Londe and Masters (1994), Cooper et al (1997) and

Monczka, Trent, and Handfield (1998) are indicative in this direction. Again, the definition of Mentzer et al

(2001), as one of the latest, is considered to be the more condensed. It defines Supply Chain Management as:

“The systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and the tactics across these

business functions within a particular company and across businesses within the supply chain, for the

purposes of improving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a

whole”.


- 2 -

SCC is a global, non-profit consortium, open to all types of

organizations and enumerating approximately a thousand members.

The methodology, diagnostic and benchmarking tools of SCC aim to

enhance the supply chain processes of its professional members. SCC

has established the SCOR Model, the world’s most widely accepted

supply chain analytical tool (SCC, 2009). More details on SCC are given

on the box to the left.

SCOR model, version 9.0, constitutes the endeavor of the Supply-Chain

Council (SCC, 2009) to “capture, assess and organize supply chain

managerial issues so as to formulate a framework of supply chain

analysis and improvement and a communications platform among

various actors of diverse supply chains”.

Source Make Deliver

Return Return

Source Make Deliver

Return Return

Source Make Deliver

Return Return

Plan

Deliver

Return

Source

Return

Plan

Plan

Supplier’s

Supplier

Supplier

Internal or External

Customer


Your Company Customer’s

Customer

Figure 1-1 Scope and Structure of SCOR Model

SCOR, as a process reference model, unifies well-known concepts of

business process reengineering, benchmarking and process

measurement into a cross-functional skeleton. It consists of three

levels. SCOR level one captures the “as-is” state of a process and

derives the desired “to-be” future state on the basis of five strategic-

related Performance Attributes, them being SC Reliability, SC

Responsiveness, SC Agility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency. SCOR

level two quantifies the operational performance of similar companies

and establishes internal targets based on “best-in-class” results. These

results are expressed by representative Metrics. These Metrics

correspond to the five strategic-related Performance Attributes, which

were used in the first level to define the strategic positioning and

targets of the implementing company. SCOR level three characterizes

The Supply-Chain Council (SCC) is a global

non-profit consortium whose methodology,

diagnostic and benchmarking tools help nearly

a thousand organizations make dramatic and

rapid improvements in supply chain processes.

SCC has established the supply chain world’s

most widely accepted framework for evaluating

and comparing supply chain activities and their

performance. The framework—the SCOR®

process reference model—lets companies

quickly determine and compare the

performance of supply chain and related

operations within their company or against

other companies.

SCC continually advances its tools and

educates sponsors about how companies are

capitalizing on those tools. By using its tools,

SCC sponsors are able to rapidly overcome the

first difficult step in supply chain improvement:

determining what processes to improve first

and how much to improve them. Sponsors also

use SCC’s reference models to:

1) Guide the consolidation of internal supply

chains, which results in significant cost

reductions from eliminating duplicative assets

2) Create standard processes and common

information systems across business units,

which generates major cost savings, cycle-time

and quality improvements

3) Create a common scorecard by which

customers can measure their performance and

by which SCC sponsors can measure suppliers’

performance, which can lead to major cross-

organizational process improvements

To help members maximize the value of SCC’s

reference models, the consortium provides a

benchmarking database by which companies

can compare their supply chain performance to

others in their industries; training classes so

that managers can master the use of the

reference models; and conferences at which

supply chain and senior business executives

can learn how SCC member companies have

used the consortium’s services to make

dramatic improvements in supply chain and

overall financial performance.

(Source: SCC, 2009)


- 3 -

the management practices and software solutions that result in “best-in-class” performance, while SCOR

level four, describes the elements that fall out of the model’s scope, and is

occupied with the implementation of the located solutions.

A short description of the SCOR model was essential, as a first impression

of the core element of this research. Based on this short description, the

introduction of the research problem can now take place. A deep analysis

of SCOR Model follows later on.

At this point, the structure outline is introduced and depicted on the

figure at the right side. This outline represents the structure of this

research and is used hereafter in the early beginning of every chapter to

indicate the position of this research at every time. In specific, an orange

frame highlights the chapter that is analyzed per occasion. To illustrate,

the introduction block is highlighted in this section, since the research

deployment stands on the introduction chapter. The following chapter

focuses on the research framework and the corresponding decisions and

assumptions that are made towards the exploration of the research topic.

Then a description of SCOR Model and a review of the literature take

place, leading to the creation of a questionnaire, which is then used in a

number of interviews with people of expertise. The results of these two

chapters are used for the conceptual design of an updated version of the

model, as well as for the extraction of relevant conclusions and

recommendations.

1.2. Research Problem

No matter how methodical and straightforward the implementation of the SCOR Model is, it presents

some characteristic deficiencies that can be accounted to the way it captures a couple of important

corporate notions. On one hand, being a typical benchmarking application, SCOR Model fails to

recognize all the valuable input that can be derived from the Business Strategy notion and thereby

leads, at best, in equal and not superior performance (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). On the other hand, it

deals with Business Sustainability superficially and, as a result, it does not accomplish to substantially

promote the adoption of sustainable solutions (SCC, 2009).

With respect to benchmarking practices and the pitfalls they may lead into, a correlation to the social

proof theory reveals large part of the story. In brief, this approach describes that "If a lot of people are

doing the same thing, they must know something we don't. Especially when we are uncertain, we are

willing to place an enormous amount of trust in the collective knowledge of the crowd” (Cialdini, 1993).

In a business environment, this theory explains the tendency of companies to unconstructively imitate

best-in-class practices, as well as the repercussions of such irresponsible decisions, especially in periods

of breakthrough changes in the pertinent industries. The examples are numerous (Enders & König,

Introduction

Research Framework

Design Principles and

Conceptual Design

Interview Results

SCOR Description-Lit.

Review-Int. Framework

Conclusions and

Recommendations

Figure 1-2 Structure

Outline: Introduction


- 4 -

2009); US automobile

industry since the 1960s

fails to decide responsively

and is gradually eclipsed by

Toyota and other Asian car

manufacturers; traditional

aviation firms in the 1990s

fail to act “untraditionally”

and are driven to

bankruptcy by Southwest

and other no-frills airlines;

and the computer industry

in the 1980s is helplessly

overtaken by Apple and

other PC manufacturers.

This inability of established

companies to think out of

the box makes them blindly rely on benchmarking practices and, thereby, imprisons them in the role of

the follower. Here is where the concept of Business Strategy emerges. A concise description of the term

business Strategy is given

in the box at the left. As it

will be discussed later on,

Porter (1996), among

others, urges the fact that

“Strategy is about being

different” and underlines

the superiority of strategy

as opposed to operations.

In this research, this

approach of Michael

Porter is espoused. Further

details on this subject are given in the literature review section. Overall, the described contradiction

between strategic theory and business practice is evident in the SCOR Model as well, as it was claimed

on the beginning of this part. Therefore, it becomes apparent why it is crucial to fully and successfully

incorporate Business Strategy in the SCOR Model and why research on this field is necessitated.

On the other hand, regarding the concept of Business Sustainability, the consequences of its superficial

confrontation by SCOR Model, in specific, and the Supply Chain Management domain, in general, can be

disastrous and exceed by far those related to benchmarking pitfalls, which are basically bound by the

concept of profitability. It is not the purpose of this research, here, to describe in detail the

environmental impact of corporations, and the way they reinforce CO2 emissions and the greenhouse

Business Strategy Description

Being the second layer of Strategic Management, below Corporate

Strategy and above Functional Strategy, Business Strategy is occupied

with: “The maximization and reservation of a company’s competitive edge, in

comparison with the one of its best-in-class competitors”

(Sources: Grant & King (1982), Hax & Majluf (1984), and Hofer &

Schendel (1978))

Example from the Music Industry

Consider, for instance, the music industry. Only after the music majors

had already suffered major revenue declines because of illegal peer-to-

peer trading platforms, they finally also decided to go online themselves.

However, they nevertheless all stuck to their old model of generating

revenues, which can be summed up as “record one or two good songs

and six or seven mediocre ones and compile them on one album; then,

sell the album for 10 Euros or more.” It was ultimately up to Apple, an

industry outsider, to introduce a business model – one song for 99 cents

– that would suit the new habits of internet users who configure their

own collections of the singles they like instead of buying pre-compiled

albums. In the end, Apple succeeded while the majors failed. Similar

stories can be found in many other industries where all established

players fail to respond appropriately to radical changes in their

environment.

(Source: Enders and König, 2009)


- 5 -

effect, even less the serious consequences of the latter. However, it is sufficient to simply contemplate

a) the continuously increasing CO2 emissions, as the following chart indicates, along with the fact that b)

supply chains account for the vast majority of these emissions (Environmental Leader, 2009), as well as

with c) the reality of nowadays, where the 65% of corporations globally do not have an explicit green

strategy regarding their supply chains (Environmental Leader, 2009). On the same track, the Supply

Chain Leadership Collaboration (SCLC), an effort of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which acts on

behalf of 475 investors with assets of $55 trillion towards confronting climate change, is more than

illustrative (CDP, 2009).

Figure 1-3 CO2 Emissions by Country from 1990 to 2030 (Source: Energy Information Administration,

cited by Mongabay, 2009)

Looking now over the diffusion of the sustainability concept within business environments, the results

are not that positive (SCC, 2009). An explanation of this situation is given by Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers

and Steger (2005), who “identify a clearly insufficient understanding of manager’s key arguments or

business logic for adopting corporate sustainability strategies”. This recorded gap between theory and

practice cannot be fully

accounted on managers’

competencies; there must

be a problem either on the

definition of sustainability

or on the processes

through which it is

implemented, a problem

that constrains the

diffusion of sustainability

within business

Business Sustainability Description

The term of Business Sustainability refers to the process of converting

conventional business to sustainable, or else to a business able to: “Meet the needs of the present world without compromising the ability

of the future generations to meet their own needs”

(Source: Anderson, 2006)


- 6 -

environments. Regarding the definition of sustainability, it is quite straightforward, as it can be seen on

the previous box at the right. Therefore, the described problem should be related with the processes

through which sustainability is implemented in business environments.

Indeed, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) locate this problem on the way the notion of Business Sustainability

is confronted by corporations. That is, they observe that corporate thinking mistakenly equates

sustainability with eco-efficiency. This reduction inhibits the holistic management of the, after all,

complex notion of sustainability and prevents the extraction of substantive solutions. As it will be shown

in the literature review section, SCOR Model appears to fall into the described pitfall, i.e. equating

sustainability with eco-

efficiency. Therefore, it

becomes apparent that the

way SCOR Model deals with

sustainability should be

reexamined and enriched. In

this direction, an explorative

research is necessitated, a

research that will point out

the guidelines for this

improvement.

There is no intention of

questioning or invalidating

the contribution of the

SCOR Model in the Supply

Chain Management domain. This does not mean, though, that there is no room for improvement. That

is, a potential successful expansion of the model’s horizons, towards the Business Strategy and Business

Sustainability directions, would substantially improve the significance and the effectiveness of this

already established approach. Either seen as a heavy responsibility or as a generous inheritance,

research on this field is from justified to essential.

1.3. Research Objective

As it has been presented so far, the subject of this research is SCOR Model and how it can be improved

by recapturing the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. Specifically, the scope of

the research is narrowed down to the improvement of the model through the alleviation of

benchmarking effects and through the successful incorporation of sustainable features. It has been

shown that there is an initial indication that Business Strategy can help on benchmarking issues.

Similarly, Business Sustainability, and the way it is confronted by corporate logic, is the key to the

promotion and successful incorporation of proposed sustainable solutions.

Whereas in the mid-1990s local authorities were probably the most

active players trying to implement sustainable development, the focus

has recently shifted strongly towards business as a major actor. Although

it is to be commended that managers accept their responsibility for

environmental and social issues, their interpretation of the ‘business link

to sustainable development’ is also worrying. In their quest to find ‘a

single concept, perhaps a single word to sum up the business end of

sustainable development’ most firms have opted for eco-efficiency as

their guiding principle.

Eco-efficiency is a valuable part of corporate strategies. However, as

the sole concept it is insufficient.

(Source: Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002)


- 7 -

An explorative qualitative research is considered to be the best method in this direction, since what is

sought for is an investigation of the correlations between SCOR Model and two business areas. The

result of such an exploration would be valuable insight and guidelines with respect to the improvement

of SCOR Model on the drawn directions. Instead of limiting this research on an infertile enlistment of

conclusions, the idea here is to take a step further and conceptualize an updated version of the model

that can effectively incorporate these two business concepts.

Summarizing the arguments of this part, it can be said that the objective of this research is two-fold:

1.4. General Research Questions and Conceptual Framework

Following the positioning of this research and the definition of its scope, it is now time to formulate the

general research question and present the conceptual framework, upon which it is going to be assessed.

Linked to its objective, the central inquiry, or else the exploration starting line, of this research is

described by the following research questions.

Reading this central research questions, two areas that need to be explored can be noticed; a) the

concept of Business Strategy and the way it can contribute to the alleviation of benchmarking effects

Research Objective:

1. a) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Strategy concept to the

alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model


successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR

Model

2. To set the design criteria and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can

effectively incorporate the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts

General Research Questions:

a) “How can Business Strategy practically contribute to the alleviation of benchmarking effects,

towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”

b) “How can Business Sustainability practically contribute to the successful incorporation of

sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”


- 8 -

towards the improvement of the SCOR Model, and b) the concept of Business Sustainability and the way

it can contribute to the successful incorporation of sustainable solutions towards the improvement of

the SCOR Model. This basic conceptual framework is depicted on the following figure:

Figure 1-4 Basic Conceptual Framework

Once the conceptual framework has been derived, the question now is how this research is going to

proceed. In this respect, the following section is occupied with the Research framework, or else the

definition of the character of this research and the description of the steps that need to be followed

towards its fulfillment. On this basis, the located research problem can be systematically confronted and

satisfy the research objective by answering the research questions.

In brief, the general idea is to attempt an initial investigation of the two areas described, so as to locate

existing scientific material and define the grey areas that need to be further explored. In this respect and

first of all, SCOR Model is described and assessed. Then, a review of the literature is performed, to map

the room for the model’s improvement and point out that alleviation of benchmarking effects and

successful incorporation of sustainable solutions are two major opportunities towards the improvement

of the model. Then, it is shown that the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability are

closely related and can substantially contribute in the improvement of the model, by confronting the

recorded problems respectively. Finally, the ways this contribution can be realized are sought for in the

literature. This exploration serves in the assessment of existing scientific material and in the definition of

the grey areas that need to be further explored. The definition of these grey areas sets the directions

and guidelines for the qualitative research and the pertinent interview sessions that follow.

The described steps serve both the objectives of this research. On one hand, they systematically

perform the exploration described under the first objective. On the other hand, they aid in the

production of results that can be directly used to satisfy the second objective, or else the

conceptualization of an updated version of the model that integrates the located opportunities for

improvement. Before rushing into the next section and the details about the design of this research, this

section concludes with three complementary paragraphs; one regarding the potential significance of this


- 9 -

research and the urgency for its development; one looking over the prospective clients and the way they

can benefit from this research; and one reflecting on the scope of this research and the pertinent

selections and assumptions.

1.5. Potential Significance and Urgency

The conduction of this research can be supported by the significance of the benefits, following a

potential successful incorporation of the examined concepts in the SCOR model. This significance is

multi-aspect and can be better observed if decomposed in three main categories of relevance, them

being scientific, managerial and social relevance.

With respect to the scientific relevance of this research, it can be found on the integration of expertise

and research efforts aiming to result in the advancement of knowledge on the field of SC Management,

as it is pursued herewith on the intersection of benchmarking practices and relevant strategic

implications, and on the field of sustainability and sustainable solutions. Bridging this scientific gap can

lead in substantial conclusions and valuable practical applications.

Furthermore, the managerial relevance of this research can be seen on the number of managerial

terms intervening in this endeavor. The above-benchmarking insertion of the Business Strategy notion in

the SCOR Model can promote the strategic alignment of corporate activities, increasing this way

productivity and cost-efficiency and leading in enhanced added-value creation and profitability. Similarly,

effective incorporation of Business Sustainability can advance resource allocation and waste

management practices, aiding companies to reduce their supply chain costs and comply with relevant

regulations.

Finally, this research can be also seen as socially relevant, since it investigates how the Sustainability

notion can be successfully incorporated. Sustainable supply chain solutions and practices can

dramatically reduce the resources used, leading in major economical gains. Reduced transportation

utilization can decrease consumption of fuels and traffic congestions, bringing this way environmental

pollution down and fostering the elevation of urban living standards.

It is mentioned at this point that the potential significance of this research, as it is recorded in this

paragraph, is the initial element supporting the continuation and correctness of this endeavor. Further

support was provided by Mr. Marcel Wolfs, a supply chain expert and former member of the SCC.

Specifically, on the basis of his experience within the SCC environment and regarding the character of

SCOR Model, Mr. Wolfs was asked to judge whether the orientation of this research is on the right track.

Indeed, he confirmed the relevance and potential significance of this endeavor and justified its

continuation. Furthermore, Mr. Wolfs was also called, and kindly responded positively, to evaluate the

output of this research. This second part of his contribution, along with more details on Mr. Wolfs’

profile, is presented later on, within the design principles and conceptual design section.


- 10 -

Apart from the potential significance that has been described so far, the urgency for the conduction of

this research needs also to be assessed. The reason is that significance is necessary for the conduction of

a research, but not sufficient; a research also needs to be urgent. Otherwise, it might very well lead to a

shallow report, to an unconstructive enlistment of facts and opinions. Through this prism of reasoning,

the directions of this research are reexamined.

First of all, regarding the benchmarking pitfalls of SCOR Model, it could be easily and logically claimed

that they are of minor importance, and that there are many cases where imitating best-in-class practices

can only be beneficial. For example, a company with the strategy of a follower, or a company with the

strategy of a leader that decides to be a follower when it comes to Supply Chain Management, can

merely benefit from benchmarking to the performance of their best-in-class competitors. Although

these examples are completely true, leaving, on account of these examples, the recognized

benchmarking pitfalls unaddressed, would mean the admittance of no direct correlation between

Business Strategy and Supply Chain Management. That is, on an inductive and non-scientific way, it

would be concluded that since one or more type of companies do not need to take into account strategy

when benchmarking on their supply chain competitors, then no company needs to and Supply Chain

Management can be confronted as a domain, completely independent from Business Strategy.

Apparently, this approach is from wrong to dangerous, not only because it leads to false conclusions, but

also because similar lines of reasoning can lead in disastrous results.

Therefore, the improvement of the way SCOR Model deals with the concept of Business Strategy is an

urgent task that needs to be addressed, if it is to establish a strong relation between supply chain

strategy and supply chain operations. Whether now practitioners would be strategically interested in an

updated approach or simply willing to follow the conventional SCOR Model paradigm, this is another

topic of discussion. The central idea here is that SCOR Model, as a state-of-the-art analytical tool

dominating the Supply Chain Management domain, needs to capture the concept of Business Strategy in

a holistic and spherical way that allows the pursuit of or contemplation over any type of strategy.

Secondly, with respect to the fact that corporations do not think “green” regarding their supply chains

and that SCOR Model fails to capture the term of Business Sustainability effectively so as to promote

“green” features, the urgency for a solution is apparent, given the consequences of not having one. That

is, while not confronting benchmarking pitfalls can at worst affect a company’s profitability, a superficial

confrontation of sustainability has a direct impact on environment and human life. In other words, the

urgency here is clear, since the discussion is about people, not about money.

Thirdly and given the fact that one of the main reasons that corporations do not seek for sustainable

solutions is monetary budget restrictions, as well as the fact that Business Strategy is after all about

profit and long-term prosperity, an examination of the notion of sustainability through a strategic prism

seems rather promising. It could yield substantial conclusions and solutions regarding the creation of

value from “green” practices, regarding the translation of sustainability in business terms. Although very

brief and simplistic, the content of these two sentences is sufficient to point out the opportunities

behind such an approach, sufficient to stress the urgency for the examination of Business Sustainability

in conjunction with Business Strategy.


- 11 -

However, the research here is one step behind the examination of this possibility. The object of this

research is to explore the notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. Then, on the basis of

the foundations set in this research, it could be further explored how these two notions can reinforce

each other. To sum up, additional urgency to explore the notions of Business Strategy and Business

Sustainability is provided by the mutually reinforcing relationship that potentially exists between them.

Yet, this relationship, as it will be claimed in the reflection paragraph, exceeds the boundaries of the

specific research as well as of the Supply Chain Management domain, and could only be the object of a

future research that builds upon the foundations developed here.

1.6. Prospective Clients and Research Contribution

Looking over the potential significance and urgency, the prospective clients of this research can be

located. At first, the SCC itself could be interested in evaluating the output of this endeavor. It could

derive useful conclusions regarding the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability aspects of the

model, conclusions that can be used either as instructive guidelines on the way the model should be

confronted or even become part of the model in a future updated version. Secondly, companies that

already use SCOR Model could benefit either from an improved utilization guideline or even from an in-

house, customized enrichment of SCOR Model current version, towards the described directions.

Thirdly, consultancies could make use of the derived conclusions to enhance the quality of their supply

chain advices, both in terms of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. Fourthly, researchers from

the Supply Chain Management domain can be inspired and motivated to carry on this endeavor on the

future research directions, and, as a result, enhance the validity and the impact of the research initiated

here. Finally, governmental and (non-)governmental organizations could also draw on this research so as

to promote the implementation of sustainable solutions, either by focusing on the notion of Business

Sustainability or on its reinforcing relation with the notion of Business Strategy.

So far, the questions of why this research is significant and urgent and who is going to benefit from its

development have been answered. It is now time to focus on the question of how this research can

contribute, what would be the output of this endeavor. An accumulation of elements of the up-to-now

argumentation, leads to a description of the contribution of this research, as it is presented below:


- 12 -

1.7. Reflection on the Research Scope

A discussion should be made at this point with respect to the scope of the described conceptual

framework. A quick overview of the general research question and the way it is expressed through the

conceptual framework generates a number of questions. These questions are mainly related to the

selected boundaries of the research and how this selection is justified. Answering these questions is an

important task towards the constructive positioning of this research and its corresponding framework.

Therefore, they are presented below and each of them is dealt with separately.

• Why does this research focus only on the alleviation of benchmarking effects and on the

successful incorporation of sustainable solutions? Aren’t there more opportunities for

improvement?

It is truth that there have been several opportunities and directions for improving SCOR Model recorded

in the literature. An indicative overview of such opportunities is given in the literature review section

that follows. The objective fact is that each of them deserves to be explored, an exploration that could

equally result in a minor, similar or grater improvement of the model. However, the subjective reality is

that a couple of these opportunities will draw more attention than the others, depending on research

circumstances such as the background of the researcher, the time and monetary resources of the

research and the general scientific environment within which the research is performed. This distance

between theoretical truth and practical application is not considered able to reduce the quality of the

research. That is, the quality of the research results has to do with the precise definition of the research

boundaries, not with the comparative effectiveness of this research to others.

In this respect, it needs to be clarified that this research aims to examine the improvement of the SCOR

Model in the described directions, not to locate the most promising opportunities for the model’s

Research Contribution:





case basis





- 13 -

improvement. Thus, alleviation of benchmarking effects and successful incorporation of sustainable

solutions are the two opportunities considered - by the herewith research circumstances - the most

important to explore. The anticipation for valuable results on these directions does not reduce or

compromise research efforts that could be performed on any other opportunity for SCOR Model

improvement.

• Why does this research focus only on Business Strategy and Business Sustainability? Aren’t

there other business concepts that could equally contribute to the improvement of the

model in the described directions?

The argumentation on this question follows a similar line of reasoning. It is truth that the alleviation of

benchmarking effects could be equally or better dealt with by another managerial or scientific domain,

such as Human Resource Management or Psychology. Likewise, successful incorporation of sustainable

solutions could be equally confronted by the domains of Decision Making or Policy Analysis. However,

the herewith research circumstances promote the examination of the Business Strategy and Business

Sustainability notions towards the exploitation of the selected opportunities. This fact does not

compromise the quality of the results because, again, what is sought for here is how can these business

concepts contribute, not which is the domain that could contribute most. However, there is a necessary

and sufficient condition that needs to be satisfied in the drawn direction. Specifically, it has to be proved

that, although may not be the most-contributing, Business Strategy and Business Sustainability can

indeed contribute in the improvement of the model on the described directions. Otherwise, the adopted

line of reasoning would not be valid.

In this sense, the connection of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability with the SCOR Model is

apparent, since the model already makes use of these concepts. Similarly, looking for a connection

between Business Sustainability and successful incorporation of sustainable solutions leads almost to a

tautology. On the same track, alleviation of benchmarking effects and successful incorporation of

sustainable solutions automatically contribute to SCOR Model improvement. On the other hand, the

connection between Business Strategy and alleviation of benchmarking effects is not that clear by

definition. Nevertheless, strong evidence of this correlation can be found on the literature. This

temporarily missing link will be supported and proven in the literature review section, and will herald

the establishment of the adopted research path. Then, it can be explored how exactly this sequence of

steps from Business Strategy and Business Sustainability towards SCOR Model improvement can actually

and optimally take place. The argumentation provided here is also depicted on the following figure:


- 14 -

Figure 1-5 Logical Correlations included in the Conceptual Framework

• Are Business Strategy and Business Sustainability two actually independent notions?

As it has, perhaps, already been observed or as it can be seen on the logical decomposition of the

conceptual framework illustrated on the previous figure, there is a missing link between the concepts of

Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. It is truth that there are numerous endeavors supporting

the close relation of these two notions (e.g. IFC, 2004), as well as the fact that, in many cases, they

should be faced by corporations as a single business element (e.g. Deloitte & Touche, & the World

Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1992). This perception may, or probably does, conceal a

reinforcing relationship between these two notions, a relationship able to create a positive feedback

loop when it comes to their effective incorporation in the SCOR Model.

No matter how promising this hypothesis sounds and no matter how important could the results of such

an establishment could be, the herewith research circumstances, along with the abstractness of this

idea and the implications this can have on its practical implementation, render this area out of the scope

of this research. Nevertheless, as it will be pointed out later on, this is a must area for future research,

research that exceeds the borders of SCOR Model and Supply Chain Management and touches the

broad-spectrum areas of Business, Environment and Society.

• Why is it important to improve the SCOR Model in these or any other theoretical

directions? Couldn’t the SCC limit the application of SCOR Model to operational issues

without compromising the quality of its results?

This would be a rational, subtle question that can only be answered subjectively. The reason is that, no

matter how scientific the research approach would be, the object of this research cannot be subjected

to experiment, as in the case of a natural phenomenon, and can be thereby interpreted in more than

one ways. As a result, what seems correct to the eyes of an individual is not necessarily truth or valid.

This is both the weakness and the magic of Managerial subjects, in specific, and social sciences, in

general, who mostly look for confirmation within the mathematical domain of Statistics (Goven, 2003).

Since the specific research constitutes a qualitative approach and can only be supplemented by


- 15 -

statistical proofs in case there would be a future quantitative research on the same topic, the only way

to provide a satisfying answer is to rely on logical argumentation.

Indeed, SCOR Model is a state-of-the-art analytical tool with impressive results in the Supply Chain

Management domain. Its ability to organize operations in a general overarching context can and does

lead in rather consistent, systematic and compatible solutions. However, it deals only with one of the

functional strategies comprising the business strategy spectrum. Specifically, there are seven significant

functional strategies being used in a corporate environment, them being 1) marketing strategies, 2) new

product development strategies, 3) human resource strategies, 4) financial strategies, 5) legal strategies,

6) supply-chain strategies and 7) information technology management strategies (Abell, 1993).

In this respect, it is logically expected that each of these functional strategies should be connected to

and even directed by Business Strategy. And when it comes to the connection of supply chain Strategy

with Business Strategy, the role of SCOR Model is becoming apparent. No matter how well-organized

operations could be, their contribution to corporate performance would be negative if they were not

aligned with the general strategy. Therefore, SCOR Model should have a reliable bridging platform,

connecting the Supply Chain Management domain it represents with the overarching Business Strategy.

Whether this bridging platform should be positioned above, between or below SCOR Model is yet to be

explored.

With regard to the improvement of the model so as to successfully incorporate sustainable features,

there is not much to be said. The fact that SCC has already incorporated “green” features in the

traditional model, along with the recorded, by the SCC itself, resistance of practitioners to make use of

these features, justify why SCOR Model needs to be improved in this direction. Finally, the question

whether it is worth improving the model in other directions falls out of the scope of this research, as it

has been explained. However, in case it did not, a similar argumentation and line of reasoning would

have been used.

1.8. Summary

In this section, a first introduction to the orientation of this research is given. A quick overview of the

Supply Chain Management domain illustrates the role of SCOR Model, which is the core element of this

research. Then, SCC, the organization that created the model, is introduced and a first short description

of SCOR Model is given. On this basis the research problem is formulated. Then, the objective of this

research and the general research questions are described and the conceptual framework is created.

The section is completed with three complementary paragraphs; one examining the potential

significance of this research and the urgency for its conduction; one looking over the prospective clients

and the contribution of this research; and one reflecting on the scope of this research by defining and

defending its orientation. The key elements of this chapter are presented in the following table. The

research framework section that follows is used to set further the course of this research.


- 16 -

Topic Description

Research

Problem

SCOR Model fails to recognize all the valuable input that can be derived from the Business Strategy notion and thereby leads, at best, in equal and not superior performance. On the other hand, it deals with Business Sustainability superficially and, as a result, it does not accomplish to substantially promote the adoption of sustainable solutions.

Research

Objective

1. a) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Strategy concept to the alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model b) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Sustainability concept to the successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model 2. To set the design criteria and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can effectively incorporate the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts

Research

Questions

a) How can Business Strategy practically contribute to the alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model? b) How can Business Sustainability practically contribute to the successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?

Potential

Significance This research is all scientifically, managerially and socially relevant.

Urgency

It is urgent 1) to capture the entire picture of Business Strategy and avoid dangerous misperceptions, 2) to effectively capture the concept of Business Sustainability and responsibly confront serious environmental issues, and 3) to set the foundations for exploring Business Sustainability through the promising prism of Business Strategy

Prospective

Clients

1) The SCC, 2) implementing companies, 3) consultancies, 4) researchers, 5) governmental organizations and 6) non-governmental organizations

Research

Contribution

1. Extraction of guidelines regarding the effective utilization of SCOR Model, when it comes to topics related to the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability 2. Extraction of design solutions regarding the implementation of the derived conclusions, so that they can either become part of the model or be used peripherally, in a customized and per-case basis 3. Inspiration and motivation of individuals and groups of people, willing and authorized to undertake the continuation of this endeavor on the recognized research directions, towards the establishment of substantial conclusions and solutions

Table 1-1 Summarizing key elements of the chapter


- 17 -

2. Research Framework

2.1. Introduction

The purpose of this section is to establish the research methodology and

research methods that are used towards the conduction of the qualitative

research that has been previously introduced. The previous section set

the orientation and scope of this research, and recognized the gaps that

should be bridged. It is the object of this section now to build upon the

described research orientation and establish a scientific and systematic

qualitative manner to assess the selected research topic.

In this respect, the first step includes the definition of the qualitative

research and the reasons it fits with the character of this endeavor.

Thereby, it is constructively justified why the specific research approach

has been adopted, and it becomes straightforward how the selected

research elements connect to each other. The second step focuses on the

research methodology, which basically coincides with adoption of the

triangulation method. Therefore, the triangulation method is defined and

described in deep, and it becomes apparent why it is being used and how

it contributes to the quality of this research.

Following the definition and description of the research methodology, the

third step is occupied with the selection of specific research methods. On

the basis of the qualitative research characteristics and of the

triangulation method guidelines, three research methods are chosen,

defined and described. In brief, unstructured interviews, semi-structured

interviews and archiving data are the methods used. These methods are

organized in a pattern that allows the comparison of their results and leads in conclusions with

increased reliability and validity.

Once the general directions of the research framework are set, the next step is to determine the

population of the research. Thus, the fourth step emphasizes on the supply chain experts that are

approached, in terms of the criteria upon which they have been selected. The fifth step of this section

describes the process that will be used towards the evaluation of the results. The final step enlists the

limitations of this research and recognizes corresponding mitigators. The research framework described

here is depicted on the following figure:

Figure 2-2 Research framework (van der Velde, Jansen & Anderson, 2007)

Introduction

Research Framework


Conceptual Design

Interview Results



Conclusions and

Recommendations


Outline: Research

Framework


- 18 -

2.2. Qualitative Research

As it has been explained, this part aims to define the concept of qualitative research and illustrate the

way it coincides with the character of this research. In this direction, the characteristics of qualitative

research, as they are defined in the pertinent literature, are opposed here to those of the specific

research. The following table unifies these characteristics under universal research elements. Appendix

A presents the literature search that led to the creation of this table.

Research

Type

Research

Question

Research Aim Research

Theory

Research Strategies Data Collection

Explorative How?

Why?

Development

of Hypotheses

Not Well-

Established

Qualitative (Case

Studies or Theoretical

Research)

Mostly Interviews

(Unstructured &

Semi-structured)

Table 2-1 Explorative Research Elements (see appendix A)

To begin this comparison process, the type of this research is, first of all, clearly explorative since it

investigates how the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability can be effectively

recaptured by SCOR Model. Secondly, the general research question begins with a “How”, revealing its

explorative impetus. The output of this research, or the research aim, also fits with the described

research type, since it consists of advisory guidelines towards the enrichment of SCOR Model.

Furthermore, as it has been claimed in the introduction and is shown in the literature review section,

the research theory overarching the examined areas is not clear and well-established. Thus, it becomes

apparent that the selection of a qualitative and, in specific, theoretical research strategy is more than

justified. In this respect, interviews, unstructured or semi-structured, is the most appropriate data

collection method.

It has been shown that the research conducted here is, indeed, of qualitative nature. Thus, the design of

this research should hereafter comply with the corresponding theory about qualitative research. The

next step now is to define and describe the espoused research methodology, according to which the

data collection methods are selected later on.

2.3. Research Methodology

As it was described in the introduction, the second step of this section emphasizes on the adopted

research methodology, which coincides herewith with the triangulation method. Here is a

representative definition of triangulation (O’Donoghue & Punch, 2003):

“Triangulation is a method of cross-checking data from multiple sources to search for

regularities in the research data”.


- 19 -

In other words, triangulation method aims to enhance the confidence of ensuing findings through cross-

examination of a single research topic. That is, instead of approaching a research topic through a single

research channel, this method proposes a multiple confrontation of the researched topic. This way, the

level of confidence to the outcome of the research is considered to increase, as a result of alleviating the

limitations of one research method by using the advantages of another (Alan Bryman, 2008). Extra

details on triangulation, why it is being used and how it contributes to the quality of this research are

provided in appendix B. The general idea is that, in qualitative research, the two basic factors affecting

the quality of the research are the ability and effort of the researcher to establish credibility and

trustworthiness on the results; and triangulation is a prominent research tool in this direction.

This conclusion justifies the selection of the triangulation method within the qualitative context of this

research. With regard now to the characteristics and dimensions of the triangulation method that are

used in this research, they are described later on in this section. This includes the definition of the

research methods and all the other elements that are considered by the author crucial when it comes to

increasing the trustworthiness of this research.

In brief and regarding the research methods in use, they target specific data sources, data sources that

have been chosen as vital pieces of the triangulation puzzle that is constructed here around the topic of

improving SCOR Model in the described directions. These three data sources are 1) expert knowledge, 2)

practical experience and 3) scientific impact/ theoretical evaluation of SCOR Model. These sources are

assumed to be satisfyingly covered by 1) a SC expert that is or has been part of the SCC, 2) SC

professionals that make use of the model and 3) articles and other literature sources that are directly or

indirectly related with SCOR Model and the Supply Chain Management domain, respectively. The

methods now to extract the required data from these three data sources are 1) unstructured interview,

2) semi-structured interviews and 3) archiving data respectively, and it is the object of the next

paragraph to describe these methods and put them in context.

2.4. Research Methods

With regard to the research methods that are adopted in this research, three different types are

selected. The first two, unstructured and semi-structured interviews, follow from the qualitative nature

of this research. Archiving data comes as the third methodological element that frames the research in

the way the triangulation paradigm defines. This research scheme is depicted on the following figure:


- 20 -

Figure 2-3 Triangulation Method

Regarding the appropriateness of the selected methods and the way they are related and contributing

to the specific research, the following paragraphs are illustrative.

2.4.1. Unstructured Interviews

This research method is generally used in exploratory research, aiming in the acquisition of insight into

the research issue and its context (van der Velde, Jansen & Anderson, 2007). It merely contains the

introduction of the topic and the definition of major questions, in order to capture the unbiased opinion

of the interviewee. Examples of such questions can be “What do you think/ know about…?”, “In your

opinion…?” etc. This way, unstructured interviews provide the opportunity of redirecting the subject

during the interview, towards the extraction of the actual truth. As it becomes apparent, this method

puts extra weight on the opinion of the interviewee, which correspondingly should be of an analogous

caliber. In the context of the specific research now, one unstructured interview has been used in the

early beginning, so as to provide a deeper and objective overview of the topic and set the general

research guidelines. The disadvantages of this method are mostly related to the fact that it is time-

consuming, cost-inefficient and presents low speed of data collection. However, all these characteristics

can be dealt with by personal work and be shouldered on the enthusiasm of the researcher. Other

disadvantages refer to the generalizability and reliability of the interview results. As it has been

discussed though, triangulation method is considered to be sufficient in dealing with these issues.

2.4.2. Archiving Data

This method is described by the collection and analysis of existing material, which is basically performed

through a literature review. The purpose of this method is to lead in a meta-analysis, i.e. not to re-

analyze results, but to analyze combined results of various studies around one topic (van der Velde,

Jansen & Anderson, 2007). In this context, relevant scientific articles and primary publications are

gathered and their conclusions are synthesized towards the extraction of valuable directions for further

research. The main advantage of this method is that it can combine various studies and lead to valuable

generalizations. Its main disadvantage, in qualitative terms, is the time it requires to make diverse data

comparable and compatible, a disadvantage that can be again dealt with by the personal work of the

researcher.


- 21 -

2.4.3. Semi-structured Interviews

This method stands between the unstructured and structured interview approaches. The purpose of

semi-structured interviews is still explorative, yet ready to focus on more specific research areas (van

der Velde, Jansen & Anderson, 2007). These areas are set here by unstructured interviews and data

archives. Then, a questionnaire is developed, containing open questions that explore the already set

research guidelines. These questions are open in the sense that they do not offer choices of answers.

They merely introduce an issue, an unexplored area. Apparently, these semi-structured interviews are

communicated to respondents that have a direct or indirect experience with the object of this research,

i.e. SCOR Model. In addition though, a semi-structured interview is also used as a mean to evaluate the

ensuing findings. The population that will be called to participate in these interviews and the relevant

selection criteria are described later on in this section. Regarding the advantages and disadvantages of

this research method, they coincide with those of unstructured interviews and are dealt with in the

same way.

2.4.4. Interrelation of the Research Methods

The way the research methods in use interrelate can be seen on their description. The unstructured

interview is used on top of the other methods and as a mean to validate the research idea and guide the

application of the other two methods. On the basis set by the unstructured interview, the archiving data

method searches for relevant articles and publications that can be used for a meta-analysis on the

selected research subject. Finally, this meta-analysis, along with the guidelines defined by the

unstructured interview, set the grounds for the formulation of the semi-structured interviews which are

meant to capture and systemize the opinions of the experts on the research subject, so as to lead in

valuable conclusions. Apparently, the findings of the semi-structured interviews can subsequently give

feedback on the completeness and the effectiveness of the literature search and the unstructured

interview respectively.

This paragraph was used to define and describe the research methods hereby used. Another issue that

needs to be clarified is the population of the respondents and the relevant selection criteria. These

issues are being dealt with in the following paragraph.

2.5. Sample Selection

Apart from the theoretical part of defining the elements of the research framework, the practical part of

selecting and approaching the actual respondents is of equal, if not greater, importance. Therefore, a

systematic approach is required for this process as well. The most important part in this direction is to

carefully set the criteria of this selection. It is noted that this selection refers to the respondents of the

semi-structured interviews.

The first criterion describes the given and granted connection of all the respondents with the main

component of this research, i.e. SCOR Model. It is necessary for the respondents to be familiar with the

functions and philosophy of the model so as to understand the topics discussed and contribute


- 22 -

substantially in their confrontation. In this respect, all the respondents need to be registered as SCOR

model subscribers. An extensive list of such companies, containing more than 900 members, can be

found on the website of SCC (2009). The second criterion is related to the overall performance of the

selected companies. In other words, interference with Supply Chain Management is necessary but not

sufficient. The participants in this research need to have a deep understanding of supply chain

excellence and the way it is achieved. Thus, all the respondents will work for companies well-established

in their industry and their pertinent supply chain(s).

The third criterion refers to the personal experience and competence of the respondents. That is, being

familiar with SCOR Model is not sufficient. The individuals that will participate in this research need to

be highly experienced in terms of Supply Chain Management and in position to take strategic and

operational decisions on a regular basis. In this regard, all the respondents will be SC senior employers

of the companies they work for. The final criterion seeks to reassure the involvement of all the

stakeholders related in the specific research topic. As it was recognized in the introduction section,

these stakeholders namely are the SCC, companies, consultancies and potentially governmental and

non-governmental organizations. Given that the interference of the latter was stated to be only

peripheral, respondents from the SCC, companies and consultancies are needed in this research.

Sample Selection Criteria

1) • SC senior employers

2) • Employment in well-established companies & consultancies

3) • Employment in companies registered as SCOR Model subscribers

Table 2-2 Sample Selection Criteria

To sum-up the profile of the respondents to be selected, SC senior employers will be here sought for,

employed by well-established companies and consultancies, registered as SCOR Model subscribers. The

question now is what the minimum number of respondents, or else the appropriate sample size. While

answering this question it is prominent to keep in mind the qualitative nature of this research. That is,

the conversation, in general, is about quality, not quantity. In this respect, the number of respondents is

only peripherally relevant to the validity or trustworthiness of this research. The fundamental element

that provides the results of this –and any other qualitative- research with credibility is the effort of the

researcher and the method adopted.

In this respect, it was decided that four interviews are sufficient for data convergence and towards

reaching theoretical consensus. Details about the respondents will be given in the interview results

section, up to the extent that the pertinent requests for secrecy and anonymity are not violated. It is

merely noted here that the respondents are employed by different and prominent companies, which

have been selected randomly, basically on the criterion of availability, and, although diverse, they are

assumed to take the same stand on SCOR Model standards. The sufficiency of the four decisions is

supported by the sampling strategy adopted here, assuming a critical case, which generates criteria,

from a homogeneous sample, with constraints of convenience. Details on the line of reasoning and the


- 23 -

literature supporting this strategy can be found in appendix C. In general, the confidence for the

sufficiency of the four interviews is based on two facts. Firstly, the fast convergence of the results is a

strong indication of the credibility of the developed theory. Secondly, the interviews constitute only one

part of the triangulation method adopted in this research. That is, the parallel contribution of the

unstructured interview and of the data archives increases the confidence in these results critically.

This paragraph set the criteria for the sample selection, took a look on the adopted sampling strategy

and systematically concluded on the semi-structured interviews sample size (see appendix C). Following

the definition of the population interfering with this research, the final important element, regarding

the effectiveness of this research framework, is the evaluation phase, or the channel through which the

derived results will be assessed.

2.6. Research Evaluation

Following the data collection phase, a way to evaluate the final results is needed. Apparently, apart from

common sense, the SCC point of view would be of substantial contribution in this evaluation process.

Given the educational resources and practical experience of the SCC, it is certain that the results of this

research can be substantially and objectively evaluated by one of its current or former employees.

In this respect, Mr. Wolfs, the SC senior manager that has been a member of SCC in the past and is

responding the initial unstructured interview, presents an ideal prospect, for a number of reasons. First

of all, he is an experienced highly-positioned supply chain manager; secondly, he has experience with

the SCOR Model since he was working for the SCC in a position of high responsibility; and thirdly, he is

familiar with this research approach and its purpose.

Regarding the evaluation channel, the concept is quite straightforward. Following the completion of the

data collection and the analysis of the results, the derived observations and conclusions get through the

evaluation funnel of the SC expert. During this process, the expert judges the completeness and

potential of all the conclusions and solutions respectively. His ideas and comments are recorded and

used, towards the assessment of the research results and the elevation of the research quality.

It has to be noted that, apart from the basic channel of evaluation described here, the special care put

on the research framework and during the data acquisition process are also considered to be prominent

elements in this evaluation direction. The utilization of research guidelines extracted from state-of-the-

art literature and the overall tendency of the research framework to stick to a carefully created research

protocol are considered to dramatically enhance the filtering process that removes abundant or of

secondary importance data.

2.7. Research Limitations

As any type of research, this endeavor here presents some limitations, it has been based on some

assumptions and is framed by a number of constraints that affect the magnitude of its impact. Whether

this affect is major or minor, this is to be decided individually, by the actual reader. The purpose of this


- 24 -

paragraph is to recognize and enlist these limitations, so as to declare knowledge of their existence and,

thereby, reduce their effect.

Limitations Mitigators

1) Unpredictavle nature of qualitative research Systematic and constructive research approach

2)

Research decisions (sample selection criteria,

sample size, appropriateness of respondents,

ability of the researcher)

Assessment of corresponding literature

3) Research context (qualitative thesis: time and

budget constraints)

Dedicated work, well-structured planning,

careful selection of the boundaries between the

teritorries of current and future research.

Table 2-3 Research Limitations and Corresponding Mitigators

In this regard, the main issue constraining the impact of this research is the qualitative type of its same

nature. That is, it is not always possible, in qualitative terms, to capture the essence of the problem and

provide a tangible solution or advice. The chance of being left with nothing but unrelated data is not to

be neglected and extra attention is required in this direction. Therefore, a systematic and constructive

research approach has been chosen, as a mitigator of this limitation. A step-by-step confrontation of the

research problem is considered sufficient to direct the collection, organization, analysis and synthesis of

data towards valuable conclusions and tangible solutions.

Other limitations characterizing this research are related with a number of decisions that have been

made during the pertinent research set-up. The sample selection criteria, the sample size, the quality

and appropriateness of the respondents, even the ability of the researcher to conduct the interviews

could be seen as inhibiting factors. Again, as it has been claimed under the research methodology

paragraph, when it comes to qualitative research, trustworthiness on the results is translated as trust on

the ability of the researcher to run the research. There are no objective criteria such as the reliability

and validity ones in quantitative research. The only relevant action that can be taken is the assessment

of corresponding literature so as to gather and comply with already established approaches and

practices; and this action has definetely been a vital part of this research, as the extensive corresponding

appendices indicate.

A final issue limiting the effectiveness of this research, is the overall context within which this researh is

taking place. That is, as an MSc dissertation, this research is seriously limited by time and budget

constraints. Along with the unpredictable and hard to schedule nature of qualitative research, there

could be a problem created at this point. However, dedicated work and well-structured planning are

considered to be dynamos, sufficient to confront this limitation. Additionally, another key mitigator of

this constraint is the careful selection of the boundaries between the teritorries of current and future

research.


- 25 -

2.8. Summary

This section is occupied with the creation of a research framework, able to guide and guarantee the

conduction of a state-of-the-art research. In this respect, qualitative research is defined and it is shown

how much compatible it is with the nature of this research. Then, the same happens with the

triangulation method. Furthermore, the research methods used in the adopted triangulation scheme are

described. Subsequently, extra attention is placed on the sample selected, and specifically on the

selection criteria and on the sample size. Next, the evaluation channel, used for the assessment of the

results, is described. The section is completed with an analysis of the limitations characterizing this

research and the recognition of the corresponding mitigators. The key elements of this chapter are

presented in the following table.

Topic Description

Qualitative

Research

The type of this research is clearly explorative, with a general research question beginning with a “How” and with a corresponding research aim to produce advisory guidelines, over an unclear and not well-established theory.

Triangulation

Methodology

Triangulation method proposes a multiple confrontation of the researched topic, so as to enhance the ability and effort of the researcher to establish credibility and trustworthiness on the qualitative results.

Research

Methods

1) Unstructured interview with a former member of the SC, aiming to collect expert knowledge on SCOR Model 2) Semi-structured interviews with SC professionals of implementing companies, aiming to collect practical knowledge on SCOR Model 3) Archiving data from the literature, aiming to collect scientific input and theoretical knowledge on and peripherally to SCOR Model

Sample

Selection

The selection criteria create the profile of SC senior employers, employed by different and random well-established companies and consultancies, which are registered as SCOR Model subscribers. The sample size is decided to be four, on the basis of a critical case/ criterion/ homogeneous/ convenience sampling strategy.

Research

Evaluation

It mainly relies on the experience of a SC expert, former member of the SCC, as well as on the integrity of the research framework.

Research

Limitations

and

Mitigators

1) Unpredictable nature of qualitative research, mitigated by systematic and constructive research approach 2) Research decisions and assumptions, mitigated by a systematic assessment of the corresponding literature 3) Thesis research constraints, mitigated by dedicated work, well-structured planning, careful selection of current and future research boundaries.



- 26 -

3. SCOR Model Description, Literature Review & Interview Framework

3.1. Introduction

The purpose of this section is to logically and scientifically support the

research that is conducted here and the methodology that has been

adopted in this direction. That is, being the realization of the archiving

data method, this section performs an initial exploration of the research

problem, an exploration that aims to systemize the relevant existing

knowledge and point out specific grey areas that can be subsequently

confronted by the interview sessions. In this respect, the topic and the

problem of this research are analyzed and grounded on literature efforts

of well-respected authors and analysts of related academic domains. The

line of reasoning followed in this direction is quite straightforward.

First of all, SCOR Model is being assessed. This includes a general

description of the model and the way it functions, a description that

emphasizes on these elements of the model that are considered to be

related to the orientation of this research, i.e. how Business Strategy and

Business Sustainability can contribute in the enhancement of the model.

Secondly and following this introduction, the literature review begins and

focuses on the issues and opportunities for improvement, having been

recorded on selected SCOR Model evaluation attempts. Once the room

for improvement has been mapped, the opportunities for improvement

that are or can be related with and reclaimed by the Business Strategy and

Business Sustainability concepts are located. Specifically, the research is

narrowed down on two opportunities for improvement, i.e. alleviation of benchmarking characteristics

and facilitation of “green” features incorporation, and on how Business Strategy and Business

Sustainability can help in these directions respectively. After establishing an initial correlation between

the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts, and the located opportunities for

improvement, the scope of the literature review turns to the assessment of these principle concepts. In

this respect, multiple scientific articles are investigated.

Thirdly, the conclusions derived from the literature are compared to the current approaches of the SCOR

Model, and the results of this comparison are synthesized towards the construction of a systemized

framework of potential strategic and sustainable contribution to the improvement of the SCOR Model,

again towards the described directions. Thereby, the basis of the explorative research is formed, since it

becomes apparent which are the topics that have been dealt with so far and which require further

attention. This framework is named hereafter interview framework, since it maps the grey areas that are

explored later on by the semi-structured interviews. The described logical path, or else line of reasoning,

is depicted on the following figure:

Introduction

Research Framework


Conceptual Design

Interview Results



Conclusions and

Recommendations


Outline: Literature Review


- 27 -

Figure 3-2 Logical path of the Literature Review section: From the Research Problem Definition to the

Interview Framework

3.2. SCOR Model Description

The Supply-Chain Operations Reference-model (SCOR) constitutes the endeavor of the Supply-Chain

Council (SCC) to capture, assess and organize supply chain managerial issues so as to formulate a

framework of supply chain analysis and improvement and a communications platform among various

actors of diverse supply chains. Although most of the SCOR content has been informally used for several

years, the specific approach illustrates a unique way to correlate business processes, metrics, best

practices and technology features. Towards the establishment and sustainability of the model’s state-of-

the-art character, SCC by definition involves numerous companies that contribute to a constant update

and enrichment of the model through participation in specialized development projects. The eight basic

functionalities of the model are separately presented and analyzed below:

3.2.1. 1st Functionality: Cross-Functional Skeleton

SCOR, as a process reference model, unifies well-known concepts of business process reengineering,

benchmarking and process measurement into a cross-functional skeleton. In detail, it captures the “as-

is” state of a process and derives the desired “to-be” future state, it quantifies the operational

performance of similar companies and establishes internal targets based on “best-in-class” results and it

characterizes the management practices and software solutions that result in “best-in-class”

performance.


- 28 -

Figure 3-3 Cross-Functional Skeleton of the Process Reference Model (SCC, 2009)

3.2.2. 2nd Functionality: Five Core Management Processes

SCOR is basically analyzed upon five distinct processes, them being the plan, source, make, deliver and

return processes. This is a first attempt of the model to systemize the managerial approach. A detailed

overview of these processes is given on the following table:

General Overview Detailed Description

Pla

n

Processes that

balance aggregate

demand and supply to

develop a course of

action which best

meets sourcing,

production and

delivery requirements

• Balance resources with requirements and establish/communicate plans

for the whole supply chain, including Return, and the execution

processes of Source, Make, and Deliver

• Management of business rules, supply chain performance, data

collection, inventory, capital assets, transportation, planning

configuration, regulatory requirements and compliance, and supply

chain risk

• Align the supply chain unit plan with the financial plan

So

urc

e

Processes that

procure goods and

services to meet

planned or

actual demand

• Schedule deliveries; receive, verify, and transfer product; and authorize

supplier payments

• Identify and select supply sources when not predetermined, as for

engineer-to-order product

• Manage business rules, assess supplier performance, and maintain data.

• Manage inventory, capital assets, incoming product, supplier network,

import/export requirements, supplier agreements, and supply chain

source risk


- 29 -

Ma

ke

Processes that

transform product to

a finished state to

meet planned or

actual demand

• Schedule production activities, issue product, produce and test,

package, stage product, and release product to deliver. With the

addition of Green to SCOR, there are now processes specifically for

Waste Disposal in MAKE

• Finalize engineering for engineer-to-order product

• Manage rules, performance, data, in-process products (WIP), equipment

and facilities, transportation, production network, regulatory

compliance for production, and supply chain make risk

De

liv

er

Processes that provide

finished goods and

services to meet

planned or actual

demand, typically

including order

management,

transportation

management, and

distribution

management

• All order management steps from processing customer inquiries and

quotes to routing shipments and selecting carriers

• Warehouse management from receiving and picking product to load

and ship product

• Receive and verify product at customer site and install, if necessary.

• Invoicing customer

• Manage Deliver business rules, performance, information, finished

product inventories, capital assets, transportation, product life cycle,

import/export requirements, and supply chain deliver risk

Re

turn

Processes associated

with returning or

receiving returned

products for any

reason.

These processes

extend into post-

delivery customer

support

• All Return Defective Product steps from source–identify product

condition, disposition product, request product return authorization,

schedule product shipment, and return defective product–and deliver–

authorized product return, schedule return receipt, receive product, and

transfer defective product

• All Return Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul product steps from

source–identify product condition, disposition product, request product

return authorization, schedule product shipment, and return MRO

product–and deliver–authorize product return, schedule return receipt,

receive product, and transfer MRO product

• All Return Excess Product steps from source–identify product condition,

disposition product, request product return authorization, schedule

product shipment, and return excess product–and deliver–authorize

product return, schedule return receipt, receive product, and transfer

excess product

• Manage Return business rules, performance, data collection, return

inventory, capital assets, transportation, network configuration,

regulatory requirements and compliance, and supply chain return risk

Table 3-1 Description of SCOR Model’s Five Core Management processes (SCC, 2009)

3.2.3. 3rd Functionality: Three Product Types

Furthermore, products in the SCOR model are also classified in three categories, them being stocked,

made-to-order and engineered-to-order products. Again, the idea behind this classification is in parallel

with the systematic approach of the model. Details on these product types are given on the following

table:


- 30 -

Product Type Characteristics Example

Stocked Product

• Inventory Driven (Plan)

• Standard Material Orders

• High Fill-rate, short turnaround

A retail air conditioner which is

pulled off the shelf, and restocked

based on SKU

Make-to-Order

• Customer Order Driven

• Configurable Materials

• Longer turn-around times

A car is built with a particular

combination of colors and features

and ordered from a distributor

Engineer-to-Order

• Customer Requirements Driven

• Sourcing New Materials

• Longest long lead-times, low fill rates

An architect and engineer creates

a new kitchen for you, with some

custom-build and custom-sourced

materials

Table 3-2 Description of SCOR Model’s Product Types (SCC, 2009)

3.2.4. 4th Functionality: Model Scope and Structure

A direct result of this systematic approach of SCOR Model is the expansion of its implementation

boundaries. That is,

the constructive

categorization of

processes and

products described so

far, allows the scope

of the model to be

quite wide, exceeding

from suppliers’

supplier to customers’

customer, while it can

thereby consider

multiple aspects

including all customer

interactions, product transactions and market interactions.

3.2.5. 5th Functionality: Three Levels of Analysis

Another advantage, deriving from the methodical character of the SCOR Model, is the possibility to

choose the level of the analysis’ depth. SCOR Model consists of three levels of analysis, the description

and connection of which is depicted on the following figure.

Source Make Deliver

Return Return

Source Make Deliver

Return Return

Source Make Deliver

Return Return

Plan

Deliver

Return

Source

Return

Plan

Plan

Supplier’s

Supplier

Supplier


Customer


Your Company Customer’s

Customer

Figure 3-4 Model Scope and Structure (SCC, 2009)


- 31 -

Figure 3-5 Description of the three levels of the SCOR Model (SCC, 2009)

At this point it can be shown how various processes of various levels are codified within SCOR Model.

First of all, at the first level, P stands for Plan elements, S for Source elements, M for Make elements, D

for Deliver elements and R for Return elements. SR stands for Source Return and DR for Deliver Return.

E can be used before all these elements to indicate an Enable element, i.e. EP stands for Enable Plan

Element. Secondly, at the second level, 1, 2 and 3 are used right after the described capital initials to


- 32 -

indicate a Stocked, Made-to-order and Engineered-to-order type of product respectively (i.e. S2 stands

for Source Stocked Product, M3 for Make Engineer-to-order Product etc.). Finally, another number can

be added in the end of these abbreviations, during a third level analysis and in an attempt to decompose

further a level two process category i.e. S1, or Source Stocked product in its S1.1, S1.2, S1.3 etc. level

three process elements (indicatively S1.2 stands for Receive Product).

3.2.6. 6th Functionality: Practical Implementation

It has become clear so far how the model promotes the methodical positioning of the implementing

company within its supply chain, by organizing its own managerial processes, by connecting them with

those of collaborating supply chain actors, by defining the type of the product it handles and by

determining the level of analysis’ depth required per occasion. The second prominent aspect that needs

to be examined is how the model leads to the realization of decisions regarding the improvement of its

supply chain performance.

Once the “as-is” state of the company is captured, the recognized process types, categories or elements

(depending on the level of the analysis’ depth) are benchmarked to the corresponding of the company’s

“best-in-class” competitors. This benchmarking process similarly follows a rather systematic approach.

SCOR Model uses a number of Metrics in conjunction with Performance Attributes in this direction. That

is, it describes supply chain performance on the basis of five representative Attributes, each of which is

correlated with a number of Metrics. These Attributes are namely SC Reliability, SC Responsiveness, SC

Agility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency, with the three first being categorized as Customer-Facing and

the last two as Internal-Facing. The definitions of these Attributes, along with some representative

Performance Metrics, are given on the following table:

Performance Attribute Definition Metrics

SC Reliability

The performance of the supply chain in

delivering: the correct product, to the

correct place, at the correct time, in the

correct condition and packaging, in the

correct quantity, with the correct

documentation, to the correct customer.

• Delivery Performance

• Fill Rates

• Perfect Order Fulfillment

SC Responsiveness

The velocity at which a supply chain provides

products to the customer.

• Order Fulfillment Lead

Times

SC Agility

The agility of a supply chain in responding to

marketplace changes to gain or maintain

competitive advantage.

• SC Response Time

• Production Flexibility

SC Costs

The costs associated with operating the

supply chain.

• Cost of Goods Sold

• Total SC Management

Costs

• Value-Added Productivity

• Warranty/ Returns

• Processing Costs


- 33 -

SC Assets Efficiency

The effectiveness of an organization in

managing assets to support demand

satisfaction. This includes the management

of all assets: fixed and working capital.

• Cash-to-Cash Cycle Time

• Inventory Days of Supply

• Asset Returns

Table 3-3 Description of the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model (SCC, 2009)

Thereby, the implementing company can determine with the preciseness it desires how satisfyingly it

performs on each of these Performance Attributes, simply by selecting representative corresponding

Metrics and comparing its performance on those with the occasional best-in-class performance. An

illustrative example of this approach (Francis, 2007) is given below.

The following table is the simplest version of the described benchmarking process that the

implementing company needs to execute. The five Performance Attributes appear on the left side of the

table. Each of them is accompanied with a single Metric. It is noted that there is a pool of more than 250

Metrics in the SCOR reference guide, the purpose of this example, though, renders their inclusion

meaningless. In general, mature corporations choose smartly between 10 and 40 Metrics, trying to

achieve a 1:1 analogy to their customers’ expectations. The third column contains the performance of

the implementing company on each of these Metrics, corresponding in this case to each of the five

Performance Attributes. The numbers are simple representative indications with no connection to any

real corporation.

Attribute Metric Company Parity Advantage Superior Parity

Gap

Competitive

Gap

Reliability

Perfect

Order

Fulfillment

98%

Responsiveness

Order

Fulfillment

Cycle Time

14 days

Flexibility

Upside

Supply Chain

Flexibility

62 days

Cost

Supply Chain

Management

Cost

2.1%

Assets Return on

Fixed Assets 289%

Table 3-4 Simple SCORcard Example (Francis, 2007)

Once the performance of the company is mapped, the benchmarking process is ready to begin. In this

respect, SCC provides users with datasets of benchmarking information. The median value of the

benchmarking dataset is generally chosen to indicate “Parity”, meaning that half of the competitors

perform worse and half perform better than a company that is at parity. Similarly, a 90% percentile


- 34 -

value of the benchmarking dataset is chosen to indicate “Superior” performance, with obvious

implications for the companies that fit in this category. Finally, “Advantage” is defined as the midpoint

between “Superior” and “Parity”. Apparently, different set-points can be chosen depending on the case

and on the benchmarking experience of the implementing company. Based on these guidelines, the

SCORcard table can be filled in and the parity gap of the implementing company –meaning the distance

of the company from performance at parity- can be calculated:


Gap

Competitive

Gap

Reliability

Perfect

Order

Fulfillment

98% 92% 96% 98% -6%

Responsiveness

Order

Fulfillment

Cycle Time

14 days 8 days 6 days 4 days 6 days

Flexibility

Upside

Supply Chain

Flexibility

62 days 80 days 62 days 40 days -18 days

Cost

Supply Chain

Management

Cost

2.1% 2.8% 2.4% 2.2% -0.7%

Assets Return on

Fixed Assets 289% 100% 150% 200% -189%

Table 3-5 Calculation of the Parity Gap (Francis, 2007)

The final step describes the calculation of the competitive gap, or else the distance of the company from

a competitive position. In doing so, the implementing company needs to define first the desired

competitive position. This can be done by deciding in advance whether the target is to be at parity, or

advantageous, or superior, for each of the five Performance Attributes. It is mentioned that the general

rule allows “Superior” label only on one Attribute, “Advantage” on two and “Parity” on two. For the

specific example, this process is taking place on the following handy chart, which indicates the desired

competitive position of the implementing company:

Attribute Competitive Position

Reliability Advantage

Responsiveness Superior

Flexibility Advantage

Cost Parity

Assets Parity

Table 3-6 Competitive Positioning Chart (Francis, 2007)

On this basis, the competitive gap can be now calculated. For the Reliability Attribute, where

advantageous performance is sought for, the company of the example has a 2% gap to “deteriorate” its


- 35 -

performance. On the contrary, for the Responsiveness Attribute, where superior performance is sought

for, the company needs to bridge a gap of 10 days. On the same way, the rest of the competitive gap

column is filled in:


Gap

Competitive

Gap

Reliability

Perfect

Order

Fulfillment

98% 92% 96% 98% -6% -2%

Responsiveness

Order

Fulfillment

Cycle Time

14 days 8 days 6 days 4 days 6 days 10 days

Flexibility

Upside

Supply Chain

Flexibility

62 days 80 days 62 days 40 days -18 days 0 days

Cost

Supply Chain

Management

Cost

2.1% 2.8% 2.4% 2.2% -0.7% -0.7%

Assets Return on

Fixed Assets 289% 100% 150% 200% -189% -189%

Table 3-7 Calculation of the Competitive Gap (Francis, 2007)

As it is shown by this simple example, the rather constructive and methodical approach of the SCOR

Model yields tangible and concrete targets for an implementing company that seeks for establishing the

competitive position it aspires.

3.2.7. 7th Functionality: Configurability

An additional characteristic of the SCOR Model that requires special attention is what the SCC defines as

the Concept of “Configurability”. Examining the physical elements hidden behind the management

processes recognized within the SCOR Model can reveal the drivers of a supply-chain configuration.

Specifically, “Plan” can refer to levels of aggregation and information sources; “Source”, to locations and

products; “Make”, to production sites and methods; “Deliver”, to channels, inventory deployment and

products; and “Return” to locations and methods. It can be seen that the recognized management

processes refer to physical elements that are or should be interrelated. In fact, SCC recognizes that each

intersection of two execution processes (such as Source-Make-Deliver) is a “link” in the supply chain,

while each link is a customer of the previous and a supplier to the next link.

SCOR Model, understanding that it should accurately reflect how a supply-chain’s configuration can

impact management processes and practices, uses Planning Processes to manage the described

customer-supplier links. In other words, it recognizes that every link requires the occurrence of a

planning activity and it uses Planning Processes on each one of them to facilitate the cooperation

between the actors involved and “balance” the supply chain.


- 36 -

Figure 3-6 The Concept of “Configurability” (SCC, 2009)

In this direction, SCOR Model recognizes different types of models to simulate this planning

intervention, since each occasion requires different handling. In this respect, four types of models are

used. These types of models are presented on the following table and figures. The example of the

imaginary mp3 Incorporation is used to indicate the way an implementing company applies the model

on various operational aspects and levels.

Model Types

Business Scope Diagrams To set the scope for a project or organization

Geographic Maps To describe material flows in a geographic context

and highlight node complexity or redundancy

Thread Diagrams

Material flow diagrams that focus on level 2

process connectivity and describe high level

process complexity or redundancy

Workflow or Process Models

Information, material and work flow level 3

diagrams that highlight information, people and

system interaction issues

Figure 3-7 Types of Models Simulating the Planning Intervention towards SC Configurability (SCC,

2009)

Figure 3-8 Business Scope Diagram (SCC, 2009)


- 37 -

Figure 3-9 Geographic Map (SCC, 2009)

Figure 3-10 Thread Diagram (SCC, 2009)


- 38 -

Figure 3-11 Workflow or Process Model (SCC, 2009)

3.2.8. 8th Functionality: Sustainability Incorporation

Finally, from version 9.0 and on, SCOR Model has included process elements addressing environmental

aspects of Supply Chain Management (SCC, 2009). This way, practitioners have the possibility to manage

their supply chain operations while keeping Sustainability in mind. These “green” process elements are

followed by a set of total environmental footprint metrics and green best practices, which allow the

connection of environmental aspects with supply chain strategy. To illustrate, a “Make” green process is

Waste Disposal, defined as “activities associated with collecting and managing waste produced during

the produce and test process including scrap material and non-conforming product”; corresponding

metrics are 1) Waste Processing Errors, 2) Waste Accumulation Time, 3) Waste Storage Costs as % of

Make Costs, 4) Hazardous Waste as % of Total Waste and 5) Recyclable Waste as % of Total Waste; and

an example of green best practice would be Storm Water Prevention Plans, defined as “storm water

prevention and spill control plans for waste accumulation areas”.

The sustainability approach adopted by SCOR Model is a close derivative of Environmental Accounting,

as it is described by the following definition:

“Environmental or Green Accounting is an area [of accounting] which identifies resource use, measures

and communicates costs of a company’s or national economy’s impact on the environment. Costs include

cost to clean up or remediate contaminated sites, environmental fines, penalties and taxes, purchase of

pollution prevention technologies and waste management costs” (Hecht, 2005)

Apart from the corrective action described in this definition, SCOR Model also undertakes the

calculation of actual pollution. This calculating process is based on four main types of waste, them being

(SCC, 2009):


- 39 -

Main Types of Waste

Carbon: Green house gas emissions (CO₂)

Air Pollutants: Major emissions tracked by the U.S. EPA (COx, NOx, SOx, and more)

Liquid Waste: Liquid waste disposed or released to open water or sewer systems

Solid Waste: Solid waste generated

Table 3-8 List of waste types towards pollution calculation within SCOR Model (SCC, 2009)

It is noted that the metric “% Waste Recycled” is used for the case of solid waste and is subtracted from

the total waste generated. In general, the green character of the SCOR Model 9.0 release offers a

number of additional sustainability-oriented capabilities which are described on the following table:

Sustainability-oriented capabilities

• Industry best practices for making the supply chain more environmentally friendly, such as

collaborating with partners on environmental issues, reducing fuel and energy consumption, and

minimizing and reusing packaging materials

• Metrics to measure the effects of greening, including carbon and environmental footprint, emissions

costs per unit, energy costs as a percent of production costs, waste produced as a percent of product

produced, and returned products disposed of versus remanufactured.

• Processes to address waste management, such as how to collect and manage waste produced during

production and testing (including scrap metal and nonconforming product).

• The green capabilities within SCOR 9.0 not only make it easier for companies to comply with

governmental and other regulations, but they also can improve overall supply-chain performance by

identifying ways to reduce consumption and waste.

Table 3-9 List of sustainability-oriented capabilities (SCC, 2009)

3.3. Literature Review

3.3.1. Mapping the Room for Improvement

Following the introduction and description of the SCOR Model and the way it functions, it is now time to

locate the directions that could lead to the model’s further improvement. In this respect, a literature

review on the SCOR model is a constructive step towards noticing the “grey” areas of the model,

recorded by experts of the Supply Chain Management community. There have been several reports and

articles focusing on the evaluation of the SCOR Model. Gathering the findings of these efforts is the first

step towards assessing the model and its pertinent room for improvement. Then, it can be

systematically derived which of the recorded issues are worth and interesting to be explored.

In this respect, Poluha (2007) noticed, while evaluating SCOR Model that, in spite of the popularity of

the SCOR Model, there is a lack of scientific foundations about its applicability that hampers its diffusion.

Specifically, he observed that scientific community has been occupied with validating the results of the

model, disregarding the appropriateness of the model’s structure itself. Therefore, he initiated an

exploratory attempt for the creation of a theory that, among other things, would provide an indication

of gaps in present knowledge. In this direction, he concluded that SCOR Model could be enriched with


- 40 -

additional factors that can improve the results of the model, such as the company type and region and

the human factor. Furthermore, he located incapacity of the model to capture financial performance,

when it comes to performance measurement, mainly because SCOR Model uses a number of non-

monetary metrics that cannot be easily aggregated. Thus, he proposes an association of the Balanced

Scorecard metrics with the SCOR Model performance measurement process. Thereby, not only the

performance measurement effectiveness will be increased, but also the inclusion of employees in this

process will be facilitated, reducing the negative effects falling under the human factor category.

On the other hand, Huang, Sheoran and Wang (2004), although recognizing the potential of the SCOR

Model to become an industry standard, they focus on the way it could include aspects related to Change

Management. First of all, they claim that Market Analysis, or else understanding customer needs and

adjusting supply chain accordingly, is “the key input to the future strategic decisions of the SCOR Model

and should receive analogous attention”. Secondly, it is recognized that companies cannot any longer

meet the expense of competing as individual entities and they need to advance to network or chain

competition, what can be otherwise named as integration to synchronization. Thus, SCOR Model should

be rather flexible and agile to capture, guide and synchronize these alliance dynamics. Finally, in order

to effectively provide solution to these matters, SCOR Model should include advanced network

modeling tools, allowing companies to properly map the pertinent dynamics and thereby improving the

related decision making processes.

Furthermore, the SCOR Model description provided is sufficient to ground the benchmarking character

of the SCOR Model. As a consequence, it is logical to expect and identify the effects of benchmarking

practices within the model. In this respect, Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) recorded three main deficiencies of

benchmarking practices, deficiencies that are directly related to the SCOR Model. At first, strong

emphasis on copying successful practices can at best lead to perfect imitation. Secondly, practices that

are copied are often the most visible and superficial ones. Finally, careless imitation of successful

practices is a usual phenomenon with potential harmful results. Similarly, Hammer and Champy (1993)

also point out that “benchmarking is a tool for catching up, not for jumping way ahead”. The same

conclusions are derived by Kaplan (2005) as well, who claims that “when you ignore the differentiated

output that internal support or shared services groups provide, such straight-across cost or numeric

comparisons become meaningless”. In general, benchmarking does not reassure success, since there is

no guarantee that what is optimal for one company will be equally effective for another (Cox, 1998).

Finally, SCC itself has observed that, although available, most of the companies resist in using the

integrated “green” sustainable features (SCC, 2009). This problem is mainly located on the

organizational and business cultural differences, evident between supply chain and environmental

representatives. To illustrate, diverse goals and priorities prevent these two business segments from

collaborating fruitfully and as a result, although the necessary philosophy and software are available,

they are not used properly.


- 41 -

This first review of the literature points out the most prominent opportunities for improving SCOR

Model, as they were recorded by well-respected authors of relevant scientific fields. These opportunities

are summarized on the following table:

Opportunities for Improvement

• Improving the Model by Incorporating Additional Factors, such as Financial Performance

• Improving the Model by Considering the Concept of Change Management

• Improving the Model by Alleviating the Effects of Benchmarking

• Improving the Model by Enhancing the Process of Sustainability Incorporation

Table 3-10 Located Opportunities for Improving SCOR Model

Among these issues, there are some rather compatible with the scope of this research, as it is expressed

by the general guideline of enhancing SCOR Model through the Business Strategy and Business

Sustainability concepts. Specifically, Business Strategy could aid in the alleviation of the model’s

benchmarking issues, while Business Sustainability could facilitate the introduction and implementation

of the synonymous sustainable features within the model. While the justification of the second

correlation is quite apparent, the first correlation needs extra support, which is provided on the

“Business Strategy Potential Contribution” part through representative definitions. One way or another,

these are the two correlations that are explored within this qualitative research.

This first literature exploration is actually serving as an initial establishment of a correlation of strategic

and sustainable aspects with supply chain managerial solutions. Apparently, there may be more

correlations on the same direction. However, locating all these correlations is not the object of this

research. What is aimed for here is to examine how Business Strategy and Business Sustainability can

respectively contribute to and how they are interrelated with the benchmarking and sustainable issues

of the SCOR Model in specific and Supply Chain Management in general.

In this respect, a second review of the literature is performed, where multiple scientific articles are

assessed and their conclusions are synthesized towards the construction of a systemized framework of

potential contribution in these two directions. This literature review forms the basis of the explorative

research that follows, since it distinguishes the efforts that have been made so far and the areas that

need to be further explored. The described endeavor is decomposed in two main literature reviewing

categories, them being Business Strategy and Business Sustainability Potential Contribution.


- 42 -

3.3.2. Business Strategy Potential Contribution

The literature review that took place on the previous paragraphs

pointed out tangible opportunities for improving SCOR Model. In this

part it is examined how the notion of Business Strategy can

contribute in this direction. It has been explained that this

examination focuses specifically on how Business Strategy can

alleviate benchmarking effects. These effects have been mentioned

several times so far. It is thus important to define what they exactly

refer to. The box on the right provides a constructive description and

definition of benchmarking practices.

Before examining whether relevant literature indicates directions to

enhance the correlation between Business Strategy and

benchmarking effects’ alleviation, it is important to inspect what,

after all, Business Strategy is about and whether this correlation is

actually true.

The definition of the term Business Strategy is close to and derived

from the most generic term of Strategic Management. Strategic

Management can be described as:

“The art, science and craft of formulating, implementing and

evaluating cross-functional decisions that will enable an

organization to achieve its long-term objectives” (David, 1989)

According to Grant and King (1982), Hax and Majluf (1984), and Hofer

and Schendel (1978), Strategic Management can be decomposed into

three strategic hierarchical levels. First of all, Corporate Strategy,

dealing with the business or industry the firm should develop or

expand, is the overarching strategy. One step down, Business

Strategy is occupied with the maximization and reservation of a

company’s competitive edge, in comparison with the one of its best-

in-class competitors. Finally, Functional Strategy emphasizes on short

and medium term plans, derived from the two broader strategic

levels, referring to a particular function or department and occupied with the accomplishment of

optimal resource allocation within the function they refer to.

There have been numerous approaches on further decomposing the definition of Business Strategy, or

Strategy in general, by various well-respected authors, all aiming to provide the corporate community

with substantial advice on how to accomplish optimal strategic positioning (Steiner (1979), Mintzberg

(1994), Andrews (1980), Tregoe & Zimmerman (1980), Robert (1993) and Treacy & Wiersema (1994)). In

this research, the approach of Michael Porter (1996) on Business Strategy is going to be espoused, as it

Being the father of the entire philosophy,

Robert Camp (1989) defines

Benchmarking as “the search for industry

best practices that lead to superior

performance”. This was the idea based on

which the method was developed in the

beginning. In 1979, Xerox, struggling to

keep up with competitive forces, tried

and managed to imitate the best

practices of its competitors. This

approach was that successful that

became a standard operating procedure

of the company in 1981, establishing the

first Benchmarking practice. Since then

many companies have created their own

Benchmarking practices; all, though, are

based on the same principle, appealingly

described by Harris (1995) in the

following definition:

“Put quite simply, benchmarking is the art

of finding out -in a completely

straightforward and open way- how

others go about organizing and

implementing the same things you do or

that you plan to do. The idea is not simply

to compare your efficiency with others

but rather to find out what exact process,

procedures, or technological applications

produced better results; and when you

find something better, to use or copy it -

or even improve upon it still further”.


- 43 -

appears to be 1) rather close to the adopted line of reasoning, 2) rather revealing in the direction of

capturing the importance of Business Strategy and 3) a lively proof of the correlation between Business

Strategy and benchmarking issues within Supply Chain Management, in general, and SCOR Model, in

specific, a proof that was sought for in the previous section.

In his article “What is Strategy”, Porter (1996) makes five important points towards defining the essence

of strategy. First of all, he states that while operational effectiveness means performing similar activities

better than rivals, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing

similar activities in different ways. The reason he makes this point is that he notices a competitive

convergence, deriving from the persistent attempt of companies to outweigh their competitors on

specific dimensions of operational performance. As a result, there is a rapid diffusion of best practices

and no relative improvement for anyone. This also explains the wave of industry consolidation, since

companies become similar and it gets easier for the most powerful one to overtake the rest.

Therefore, his second point is that competitive strategy is about being different, or else about

deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value. In this respect, he

identifies three types of strategic positions and the combinations of them; variety-based, or producing a

subset of an industry’s product or service; needs-based, or serving almost all needs of a particular group

of customers; and access-based, or serving customers accessible in different ways. Then, he states that

companies, based on the value they want to deliver to their customers, have to decide their strategic

positioning and set of activities so as to create a unique position in their market.

The third point made is that choosing a unique position is one part; sustaining the competitive

advantage is the other. Indeed, a valuable position will attract imitation by incumbents. However, the

uniqueness of the position reassures that there have been made trade-offs with other positions or sets

of activities. These trade-offs conceal an action of choice, a choice that protects against imitation.

Therefore, strategy is making trade-offs in competing. The fourth point is that, while operational

effectiveness is about achieving excellence in individual activities, strategy is about combining activities.

This combination, or else fit, locks out imitators by creating a chain that is as strong as its strongest link.

This way, strategic fit creates competitive advantage, since positions built on systems of activities are far

more sustainable than those built on individual activities. Thus, strategy is creating fit among a

company’s activities. The final point states that failure to choose is one reason of strategic

disorientation. Generally, the desire to grow has perhaps the most perverse effect on strategy, since

managers have the tendency to sacrifice their company’s competitive uniqueness on the shrine of

growth. Therefore, the role of leadership on efficient strategic positioning is catalytic.

It can be seen that Porter constantly underlines the necessity for strategic uniqueness and activities’

compatibility when it comes to the selection of a corporate strategy. This importance of strategic

alignment and relevance is also supported by a plethora of other authors (Kearns & Lederer, 2000;

Luftman, Papp & Brier, 1999; Venkatraman, Henderson & Olbach, 1991; Schwan & Spady, 1998; Swiatek

2005; Jeston & Nelis 2008). An overall conclusion that can be derived by this argument is that strategy

should define operations and not vice versa. This conclusion has strong implications on benchmarking


- 44 -

practices and should be kept in mind for the analysis that is going to follow the completion of the

literature review on Business Strategy potential contribution. In addition, this conclusion inductively

proves the correlation between Business Strategy and benchmarking issues within Supply Chain

Management, in general, and SCOR Model, in specific; i.e. it shows that Business Strategy offers a

remedy to benchmarking effects, which sequentially are apparent on Supply Chain Management, in

general, and on SCOR Model, in specific.

Once the definition of Business Strategy, in the sense it is used in this research, has been given and its

correlation with benchmarking issues within the SCOR Model has been proved, it is now time to explore

how exactly this correlation can be strengthened so as to lead to the improvement of the model. In this

respect, a number of representative articles are examined. The important elements of these articles will

be then gathered, organized and compared with the way SCOR Model captures Business Strategy. This

process will indicate how effectively SCOR Model deals with Business Strategy and benchmarking issues

and it will generate explorative guidelines for improving this aspect of the model.

In this direction, Stalk, Evans and Shulman (1992) underline the fact that there has been a fundamental

shift in the logic of competition since 1990s, a shift that has revolutionized the conventional meaning of

Business Strategy. In specific, they claim that the concurrent dynamic business environment urges the

confrontation of competition as a “war of movement”, where anticipation of market trends and

versatility to adjust on changing customer demands are the two central aspects. The structure of a

company’s markets and products is not anymore the essence of strategy. In other words, it is no longer

simply where, it is about how to compete. In this sense, they suggest that the building blocks of

corporate strategy are no longer products and markets but business processes. In other words, a

capabilities-based competition has emerged, where capability is defined as a set of business processes

strategically understood, i.e. beginning and ending with the customer, a set that is collective and cross-

functional, i.e. being “everywhere and nowhere”, not controlled by one actor. This emergence of

capabilities-based competition is also confirmed by Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997), who point out the

importance of the resource-based, as it is opposed to the industry-based, approach of strategic analysis

and positioning.

The example of Wall-Mart and Kmart (Stalk, Evans and Shulman, 1992) is indicative of this new form of

strategy effectiveness. In 1979, Kmart enjoyed a dominant position in the discount retailing industry, an

industry that was basically created by the company itself. The 1891 stores of the company, with average

revenues of $7.25 million per store, draw the picture. On the other hand, with 229 stores and

approximately half the revenues of Kmart stores, Wal-Mart could be hardly characterized as a decent

competitor. Ten years later though, Wal-Mart pretax return on sales was 8%, nearly double the

analogous of Kmart. Wal-Mart managed to become the largest and highest profit retailer in the world,

with a 32% return on equity and a market valuation more than 10 times book value.

The key component of this magnificent turnaround can be found on the relentless focus of Wal-Mart to

satisfy customer demands. This focus was basically expressed by the pioneering management of the

company’s supply chain processes. Inventory management became the milestone of corporate strategy,


- 45 -

resulting in the nowadays famous technique of “cross-docking”. Similarly, extreme attention was placed

on obtaining a fast and responsive transportation system. The question then would be why Kmart did

not follow the same example. The answer is two-fold. On one hand, such an approach is extremely hard

to manage. On the other hand, Kmart found to be trapped on the structural dimension of strategy.

Strong centralized line management, narrow focus on a few product-centered strategic business units

and excess emphasis on cost reduction and economically sound solutions were common examples of

this entrapment. On the contrary, Wal-Mart accomplished a gigantic leap by framing the structural

dimension of strategy with an emphasis on behavior, a managerial attention on the infrastructure that

supports capabilities.

This example is rather useful in underlining the prominence of business strategy, as well as the close

relation of strategy and Supply Chain Management. One step further on the same article, Stalk, Evans

and Shulman (1992) identify five major dimensions of advantages, deriving from capabilities-based

competition. These dimensions are enlisted below:

Capabilities-based Competition: Five Dimensions of Advantages

Speed • The ability to respond quickly to respond to customer or market demands and to

incorporate new ideas and technologies quickly into products

Consistency • The ability to produce a product that unfailingly satisfies customers’ expectations

Acuity • The ability to see the competitive environment clearly and thus to anticipate and

respond customers’ evolving needs and wants

Agility • The ability to adapt simultaneously to many different business environments

Innovativeness • The ability to generate new ideas and to combine existing elements to create new

sources of value

Table 3-11 Five Major Dimensions of Advantages, deriving from Capabilities-Based Competition (Stalk,

Evans & Shulman, 1992)

That is, it is claimed that effective implementation of a capabilities-based strategy can lead in beneficial

results that fall under one or more of these dimensions. It is important to keep these dimensions in

mind for the analysis that is going to follow after the completion of the literature review on Business

Strategy potential contribution.

A lot of discussion has been made so far with respect to the positive effects of strategic fit on business

performance. It is therefore legitimate to question whether this positive correlation actually exists or it

is nothing more than a speculation. The work of Smith and Reece (1999) is indicative and concise in this

direction. In specific, it is demonstrated in this study that strategic fit has a significant positive and direct

effect on business performance. In fact, it is shown that the accomplishment of strategic fit appears to

have greater significance than the selection of the strategy itself. This is also a vital conclusion for the

analysis that is going to follow.

A deeper dive in the literature brings us upon the work of Cox (1999), who recognizes two additional

parameters related to Supply Chain Management - either it is seen through a strategic or an operational


- 46 -

perspective. In detail, Cox argues, in line with Porter’s statements, that what is optimal for one company

is not necessarily beneficial for another. In order to assess the existence or not of such a strategic

compatibility between two companies, he proposes the intermediation of two other representative

notions, them being Power Structure Positioning and Value-Creation Compatibility.

Analytically, Power Structure Positioning indicates the positioning of a company in the power structure

of the pertinent industry. Thus, the imitating company can weigh its strategic compatibility to the

company with the best-in-class performance, simply by comparing their positions in the pertinent

industry power structure. Additional literature that supports the importance of power in strategy

formulation is provided by Horton (2003) and by Hrebiniak and Joyce (cited by Hitt, Freeman & Harrison,

2001).

On the other hand, Value Creation Compatibility indicates the way a company accumulates value for

itself. That is, some companies are obliged by competition to give out much value to their customers,

while others have the possibility to retain much of this value for themselves. As a result, the imitating

company can again determine its strategic compatibility to the company with the best-in-class

performance, simply by comparing their ways of creating and capturing value. Indicatively, there can be

various strategic approaches when it comes to value creation, such as short-term or long-term, self-

interest-oriented or idealistic (O'Malley, 1998). For empirical data on value creation strategies, a

representative case study can be found on the work of Huang and Zhang (2007).

It can be extracted from Cox’s work that there are specific prominent strategic factors that are not taken

into account when it comes to Supply Chain Management. Power Structure Positioning and Value

Creation Compatibility are two of them, indicating the gaps that can be found and the room for

improvement that exists. This conclusion should be borne in mind for the analysis that is going to follow

the completion of the literature review on Business Strategy potential contribution.

It has been shown so far that the importance of Business Strategy is not only empirically recognized but

also practically proved and that it directly connects to the domain of Supply Chain Management. The

question now is whether and how SCOR Model takes into account Business Strategy. As it was presented

on the description of the SCOR Model, there is a set of five Performance Attributes, i.e. Reliability

Responsiveness, Agility, Costs and Assets efficiency, used to capture the supply chain strategic

positioning of the implementing company. It is the object of the next paragraph to organize and use the

elements found on the literature to evaluate the strategic approach of SCOR Model. This evaluation will

result on the location of the opportunities towards the alleviation of the model’s benchmarking

character, opportunities which are explored subsequently through a qualitative research. Before this,

the same process is followed for Business Sustainability, so as to bring this concept on the same level of

analysis.

It has to be mentioned at this point that, at a later stage of this research, a couple of articles came up

(Poluha, 2007; Ren, 2008), arguing that SCOR Model can be linked with the Balanced ScoreCard (Kaplan

& Norton, 1992) and lead in substantial results with regard to the strategic positioning of a company


- 47 -

within the pertinent supply chain. These articles not only support the intuition of this research but also

provide a direction for future development. This direction is brought up again in the recommendations

section, where, combined with the actual results of this research, draws the path for the SCOR Model

leap into business concepts; a leap which is also justified by the business move of SCC to include a risk

management section in version 10.0 of SCOR Model (SCC, 2009).

3.3.3. Business Sustainability Potential Contribution

The part referring to the opportunities for SCOR Model improvement pointed out the concern of the

SCC with respect to the successful implementation of the newly introduced sustainable features.

Specifically, there have been noticed a resistance from the model’s practitioners to make use of the

green features, a resistance that is mainly accounted to organizational and business cultural differences,

evident between supply chain and environmental representatives. Diverse goals and priorities prevent

these two business segments from collaborating fruitfully and as a result, although the necessary

philosophy and software are available, they are not used properly. Before examining how appropriate

has the “green” features’ incorporation process been, it is important to assess what, after all, Business

Sustainability is about and how it connects to Supply Chain Management.

The term of Business Sustainability refers to the process of converting conventional business to

sustainable, or else to a business able to “meet the needs of the present world without compromising

the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs” (Anderson, 2006). In other words, all

processes, products and services performed by companies should comply with this general idea and the

relevant regulations, while they remain in a business environment, or else they continue to make

profits.

With regard to the relation between Business Sustainability and Supply Chain Management, the Lowell

Framework, developed by the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (2009) is indicative and

revealing in this direction. This framework is depicted on the following figure:


- 48 -

Level 1:

Facility Compliance/ Conformance Indicators

Level 2:

Facility Material Use and Performance Indicators

Level 3:

Facility Effect Indicators

Level 4:

Supply Chain and Product Life-Cycle Indicators

Level 5:

Sustainable Systems Indicators

Increasingly comprehensive

measurement of firm environmental impact

Figure 3-12 Lowell Framework (Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, 2009)

As it can be seen, supply chain is recognized, along with Product Life Cycle, as one of the five basic levels

of implementing sustainability. In detail, this framework categorizes the types of indicators that should

be used so as to measure corporate environmental impact comprehensively. These indicators are

divided on five levels, each building on the previous one. In this respect, the process goes beyond

individual company boundaries and focuses on the general picture, as it is described by the idea of

supply chain as well as product distribution, use and ultimate disposal. Examples of indicators used in

this level are percentage of products designed to be easily reused or recycled, percentage of suppliers

receiving safety training per year, embodied energy in key raw materials and packaging, tons of GHG

emissions generated during product transportation and so on.

For the record, level one is used to evaluate the extent to which a facility is in compliance with

regulations or in conformance to some industry/association standards. Level two includes measures of

facility/company inputs, outputs and performance, such as resource use efficiency, byproducts,

emissions, or waste. Level three measures the potential effects of a facility/company on the

environment and public health and level five shows how an individual company's production processes

fit into the larger picture of a sustainable society. While most firms already employ level one and level

two type environmental indicators, they are just beginning to develop level three and level four;

level five still appears to be neglected.

The intuition of the common sense that Supply Chain Management and Business Sustainability are

closely related has been practically confirmed and seen in the Lowell Framework. Thus, the next step

would be to examine how the notion of Sustainability should be ideally incorporated in business

environments so as to lead to the expected results. In this respect, the article “Beyond the business case

of corporate sustainability”, developed by Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), provides useful insight and a

rather systematic approach. The initial idea behind the development of this article lies on the

observation that, at the business level, Sustainability is often equated with eco-efficiency. It is claimed


- 49 -

then, that such a reduction leads to the exclusion of several other important criteria that have to be

satisfied by companies if they really want to become sustainable.

In general, the purpose of Sustainability coincides with the continuous satisfaction of human needs on a

global level (Brundtland, 1987). When transposing this idea to the business level, Corporate

Sustainability can accordingly be defined as “meeting the needs of a company’s direct and indirect

stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees, clients, pressure groups, communities etc), without

compromising its ability to meet the needs of future stakeholders as well”. In this direction, firms need to

maintain and grow their economic, social and environmental capital base while actively contributing to

sustainability in the political domain. From this definition, three key elements of corporate sustainability

can be identified:

1) Integrating the economic, ecological and social aspects in a “triple-bottom line”:

The realization that “economic sustainability alone is no sufficient condition for the overall sustainability

of a corporation” is the basic departure of the sustainability concept from the orthodox management

theory (Gladwin et al., 1995). A narrow-minded emphasis on economic sustainability can succeed in the

short run; however, in the long run sustainability requires all three dimensions to be satisfied

simultaneously. As it is depicted on the following figure, these three dimensions are inter-related and

may influence each other in multiple ways, in a similar to Elkington’s (1997) “triple-bottom-line” concept

pattern.

Figure 3-13 Three Dimensions of Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)

2) Integrating the short-term and long-term aspects:

It has been a common managerial practice, for executives in recent years, to sacrifice long-term success

on the shrine of short-term quarterly gains. Such an approach apparently contradicts the idea of

Sustainability, which recognizes the obligation of a sustainable firm to meet the needs of its

stakeholders in the future as well as today. There is no clear picture yet of how costly social and

economical degradation can be and, as a consequence, short-term gains are considered to be more

economically sound.


- 50 -

3) Consuming the income and not the capital:

Business representatives widely accept that maintaining the capital basis intact is a precondition of

effective and responsible management. Nevertheless, when it comes to long-term Sustainability,

companies need to realize that this precondition is not only related to economic capital, but to natural

and social capital as well.

The precise definition of Sustainability pre-requires the definition of capital. In this direction, economic,

natural and social capital is subsequently defined in the sense of the approach that should be used per

occasion so as to achieve Sustainability:

Types of

Capital Description

Economic

capital

“Economically sustainable companies guarantee at any time cash flow sufficient to ensure

liquidity while producing a persistent above average return to their shareholders”

Natural

Capital

“Ecologically sustainable companies use only natural resources that are consumed at a

rate below the natural reproduction, or at a rate below the development of substitutes.

They do not cause emissions that accumulate in the environment at a rate beyond the

capacity of the natural system to absorb and assimilate these emissions. Finally they do

not engage in activity that degrades eco-system services”

Social

Capital

“Socially sustainable companies add value to the communities within which they operate

by increasing the human capital of individual partners as well as furthering the societal

capital of these communities. They manage social capital in such a way that stakeholders

can understand its motivations and can broadly agree with the company’s value system”

Figure 3-14 Three Types of Capital (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)

Along with these capital definitions, there are two other principles, rather important for the realization

of the Sustainability concept as it is herewith presented. The first refers to the “non-substitutability of

capital”, meaning that not all kinds of capital can be efficiently substituted. The second is the

“Irreversibility and non-linearity of capital depletion”, meaning that some kinds of capital cannot be

eternally substituted, and reversing depleted capital requires non-linear amounts of substituting capital.

It has been shown so far what the primary dimensions are when it comes to the incorporation of the

Sustainability notion in a business environment. One step further, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) assess the

way these dimensions interact and come up with a framework that underlines the criteria that should

be mutually satisfied towards Business Sustainability. Specifically, they determine the paths through

which each of the three Sustainability dimensions, i.e. Business, Nature and Society, can enhance the

other two. In this respect, they claim that the links of Nature and Society to Business Sustainability are

eco-efficiency and socio-efficiency respectively. Eco-efficiency is “achieved by the delivery of

competitively-priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while

progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life-cycle to a level at

least in line with the earth’s carrying capacity” (De Simone & Popoff, 1997); Socio-efficiency (Hockerts,


- 51 -

1996, 1999; Figge & Hahn, 2001) describes “the relation between a firm’s value added and its social

impact. Depending on the type of impact, socio-efficiency implies minimizing negative social impacts (i.e.

accidents per value added) or maximizing positive social impacts (i.e. donations) in relation to the value

added”. The contribution of Nature and Society to Business, or else of eco-efficiency and socio-efficiency

to economic sustainability is depicted on the following figure:

Figure 3-15 The “Business Case” of Corporate Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)

Similarly, the links of Business and Society to Natural Sustainability are eco-effectiveness and sufficiency

respectively. Eco-effectiveness can be described through an example, as opposed to eco-efficiency. In

general, more efficient cars reduce the cost of driving a car. However, since most people nowadays need

a car to cover their individual mobility, less costly cars may easily lead to a non-ecological increase of

cars’ number and of kilometers driven per year. Therefore, apart from, let’s say, fossil fuel efficiency,

manufacturers should also take into consideration the effectiveness of e.g. solar powered fuel cells, so

as to avoid the described rebound-effect and achieve a balance. On the other hand, sufficiency is

another criterion towards sustainability, suggested by several authors (Schumacher, 1974; Sachs, 1993;

Gladwin et al., 1995; Umweltbundesamt, 1997; Kreibich, 1997; Diekmann, 1999; Zavestovski, 2001, cited

by Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). Sufficiency is seen as an issue of individual choice rather than a single

firm’s responsibility, and refers to the individual responsibility of avoiding environmentally-costly

products and services. Radical supporters of this criterion ask even for ‘brand jamming’ and customers’

out-right refusal to follow what they see as marketing terror (e.g. Klein, 2000). The contribution of

Business and Society to Nature, or else of eco-effectiveness and sufficiency to ecological sustainability is

depicted on the following figure:


- 52 -

Figure 3-16 The “Natural Case” of Corporate Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)

Finally, the links of Business and Nature to Societal Sustainability are socio-effectiveness and ecological

equity respectively. Again, socio-effectiveness can be seen as opposed to socio-efficiency. While socio-

efficiency describes the relation between a firm’s value added and its social impact, socio-effectiveness

considers that “business conduct should be judged not on a relative scale but rather in relation to the

absolute positive social impact a firm could reasonably have achieved”. On the other hand, ecological

equity refers to the optimal use and distribution of natural capital, so as to avoid depletion of resources

and damage of future generations. The contribution of Business and Nature to Society, or else of socio-

effectiveness and ecological equity to societal sustainability is depicted on the following figure:

Figure 3-17 The “Societal Case” of Corporate Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)

The framework described here provides a holistic and spherical view of the notion of Sustainability and

how it can be effectively implemented within a business environment. The general case, depicted on the

following figure, along with the six criteria should be kept in mind for the analysis that is going to follow

the completion of the literature review on Business Sustainability potential contribution.


- 53 -

Figure 3-18 Overview of the Six Criteria of Corporate Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)

Once the guidelines for successfully including the concept of Sustainability in a business environment

have been formulated, it is now interesting to examine how these principles can be applied. Waage et al

(2005), building upon preexisting work (see Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3) (2002) 197 and 8(3)

(2000) 243), came up with a framework on how to implement sustainable solutions effectively, a

decision-making model that facilitates the inclusion of sustainability aspects in corporate activities. In

this respect, the proposed approach recognizes six main levels of decisions, them being 1) System

Definition, 2) Identification of Outcomes and Success, 3) Articulation of Strategies, 4) Determination of

Actions and 5) Enlistment of Available Assessment Tools. Then, it proposes a) the insertion of criteria for

assessing products in terms of sustainability factors, b) the inclusion of social aspects of sustainability

and c) the consideration of other elements such as landscape-level issues, cumulative effects, and eco-

regional specificity, on multiple levels of the initial model.

This article provides an indication of how sustainable solutions can be implemented. On the same track,

Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001) proposed twenty two core indicators of sustainability and a loop-model

for defining and measuring sustainability performance of organizations. This model is depicted on the

following figure:


- 54 -

Figure 3-19 Continuous-loop model for defining and measuring sustainability performance of

organizations (Veleva & Ellenbecker 2001)

Although this implementation process may vary from case to case, it is useful to keep these systematic

approaches in mind for the Sustainability evaluation of the SCOR Model that follows this literature

review. It has to be mentioned that, that there have been many efforts during the last 15 years to

connect Sustainability with Business and to derive analogous viable strategies; the results, though, were

not that impressing, mainly because managers do not appear to espouse the business logic for adopting

corporate sustainability strategies (Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers & Steger, 2005). This main barrier should

be also kept in mind during the analysis that follows.

3.4. Explorative Guidelines, & Interview Framework

The purpose of this part is to build upon the literature review and take a step towards the creation of

the Interview Framework that bridges the existing literature with the explorative research that is going

to follow. In this respect, the conclusions and findings of the literature review are gathered and

organized, so as to point out the recorded scientific gaps, evaluate the model upon the located issues

and set the guidelines that will direct the research towards the improvement of the SCOR Model. The

described approach is again divided in the two main categories of Business Strategy and Business

Sustainability. The output in both cases is a set of questions that need to be explored.

3.4.1. From Business Strategy Conclusions to Explorative Guidelines

The literature review on Business Strategy Potential Contribution revealed a number of useful

conclusions that can be used towards the evaluation of the SCOR Model’s strategic approach in general

and benchmarking confrontation in specific. A comparison between these findings and the analytical

process used within the model is considered to be sufficient first step towards the extraction of research

questions and guidelines. The conclusions derived from the literature are presented on the following

table:


- 55 -

Strategy Literature Review Findings

Stalk, Evans

and Shulman

(1992)

Five major dimensions of advantages, deriving from capabilities-based competition:

• Speed: The ability to respond quickly to respond to customer or market demands

and to incorporate new ideas and technologies quickly into products

• Consistency: The ability to produce a product that unfailingly satisfies customers’

expectations

• Acuity: The ability to see the competitive environment clearly and thus to

anticipate and respond customers’ evolving needs and wants

• Agility: The ability to adapt simultaneously to many different business

environments

• Innovativeness: The ability to generate new ideas and to combine existing

elements to create new sources of value

Porter (1996) A strong emphasis on the necessity for strategic uniqueness and activities’

compatibility is observed, when it comes to the selection of a corporate strategy.

Strategy should define operations and not vice versa.

Smith and

Reece (1999)

Strategic fit has a significant positive and direct effect on business performance. The

accomplishment of strategic fit appears to have greater significance than the selection

of the strategy itself.

Cox (1999) There are specific prominent strategic factors that are not taken into account when it

comes to Supply Chain Management. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation

Compatibility are two of them.

Table 3-12 Findings of the Literature Review on Business Strategy

The way SCOR Model is approaching strategic context has already been described under the literature

review section. It is now time to put the strategy-related literature findings opposite to this approach.

First of all, Stalk, Evans and Shulman (1992) have recognized five major dimensions of advantages

deriving from capabilities-based competition, them being Speed, Consistency, Acuity, Agility and

Innovativeness. A quick comparison between these dimensions and the Performance Attributes defined

in the SCOR Model illustrates that those of the attributes labeled as Customer-facing are included in the

list of the five major dimensions discussed here. That is, Responsiveness coincides with Speed, Reliability

with Consistency and Agility with Agility. Acuity and Innovativeness, on the other hand, do not appear as

Performance Attributes in the SCOR Model. Apparently, it can be said that they have a direct effect on

the Internal-Facing Attributes, i.e. Supply Chain Costs and Supply Chain Assets Efficiency; however, it is

not clear or definite that these internally-oriented Attributes are sufficient to capture the notions of

Acuity and Innovativeness.

It should be clarified here that Acuity, although being about “responding” to customers’ evolving needs

and wants, should not be seen as coinciding with Responsiveness. To illustrate this difference with an

example, a responsive company, or else a company performing well in terms of Responsiveness, is a

company able to achieve respectable order fulfillment times. On the other hand, an acute company, or

else a company performing well in terms of Acuity, is a company able to determine effectively, whether


- 56 -

the market asks for responsive or reliable or agile etc. services. In other words, Responsiveness refers to

the operational side, while Acuity deals with the strategic context of Supply Chain Management.

Overall, it can be argued that these two “missing” Attributes, i.e. Acuity and Innovativeness, may not be

relevant when it comes to Supply Chain Management; or that their contribution is simply

complementary and of secondary importance; or that they are impossible to measure. In any case, this

located gap between those two approaches needs to be explored, since it generated questions that are

not precisely answered. These questions are:

Furthermore, Porter (1996) underlined the fact that Strategy should define operations and not vice

versa. Considering the benchmarking process taking place at almost any level of the SCOR Model

analysis, it is logical to wonder whether the operations that are being benchmarked, as they are

expressed by the corresponding Metrics in use, do indeed fall under the Corporate Strategy of the

implementing company or they just indicate an opportunity to considerably reduce operational distance

from a competitor that might, or not, be wise to imitate. It is true that SCOR Model uses a handy tool to

indicate strategic priorities, simply by attaching a “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” label on the

Performance Attributes that represent strategic positioning. Still though, here there is a strong

assumption that Strategy can be monitored and expressed through Performance; and there can be

found numerous authors arguing for exactly the opposite.

Further argumentation on this subject can only lead to the popular chicken or the hen causality

dilemma. It is quite clear that the ability of SCOR Model to assess Strategic Positioning and prioritize it

over Operational Performance needs to be explored. The reason is that, in case SCOR Model does not

capture the discussed line of reasoning, strategic fit is not accomplished and implementing companies

• At what extent are Acuity and Innovativeness relevant to the Supply Chain

Management domain and capable of contributing to the alleviation of

benchmarking effects?

• At what extent do Acuity and Innovativeness overlap with the Performance

Attributes of the SCOR Model?

• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the inclusion of these parameters

in the SCOR Model?

• How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?


- 57 -

fall in the benchmarking traps described in the literature review section. The questions that are

generated in this direction are enlisted below:

The next stop in the Business Strategy literature brings us upon Smith and Reece (1999), who claim that

strategic fit has a significant positive and direct effect on business performance, so important that the

accomplishment of strategic fit appears to have greater significance than the selection of the strategy

itself. This argument generates questions close to those just enlisted, since the debate is again about

strategic fit and how well or not it is captured. It is still possible, though, to assess this topic from a

different, applicability-oriented perspective, as it is revealed by the following set of questions:

Finally, the work of Cox (1999) reveals that there are specific and prominent strategic factors that are

not taken into account when it comes to Supply Chain Management, such as Power Structure

Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility. This argument also links to the questions already posed,

since it basically investigates the broadness of the strategic variables in use. In this sense, new questions

that can be derived are:

• How straightforward and/ or realistic would it be to assess strategic fit through an

analytical tool, such as the SCOR Model?

• What could be the indicators to define and measure strategic fit?

• At what extent can the concept of strategic fit be taken into consideration manually

and through the comprehensive use of its practitioners?

• At what extent does the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool promote Strategy

above Operations?

• At what extent do the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool and the Five

Performance Attributes manage to capture the concept of strategic fit?

• How likely is it for an implementing company to fall into the recorded

benchmarking pitfalls?


- 58 -

The preliminary research steps, towards the exploration of Business Strategy and the way it does or

could contribute to alleviate the benchmarking effects of the SCOR Model, have been completed. The

important arguments from the literature have been gathered, organized accordingly and compared with

the strategic positioning process, taking place currently within the model. The result of this comparison

was the extraction of a number of questions that will guide the explorative/ qualitative research. The

same approach is followed now for the notion of Business Sustainability. The following table contains

the entire spectrum of the derived questions.

Business Strategy Explorative Questions

1) • At what extent are Acuity and Innovativeness relevant to the Supply Chain Management

domain and capable of contributing to the alleviation of benchmarking effects?

2) • At what extent do Acuity and Innovativeness overlap with the Performance Attributes of

the SCOR Model?

3) • How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the inclusion of these parameters in the

SCOR Model?

4) • How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?

5) • At what extent does the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool promote Strategy above

Operations?

6) • At what extent do the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool and the Five Performance

Attributes manage to capture the concept of strategic fit?

7) • How likely is it for an implementing company to fall into the recorded benchmarking

pitfalls?

8) • How straightforward and/ or realistic would it be to assess strategic fit through an

analytical tool, such as the SCOR Model?

9) • What could be the indicators to define and measure strategic fit?

10) • At what extent can the concept of strategic fit be taken into consideration manually and

through the comprehensive use of its practitioners?

11) • How important can be the contribution of Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation

Compatibility, when it comes to strategic positioning and benchmarking effects’ confrontation

within the domain of Supply Chain Management?

• How important can be the contribution of Power Structure Positioning and Value

Creation Compatibility, when it comes to strategic positioning and benchmarking effects’

confrontation within the domain of Supply Chain Management?

• What would be the indicators to define and measure Power Structure Positioning

and Value Creation Compatibility?

• What could be other variables to be included in the strategic positioning process

taking place within the SCOR Model? What would their indicators be?


- 59 -

12) • What would be the indicators to define and measure Power Structure Positioning and Value

Creation Compatibility?

13) • What could be other variables to be included in the strategic positioning process taking place

within the SCOR Model? What would their indicators be?

Table 3-13 Explorative Questions on Business Strategy

3.4.2. From Business Sustainability Conclusions to Explorative Guidelines

The same process is implemented now for the case of Business Sustainability. The conclusions and

findings of the Sustainability literature review are gathered and organized, so as to point out the

recorded scientific gaps, evaluate the model upon the located issues and set the guidelines that will

direct the qualitative research towards the improvement of the SCOR Model. The conclusions derived

from the literature are presented on the following table:

Sustainability Literature Review Findings

Lowell Center for

Sustainable

Production (2009)

Lowell framework recognizes Supply Chain Management as the fourth major step

towards Sustainability. Still though, it has only recently, and still peripherally, begun to

be confronted by companies through a sustainability perspective.

Dyllick and

Hockerts (2002)

Sustainability is often but mistakenly equated with eco-efficiency. In reality, this is

merely one out of the six criteria towards Sustainability:

1) eco-efficiency

2) socio-efficiency

3) eco-effectiveness

4) sufficiency

5) socio-effectiveness

6) ecological equity

In general, three key elements towards corporate sustainability can be identified:

1) Integrating the economic, ecological and social aspects in a “triple-bottom line”

2) Integrating the short-term and long-term aspects

3) Consuming the income and not the capital

Additionally, Capital has a triadic essence in sustainability terms, i.e. Economic, Natural

and Social Capital.

Waage et al (2005);

Veleva and

Ellenbecker (2001)

The former came up with a framework on how to implement sustainable solutions

effectively, a decision-making model that facilitates the inclusion of sustainability

aspects in corporate activities.

The latter developed a continuous-loop model for defining and measuring

sustainability performance of organizations.

Salzmann, Ionescu-

Somers and Steger

(2005)

There have been many efforts during the last 15 years to connect Sustainability with

Business and to derive analogous viable strategies; the results, though, were not that

impressing, mainly because managers do not appear to espouse the business logic for

adopting corporate sustainability strategies.

Table 3-14 Findings of the Literature Review on Business Sustainability


- 60 -

The way SCOR Model is dealing with Sustainability has already been described under the literature

review section. It is now time to put the sustainability-related literature findings opposite to this

approach. In this respect, Lowell framework is first of all used to justify two objects; one is the strong

connection between Sustainability and Supply Chain Management; the second is the problematic

diffusion of sustainable solutions within Supply Chain Management and the extent up to which this is

justified by resisting corporate culture. While the first object serves mainly as the basis for the further

development of this analysis, the second generates a crucial inquiry on why corporate cultures resist to

the idea of sustainability. The findings of Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers and Steger (2005), presented on the

previous table, also build upon this general but vital subject. In this respect, the following set of

questions is formulated towards the exploration of this grey area between Sustainability and Supply

Chain Management:

Furthermore, the approach of SCOR Model itself should be explored, in case it conceals any issues that

prevent Sustainability diffusion. The work of Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) is rather revealing in this

direction. As it has been shown, the notion of Sustainability is quite complex and a successful

implementation requires multi-aspect confrontation. Specifically, Sustainability should be seen as the

aggregation of three interacting dimensions, them being Business, Nature and Society. The

communicating channels among these dimensions are described by six criteria, which namely are eco-

efficiency, socio-efficiency, eco-effectiveness, sufficiency, socio-effectiveness and ecological equity. In

this sense, Capital has a triadic essence in sustainability terms, i.e. Economic, Natural and Social Capital,

and there are three key elements towards corporate sustainability, them being 1) integrating the

economic, ecological and social aspects in a “triple-bottom line”, 2) integrating the short-term and long-

term aspects and 3) consuming the income and not the capital.

Comparing this approach to Sustainability with the one used within the SCOR Model leads to the

extraction of viable explorative guidelines towards the improvement of the model. In specific, SCOR

Model appears to fall into the common pitfall of equating Sustainability with eco-efficiency, as this is

described by Dyllick and Hockerts (2002). The model attempts to take a corrective action on the basis of

a bulk actual pollution calculation. In this respect, it recognizes four main types of waste, i.e. Carbon, Air

• Why would corporate cultures resist to the diffusion of sustainable strategies or

strategic elements?

• To what extent could this incompatibility be accounted to Supply Chain or

Environmental actors?

• Apart from corporate culture, what could be other factors inhibiting this diffusion

(i.e. type of industry or type of operation etc. simply disguised under the visor of corporate

culture)?


- 61 -

Pollutants, Liquid Waste and Solid Waste and it proposes the adoption of best practices, on the basis of

a performance evaluation guided by a set of corresponding Metrics. However, this is merely the channel

connecting Nature to Business, or else, the eco-efficiency path. The other five criteria appear to be

neglected. This comparison brings on the surface a number of subjects that need to be explored. That is,

it should be examined how sufficient such an approach can be, how straightforward would be the

inclusion of the rest of the criteria and so on. Research questions that arise in this direction are enlisted

below:

A final subject that needs to be examined in this direction is the impression of practitioners with regard

to the sustainability approach of SCOR Model, when it comes to the actual implementation process.

There have been presented two characteristic systematic approaches in the literature review section,

both occupied with the implementation of sustainable solutions. In detail, Waage et al (2005) came up

with a framework on how to implement sustainable solutions effectively; a decision-making model that

facilitates the inclusion of sustainability aspects in corporate activities. On the other hand, Veleva and

Ellenbecker (2001) developed a continuous-loop model for defining and measuring sustainability

performance of organizations. The methodical approach of these two initiatives generates inquiries on

the approach of the SCOR Model, inquiries that are presented on the following research questions:

• At what extent would eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards Sustainability?

• What could be the input of the rest of the criteria, in case they were included?

• At what extent could the inclusion of the rest of the criteria improve the

implementation of sustainable solutions?

• How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include the rest of the criteria?

• At what extent would such a holistic approach on Sustainability promote or

restrain the emphasis of practitioners on supply chain sustainable solutions?

• At what extent is effective implementation of Sustainability a responsibility of

SCC?

• What could be alternative scenarios regarding the effective implementation of

Sustainability within the SCOR Model?


- 62 -

The preliminary research steps, towards the exploration of Business Sustainability and the way it does or

could contribute within the SCOR Model, have also been completed. The important arguments from the

literature have been gathered, organized accordingly and compared with the strategic positioning

process, taking place currently within the model. The result of this comparison was the extraction of a

number of questions that will guide the explorative/ qualitative research. The following table contains

the entire spectrum of the derived questions.

Business Sustainability Explorative Questions

1) • Why would corporate cultures resist to the diffusion of sustainable strategies or strategic

elements?

2) • To what extent could this incompatibility be accounted to supply chain or environmental

actors?

3) • Apart from corporate culture, what could be other factors inhibiting this diffusion (i.e. type

of industry or type of operation etc. simply disguised under the visor of corporate

culture)?

4) • At what extent would eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards Sustainability?

5) • What could be the input of the rest of the criteria, in case they were included?

6) • At what extent could the inclusion of the rest of the criteria improve the implementation

of sustainable solutions?

7) • How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include the rest of the criteria?

8) • At what extent would such a holistic approach on Sustainability promote or restrain the

emphasis of practitioners on supply chain sustainable solutions?

9) • At what extent is effective implementation of Sustainability a responsibility of SCC?

10) • What could be alternative scenarios regarding the effective implementation of

Sustainability within the SCOR Model?

11) • How systematic is the sustainability approach of SCOR Model?

12) • At what extent does the sustainability approach of SCOR Model capture and promote the

idea of sustainability?

13) • How could the sustainability implementation process within the SCOR Model be

improved?

Table 3-15 Explorative Questions on Business Sustainability

• How systematic is the sustainability approach of SCOR Model?

• At what extent does the sustainability approach of SCOR Model capture and

promote the idea of sustainability?

• How could the sustainability implementation process within the SCOR Model be

improved?


- 63 -

3.4.3. Synthesis of Guidelines and Interview Framework Creation

This section is close to an end, close to delivering the interview framework it is supposed to. The last

task is to synthesize the guidelines derived from the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability

domains. In this respect, extra attention should be placed on the way this synthesis will be realized, so

as to take into account the special characteristics of this research. That is, it has been explained from the

beginning that this research is of qualitative nature, it explores the landscape around the research

question to locate potential solutions to the research problem. However, in an attempt to assess related

literature in deep, a rather constructive approach was adopted, an approach that may be superficially

seen as contradicting the qualitative character of this research.

Thereby, it should be a task of the interview framework to clarify this contradiction and stress the fact

that the systematic literature approach was merely meant to gather related information and point out

the areas that need to be further explored; there was no intention of binding the orientation of this

research to specific solutions and limiting its explorative potential. Having this prominent argument in

mind, the interview framework is constructed and depicted on the following figure:


- 64 -

Figure 3-20 Interview framework


- 65 -

It becomes clear that no matter how systematic the literature approach was, the research remains

abstract and justifies/ retains its explorative character. It can be seen on the structure of the interview

framework that the guidelines derived from the literature are 1) mere indications and 2) not clearly or

necessarily independent from each other.

This approach, as it is presented here, is also in accordance with the triangulation method that has

already been adopted. In brief, the purpose of this section and method is to build upon the intuition of

the unstructured interview and the overall topic of this research, and prepare the ground for the next

method, i.e. the semi-structured interviews. That is, the aim here is to locate the grey areas that need to

be explored, not to come up with specific directions already from the literature review. In this respect,

the interview framework that is presented is a representative illustration of this argumentation, and also

consistent with the principles set by the research framework. In the next chapter, the interview

framework is used for the creation of the questionnaire that is communicated to the respondents,

regarding the semi-structured interviews.

3.5. Summary

This section is primarily occupied with the tasks of SCOR Model description, literature review and

interview framework creation. In this respect, a constructive logical path is firstly adopted for the

assessment of the literature. Firstly, SCOR Model is described in deep. Then, pertinent opportunities for

improvement are located in the literature and connected to the concepts of Business Strategy and

Business Sustainability. On this basis, Business Strategy and Business Sustainability are assessed and

guidelines for further improvement of the model on the described directions are extracted. A

comparison of these guidelines with the current practices of SCOR Model reveals the paths that should

be followed, according to the literature. On this basis, the interview framework is constructed. The

structure of the interview framework allows the systematic continuation of the research and,

specifically, the formulation of the questionnaire that is communicated to the selected SC professionals,

towards the completion of the semi-structured interviews. The next chapter presents the results of

these interviews. The key elements of this chapter are presented in the following table.


- 66 -

Topic Description

SCOR Model

Description

• SCOR captures the “as-is” state of a process and derives the desired “to-be” future state, it quantifies the operational performance of similar companies and establishes internal targets based on “best-in-class” results and it characterizes the management practices and software solutions that result in “best-in-class” performance.

• It is basically analyzed upon five distinct processes, them being the plan, source, make, deliver and return processes.

• It classifies products in three categories, them being stocked, made-to-order and engineered-to-order products.

• The scope of the model is quite wide, exceeding from suppliers’ supplier to customers’ customer, considering product transactions, customer and market interactions.

• It consists of three levels of analysis, them being process types, categories and elements.

• The concept of configurability. In fact, SCC recognizes that each intersection of two execution processes (such as Source-Make-Deliver) is a “link” in the supply chain, while each link is a customer of the previous and a supplier to the next link.

• It uses the concept of configurability to accurately reflect how a supply-chain’s configuration can impact management processes and practices.

• It includes “green” process elements, followed by a set of total environmental footprint metrics and green best practices, allowing the connection of environment with strategy.

Literature

Review

Strategy Literature Review Findings

• Stalk, Evans and Shulman (1992): Five major dimensions of advantages, deriving from capabilities-based competition, them being Speed, Consistency, Agility, Acuity and Innovativeness. The two latter are not covered by SCOR Model.

• Porter (1996): Strategy is about being different. Strategy should define operations and not vice versa.

• Smith and Reece (1999): Strategic fit has a significant positive and direct effect on business performance, greater than the selection of the strategy itself.

• Cox (1999): There are prominent strategic factors not taken into account in SCM. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility are two of them.

Sustainability Literature Review Findings

• Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (2009): SCM is the fourth major step towards Sustainability. Still though, it is not yet responsibly confronted.

• Dyllick and Hockerts (2002): Sustainability is often but mistakenly equated with eco-efficiency. This is merely one out of the six criteria towards Sustainability.

• Waage et al (2005); Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001): Both providing frameworks on how to approach sustainability systematically.

• Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers and Steger (2005): Despite the efforts, managers still do not espouse the business logic for adopting “green” corporate strategies.

Interview

Framework

Business Strategy Explorative Questions

• At what extent are Acuity and Innovativeness relevant to SCM and capable of contributing to the alleviation of benchmarking effects?

• At what extent do Acuity and Innovativeness overlap with the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model?


- 67 -

• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be their inclusion in SCOR Model? • How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics? • At what extent does the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool promote Strategy

above Operations? • At what extent do the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool and the Five

Performance Attributes manage to capture the concept of strategic fit? • How likely is it for a company to fall into the recorded benchmarking pitfalls? • How realistic is it to assess strategic fit through SCOR Model? • What could be the indicators to define and measure strategic fit? • At what extent is the concept of strategic fit taken into consideration manually? • How important are Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility in

strategic positioning and benchmarking effects’ confrontation within SCM? • What would be the indicators to define and measure Power Structure Positioning

and Value Creation Compatibility? • What could be other variables to be included in the strategic positioning process

taking place within the SCOR Model? What would their indicators be? Business Sustainability Explorative Questions

• Why corporate cultures resist to the diffusion of sustainable strategies? • To what extent could this be accounted to supply chain or environmental actors? • Apart from corporate culture, what could be other factors inhibiting this diffusion? • At what extent would eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards Sustainability? • What could be the input of the rest of the criteria, in case they were included? • At what extent could the rest of the criteria improve sustainability implementation? • How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include the rest of the criteria? • At what extent would such a holistic approach on Sustainability promote or restrain

the emphasis of practitioners on supply chain sustainable solutions? • At what extent is effective implementation of Sustainability a responsibility of SCC? • What are alternative scenarios for the effective implementation of Sustainability? • How systematic is the sustainability approach of SCOR Model? • At what extent does SCOR Model capture and promote the idea of sustainability? • How could the sustainability implementation process be improved? General Remarks on the Interview Framework Synthesis

• Despite the systematic literature review, the research is still explorative. • The guidelines derived are 1) mere indications and 2) not mutually independent. • These guidelines are used to create the semi-structured interviews questionnaire.



- 68 -

4. Interview Results

4.1. Introduction

This section builds upon the output of the previous section and presents

the interview results of this research. The research questions, derived

from the literature, are answered, on the basis of the interview

framework and the guidelines set within the pertinent section. In this

respect, a semi-structured interview questionnaire has been created.

This questionnaire collects, organizes and enriches the questions derived

from the literature, so as to set them before the selected respondents in

an appropriate format, capable of reproducing the aspired interview

circumstances. Apparently, since this research is of qualitative/

explorative nature, aspired circumstances would be those leading to

unbiased, unstructured and spontaneous answers that can hopefully

help in an initial systemization of the selected research topic. Therefore,

this re-organization of the literature research questions, according to the

research framework guidelines, aims to remove the rigidness of the

questions’ set, as it was described within the pertinent, interview

framework section.

The connection between the literature research questions and the

questions used during the interviews is most of the times clear and

direct; otherwise, it is still easy to notice. Thus, there is no point in

wasting a section dismantling this connection in the main body of this

research. Analytical details regarding this transition from the literature

research questions to the interview questionnaire are given in appendix C. Furthermore, the essence of

this research is to locate and organize certain opinions of experts regarding SCOR Model, not to

obligatorily answer the located questions. Therefore, the answers of the interviewees are presented in a

semi-structured pattern, not following from the corresponding interview questions and not necessarily

connected to the questions derived from the literature. After all, the interview questionnaire was made

to be flexible, leaving room for “unexpected” responses. The interview questionnaire is presented in

appendix E.

Before starting the citation of the results, it is necessary to provide some information with respect to the

selected respondents. Unfortunately, all four of them opted for a secrecy policy, requesting the

preservation of their - and their companies’ - anonymity. Nevertheless, such a setting is also beneficial

for a qualitative research, since it releases the respondents from their professional reservations and

allows the occurrence of a free, constructive interview session. In this respect, only peripheral details

can be given about the semi-structured interview respondents. These details, although unable to reveal

the identity of the respondents, are sufficient and rather helpful in describing the character of the

Introduction

Research Framework


Conceptual Design

Interview Results



Conclusions and

Recommendations


Outline: Interview Results


- 69 -

respondents and their relevance with the research topic. The following table accumulates these details

and presents them per respondent. The name of the respondents and the companies they are employed

by are imaginary and fabricated for practical reasons.

Company Name Industry Employee Name Employee Position

ABC Management

Consulting

Rick Wellers Supply Chain

Management Consultant

Highlight

Consulting B.V.

Professional

Services

Peter den Haman Supply Chain


Atkins Electronics Electronics Jon Keller Senior Director Global

Logistics

Akron Caller Chemicals Janna Henderson Supply Chain Manager

Table 4-1 Details about the semi-structured interviews respondents

Once the format of the interview results’ presentation has been discussed and justified, and the selected

respondents have been described, it is now time to present the results. This process is completed in four

paragraphs, one per respondent, each of which paragraphs includes two sections, one for Business

Strategy and one for Business Sustainability.

4.2. ABC

The contribution of Mr. Wellers, employee of ABC, was rather constructive and concise. His experience

in the Management Consulting Industry, which has been serving as a Supply Chain Management

Consultant for many years, forearmed him with a unique sense of wisdom. Thereby, his positions and

opinions were really valuable and revealing in the context of this research. An analysis of Mr. Wellers’

argumentation is given below, separated in the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability categories.

Business Strategy

The approach of Mr. Wellers on the topic Business Strategy and SCOR Model, or generally Supply Chain

Management, is clear and direct. While consulting a client about supply chain related issues, the first

element to examine and start from is Business Strategy - either on a general or specific context. In this

respect, the first question to ask is “what are the

client’s growth aspirations?” Because the advice

should be firstly adjusted on the overall demands of

the client; subsequently, it is easier and more

substantial to look for SC implications. In other

words, Mr. Wellers translates strategy as “a policy

to eliminate the distance between what is

happening now and what the client wants to achieve”.

In this regard, he considers the contribution of any analytical tool as peripheral and of secondary

importance. It is the professional experience and practical wisdom of the people involved that reassures

“The first element to examine and

start from, is Business Strategy”


- 70 -

the location of viable solutions. Judging from his general perception about the potential contribution of

analytical tools, Mr. Wellers appears to be skeptical regarding the usefulness of SCOR Model in general.

This has to be mentioned, since it indicates the prism through which his judgments should be evaluated.

As a simulation of the real world, he says, SCOR Model deals with Supply Chain Management issues in a

systematic manner, so as to increase the possibilities of effectively approaching real facts. In this

respect, it first and foremost attempts to capture the notion of Business Strategy with a neat approach.

Therefore, it recognizes Five Performance Indicators, which, depending on the industry under focus,

may constitute a strategic priority or not. For example, a manufacturer of spare parts for airlines should

compete on responsiveness, while a bank should compete on costs, since, in the Financial Services

industry, Supply Chain Management is not seen as a domain on the competitive edge. Regarding now

how effective this strategic approach of SCOR Model can be, the opinion of Mr. Wellers is two-fold. On

one hand, he admits that the approach of SCOR Model is rather systematic and can lead in precise

results when it comes to the strategic positioning of a company in the supply chain competitive map of

their industry. On the other hand though, he doubts the range of the Five Main Attributes and whether

they are able to capture the entire strategic spectrum of a company. In this respect, he considers the

variables of Acuity and Innovativeness that were located in the literature as potentially good

enrichments, which still though do not solve the located issue.

One step further, regarding the benchmarking process of SCOR Model, Mr. Wellers raises a number of

central issues. First of all, he distinguishes between two types of benchmarking. He refers to the first

one as statistical comparison, meaning the traditional benchmarking process, where the performance of

companies is benchmarked on the

performance of their best-in-class

competitors, on several selected

performance categories. His

criticism on this benchmarking

category is severe. The main

question here is “How do you

define best-in-class?” The answer

is by calculating and comparing

performance indicators, as it also

happens in the SCOR Model case. But then what is recognized as best-in-class may merely be the policy

of a company to cut down costs, concealing this way a problem that can arise later on. This is a typical

problem, according to Mr. Wellers with several representative examples. Similarly, a company may

purposefully lag in a performance category. Google payroll services for example are highly inefficient,

almost double than their competitors. However, they only care about growth. Thus, they prefer to

sacrifice performance in one category, but retain their innovative resilience that leads to the recorded

growth. In general, benchmarking databases that are statistically produced can highlight areas for

improvement, which, though, if not strategically relevant do not really matter. Mr. Wellers stresses that

this type of benchmarking rarely really works; “you have to know the company you benchmark to, you

have to know their capabilities”.

“Benchmarking is central only if there is

strategic relevance between the implementing

and the benchmarked company, only if they

present similar or analogous capabilities”


- 71 -

This brings the discussion to the second benchmarking category, which basically attempts to connect the

companies that perform fine with the companies of inferior performance, on the basis of their

capabilities and no matter the industry they belong to. In fact, Mr. Wellers claims that there is no point

in advising e.g. a chemical company on the basis of the performance of another chemical company,

since the probability for a shallow recommendation is high. What needs to be sought for here is a type

of strategic criterion that connects the companies under comparison. According to Mr. Wellers,

“Benchmarking is central only if there is strategic relevance between the implementing and the

benchmarked company, only if they present similar or analogous capabilities”.

Then, how can this relevance be determined? The literature review revealed two indicators that could

be used in this direction, i.e. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility. However,

the opinion of Mr. Wellers on this topic is quite clear; there is only one relevant question when it comes

to strategic relevance, i.e. “do the compared companies use similar strategic weapons?” All the variables

that are or can be used, attempt

to answer this question. They

constitute an approach to

systemize the strategic

orientation of the examined

companies. In this respect, it is

hard to determine an overall set

of indicators that define business

strategy in a systematic way,

allowing comparisons between

companies. Additionally, it is always a problem to efficiently measure such indicators. Mr. Wellers

replies to the usefulness of the located indicators with this general statement. However, he makes an

exception for Power Structure Positioning, which considers being an indicative, easily measured variable

when it comes to the location of strategic relevance or compatibility.

The final issue posed by Mr. Wellers on Business Strategy refers to the degree of flexibility that should

characterize SCOR Model. That is, the development of a bureaucratic analytical tool with numerous

variables and functions that diminish user-friendliness and inhibit the extraction of overall conclusions is

not the point. If it is to establish a Supply Chain Management analytical tool, it needs to be as flexible as

possible, it needs to take into consideration and respect the experience of the practitioners and leave

room for maneuver and initiative.


Regarding Business Sustainability and the

way it is confronted by SCOR Model, the

opinion of Mr. Wellers is straightforward.

The endeavor of the SCC is concise and

perhaps optimal, since further improvement

“If it is to establish a Supply Chain Management

analytical tool, it needs to be as flexible as

possible, it needs to take into consideration and

respect the experience of the practitioners and

leave room for maneuver and initiative”

“Green policies start to flourish only

when customers start to demand them”


- 72 -

of this approach may fall out of the council’s authority. From a business perspective, Mr. Wellers claims

that sustainability is well beyond the “hippy” era, corporations have already realized their interest in this

domain. The competitive advantage of becoming “green” is by far more apparent on a business-to-

customer (B2C) level, while on a business-to-business (B2B) level, costs usually overshadow the concept

of sustainability. The reason is that green policies start to flourish only when customers start to demand

them. In this respect, the influence of the SCC is limited and its contribution bound to SCOR Model

features.

In general, it is the responsibility of broader organizations, governmental and non-governmental, to

motivate customers, provide them with incentives and promote sustainable over conventional solutions.

In this regard, the approach of the SCC on sustainability is, given this situation, as to the point as it gets.

The intense focus on eco-efficiency,

which, according to the literature,

comprises only one out of the six

prominent sustainable aspects, is a

one-way path, given the described

constraints that limit the action of SCC.

In other words, given these

circumstances, the approach of the SCC to equalize sustainability with eco-efficiency is justified. Mr.

Wellers stresses that the inclusion of the other sustainable aspects, related to nature and society, is also

important and urgent; however, it is not a responsibility of the SCC to include them in SCOR Model and

Supply Chain Management.

Peripheral points of Mr. Wellers invalidate the hypothesis of the SCC that the conflict between supply

chain managers and environmentalists inhibits the promotion of SCOR Model’s sustainable features. It is

the lack of financial incentives that deter companies from promoting sustainability and setting it as a

priority. Additionally, he underlines the importance of the industry sector parameter, since this is a

prominent differentiating factor when discussing about sustainability.

4.3. Highlight Consulting B.V.

Peter den Haman, Supply Chain Management consultant of Highlight, was also generous in sharing his

experience with and opinion about SCOR Model. In fact, his arguments were found to be rather close to

the orientation of this research and to the pertinent literature findings. Either in accordance with these

findings or not, the argumentation of Mr. Haman was precise and his contribution to this research

substantial. Again, the analysis of this interview is given under the Business Strategy and Business

Sustainability categories.

Business Strategy

When it comes to Business Strategy, the role of SCOR Model is specific and well-defined for Mr. Haman

and Highlight. That is, they use SCOR Model during the strategic assessment of their clients’ supply

chains, but merely as a reference to set the scope and structure the problem. In other words, they use it

“The influence of the SCC is limited and its

contribution bound to SCOR Model features”


- 73 -

as guidance and opt for specific functions. They do not use it in the conventional three-level pattern. In

this respect, they found it to be helpful in supply chain reviews, but limited to peripheral use for two

reasons.

First of all, the applicability of the model is constrained by the overall nature of models, in specific, and

simulation, in general. Mr. Haman claims that “models are nice to have, can provide you with a direction

so as to cover everything, but just that”. Real-life examples point out a need for versatility, each client

comes with specific issues, connected to certain areas of the model. Therefore, the model cannot be

used as an overall template, as a leading tool, but only peripherally and complementary, since,

according to Mr. Haman, one should think from the direction of the client, not from a pre-constructed

model’s perspective. This argument, similar to the one in the case of ABC, exceeds the boundaries of this

research. However, it is recorded for reasons of coherence, since it is indicative of the interviewee’s

positioning on the research topic.

The second constraint on the universal use of

the model, when it comes to strategic context,

is the broadness of the five variables. Mr.

Haman argues that “the scope of the five

variables is too limited to capture business

strategy”. In fact, following the intuition of this

research attempt, Mr. Haman witnesses the enrichment of this set of variables in Highlight, by adding

dimensions depending on their customer demands. Examples of such dimensions are Strategy,

Geography, Culture, Business Size, Tax, New Product Development and Organizational Structure. Acuity

and Innovativeness could also add important information in this direction; however he is not sure how

easily they can be measured.

One step further, regarding the benchmarking character of SCOR Model, Mr. Haman appears to be quite

positive. He claims that “benchmarking can be used to get better than your competitor”, while he, sort

of, contradicts the approach of Michael Porter by saying that “being different from your competitor

doesn’t mean you have to be different

in every aspect”. In this respect, he

argues that competitive advantage

can be gained simply by a great

product at a low price, or by a unique

product, or by an excellent service

etc., in general by a core competence

or key point that differentiates you from your competitor. However, this does not exclude the utilization

of benchmarking complementarily, for the improvement of peripheral activities. In fact, he uses his

experience to recognize a number of specific examples, where competitive advantage was gained from a

field other than the one of Supply Chain Management. In such cases, the role of Supply Chain

Management - and SCOR Model in specific – is limited on cost reduction; it is not occupied with

increasing customer base or market share, or generally creating competitive advantage.

“The scope of the five variables is too

limited to capture business strategy”

“Being different from your competitor doesn’t

mean you have to be different in every aspect”


- 74 -

At face value, the approach of Mr. Haman on benchmarking appears to contradict the direction of this

research. At second glance, it simply complements it and makes it stronger. Indeed, Supply Chain

Management is not merely and always about creating competitive advantage. Decent performance is, in

many cases, sufficient. However, there are several examples where companies seek for supply chain

performance beyond the competitive edge. And

this is the question that needs to be answered in

this research; how should SCOR Model capture

the concept of Business Strategy so as to allow

companies to fulfill their strategic goals, either

they coincide with a pursuit for superiority or

with a compromise with parity. In other words,

benchmarking is not by definition positive or negative; the truth is that effective utilization of

benchmarking practices can yield impressive results. And the term “effective” refers to the location of

representative benchmarks, to the comparison with actually strategically-compatible companies.

This brings the discussion to what has been labeled in this research as strategic compatibility. Mr.

Haman admits that “It is always important to benchmark comparable (peer) companies”. In Highlight,

they use the industry average as an initial approach and they subsequently try to narrow their

comparison down. The selection of the narrowing-down dimensions is not rigid; it depends on the

clients, their demands and the problem circumstances. Mr. Haman appears to be rather defensive of

this flexibility, for a very simple reason. He expresses his concerns that a rigid and systematic narrowing-

down benchmarking process may lead to the elimination of the benchmarking sample.

It is truth that it is really hard to locate identical companies. There will always be a different approach.

This is why Highlight prefers to compare to the industry average as an initial step; so as to reassure that

they will find a sample to compare and benchmark to.

Then, they are able to examine the industry as a whole

and define and explain its special characteristics that

need to be taken into account. Finally, they distinguish

which company is the best in which performance

category, e.g. assets efficiency, inventory levels,

receivables and so on, and they try to imitate the

analogous one so as to improve their overall

performance. In this respect, Mr. Haman is skeptical

about a rigid funneling benchmarking approach, which

may lead to the loss of opportunities for improvement. As a measure against this repercussion, he

proposes the examination of similar companies in other industries, a practice that can boost the quality

of the benchmarking results, not only because it increases the size of the benchmarking sample, but it

enriches the diversity of the input as well.

“It is always important to benchmark

comparable (peer) companies”

“A rigid and systematic model

may exclude nice corporate

examples and may eliminate

opportunities for improvement”


- 75 -

The approach of Highlight, as it is described by Mr. Haman, comes in accordance with the literature

findings. Indeed, Highlight attempts to locate strategically compatible companies to benchmark to, on

an empirical and customized-per-occasion basis. In a similar pattern, the literature review section

indicated the same need, a need that could be confronted through the utilization of two extra variables,

i.e. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility. The former systematic approach does

not coincide with the latter, flexible one. They both, though, try to accomplish the same thing: assess

the strategic compatibility between the companies under comparison. Regarding the opinion of Mr.

Haman about these two variables, he generally thinks that any of them that can be easily measured can

increase the success rate of the attempted strategic assessment.

The final argument of Mr. Haman about Business Strategy refers to the degree of flexibility that should

characterize SCOR Model. As it can be seen on Mr. Haman’s line of reasoning, he is concerned that a

rigid and systematic model may exclude nice corporate examples and may eliminate opportunities for

improvement. Therefore, he claims that the solutions proposed towards the improvement of the

benchmarking process should be loosely implemented, added in a complementary pattern. For example,

benchmarking results can be enriched with some comments next to a selected set of representative

variables. This way, benchmarking can lead to substantial solutions instead of simply providing a general

idea.


Only the sound of the word Sustainability caused the immediate reaction of Mr. Haman. Perhaps due to

the opportunities for the promotion of sustainability he sees in the Supply Chain Management domain,

Mr. Haman rushed into phrasing his overall

opinion. “We have to get rid of sub-

optimization” he says, referring to the

uncoordinated spasmodic actions of all the

actors involved. For example,

environmentalists pursue lower CO2 emissions, supply chain managers seek for improving supply chain

networks, and governments play their own, measures-imposing, role, leaving behind them a blurry

sustainability landscape.

Partly, the opinion of Mr. Haman coincides with the diagnosis of the SCC that SCOR Model “green”

features are mainly inhibited by a conflict between environmentalists and supply chain managers. At

least they both claim that there is a lack of priorities and organization recorded. However, Mr. Haman

does not see this conflict as the main

problem to be solved. It is the establishment

of an integrated approach, expanding, at

least, to all common activities - such as the

one of product development - that is

becoming necessary.

“We have to get rid of sub-optimization”

“It is the establishment of an integrated

approach … that is becoming necessary”


- 76 -

In this respect, he also agrees with the strategy of the SCC to equalize sustainability with eco-efficiency.

SCOR Model is bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint pattern; there is no room for

alternative confrontation, at least in real and practical terms. Furthermore, he agrees with the intuition

of this research that an effective implementation and promotion of sustainable solutions requires the

intervention of broader organizations. Apart from the SCC, the contribution of which is bound to be

limited, the same goes for companies as well. Their

contribution to sustainability is bound by the concept of

profitability. Sustainability has never been in the priority list,

and even in cases of “green” efforts, the results were not as

impressive as they were expected to be. The example of

BMW’s green campaign is brought on, along with some doubts

whether the pertinent huge investments did finally pay off.

Especially during an economic crisis, like the one that occurs in

parallel to the conduction of this research, sustainability is

definitely overshadowed by cost reduction in a corporate

priority list.

According to Mr. Haman, “substantial solutions in the sustainability domain can only be expected from

governmental initiatives”. The example of the Dutch taxation system is brought on, where inefficient,

highly-polluting automobiles face heavier taxes. Mr. Haman claims that this is “the only way to keep the

notion of sustainability running”. Analogically, he proposes the establishment of an emissions-trading

scheme within supply chains, as a seemingly effective solution. The SCC has provided in its latest release

the tools towards the establishment of such a scheme. It is now the responsibility of governmental

organizations to validate and authorize this endeavor. Contemplating the monetary amounts spent on

corporate responsibility activities, one can realize that the resources required for the establishment of

sustainability exist; however, they are not optimally used and they will never be, unless pertinent

authorities undertake the responsibility of translating sustainability in economic terms.

4.4. Atkins Electronics

Mr. Keller’s perspective on SCOR Model, in specific, and Supply Chain Management, in general, is

practical and wise. As a Senior Director in Global Logistics of Atkins Electronics, Mr. Keller has

confronted SCOR Model as an analytical tool over the operations of the company he is employed by.

Thus, he has the practical experience to locate problematic areas and opportunities for improvement.

His argumentation is rather revealing and adds several new elements in the accumulated results. The

analysis of these elements is presented below, under the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability

categories.

Business Strategy

Atkins Electronics officially uses SCOR Model for the management of their supply chain operations and

activities. They mainly use it as a reference model so as to structure their supply chain processes and

control a number of selected key performance indicators (KPIs). Although rigid and impractical when

“Substantial solutions in

the sustainability domain

can only be expected from

governmental initiatives”


- 77 -

used in very specific cases, Mr. Keller evaluates SCOR Model positively when generically, but still

operationally, used. Characteristically, he resembles it with a Supply Chain Management language.

This overall opinion of Mr. Keller about the partial applicability of SCOR Model applies to the way it

confronts Business Strategy as well. Although the model is rather systematic and provides a state-of-the-

art framework to determine priorities and actions regarding Supply Chain Management, it does not take

into account concepts such as the business, the market and the competitive environment so as to build

strategic context. These concepts are taken into account by highly-ranked employees, who, on the basis

of their experience, create the general strategic guidelines that should be followed by the various

corporate departments, such as the Supply Chain Management one. In this respect, SCOR Model can

perhaps highlight these concepts and add some relevant content, which however can only be company-

specific and not to be generalized. In other words, Mr. Keller considers that SCOR Model should not

interfere with Business Strategy more than it already does, since this can be very complicated and enter

the grounds of the company’s administration.

In this respect, he is not very positive

regarding the enrichment of the five

Performance Attributes. First of all,

although innovation is always an

important parameter when it comes to

Supply Chain Management, it strongly

depends on the overall positioning of the

company. That is, innovative efforts and

results are not independent from the

nature of the market (static or dynamic),

the size and geographical boundaries of the market, the power and number of the competitors and so

on. This is a subtle detail that should be taken care of when looking on Innovativeness as a performance

indicator. As a consequence, Innovativeness may be more of an issue for the administrative side.

Similarly, Acuity sounds quite vague in supply chain terms. It can be vital in market terms, but it is hard

to be quantified within a supply chain environment. Additionally, Mr. Keller claims that it partially

overlaps with Agility in the sense that it shows how flexible a company is to adjust in more profitable

solutions. Thus, he does not see why it should be added to the five Performance Attributes.

Mr. Keller can be said to be rather influenced by the organizational structure and the way they do things

within Atkins. Although this argument may sound subjective, the presentation of the results will reveal a

contradiction that provides this argument with the required support to condition it logically sound. That

is, it will become apparent that although Mr. Atkins agrees with all of the proposed solutions and

identifies their relevance and contribution, he arbitrarily and non-negotiably rejects their inclusion in the

SCOR Model. Extra support to this conclusion is also provided by the way Atkins has incorporated SCOR

Model in their Supply Chain Management in the past.

“SCOR Model does not take into account

concepts such as the business, the market

and the competitive environment so as to

build strategic context”


- 78 -

Specifically, Atkins has used SCOR Model as the basis of a maturity assessment tool, mandatory and

used by all the company’s departments, towards checking performance and proposing solutions. In

other words, SCOR Model has been used as a supply chain corporate language towards the

development of an internal benchmark, based on which Atkins could make their decisions. Additionally,

SCOR Model was also helping Atkins to see how

they meet industry standards. The output of this

maturity tool, though, was not used directly by

the Supply Chain Management department. It

was the administration of the company that was

processing the results and extracting the analogous strategic directions. The Supply Chain Management

department was only responsible for the realization of the administration decisions, for their translation

into supply chain processes. For the record, the implementing departments eventually shifted their

focus and the maturity tool was abandoned approximately 8 years ago.

As it can be seen, Mr. Keller, on the basis of his experience in Atkins, has a very specific view about SCOR

Model and the way it can be adopted by a corporation. It is an operational tool that helps in the

translation of strategic decisions in Supply Chain Management terms and processes. How these

decisions are taken or how SCOR Model is created to accept them is another topic of discussion for Mr.

Keller. This is why it was claimed before that the arguments of Mr. Weller should be somehow filtered;

because as an employee dealing with operational issues, even from an administrative position, he

presents a strategic myopia, as it is witnessed by his strongly operationally-oriented arguments and his

weakness to see the connection to strategy.

In this respect, benchmarking can only be positive, according to Mr. Keller, basically because it fulfills an

essential two-fold function. SCOR Model, using standard definitions and performance indicators,

provides a universal operational code, a common language in Supply Chain Management. The two folds

of this function refer to the two sides one can look

to a company, i.e. internally and externally.

Internally, SCOR Model benchmarks enhance the

communication among the various departments.

The example of customer service is brought on, the

quality of which is measured differently by the

Supply Chain Management and the Marketing

departments, and correspondingly is perceived differently by the customers themselves. Externally,

SCOR Model benchmarks allow the comparison with the industry average and quantify the performance

of the best-in-class competitors. Again, whether these competitors are appropriate to imitate is not a

Supply Chain Managerial issue for Mr. Keller.

On the same track, he sees the potential contribution of strategic compatibility when it comes to

benchmarking, however not within SCOR Model boundaries. Mr. Keller agrees that while defining a

strategy, it is important to know where you are, where you want to be, who the competitor is, what the

market is, the business and so on. In this regard, it would be great to select the practices to imitate on

“Benchmarking can only be positive”

“SCOR Model…a common language

in Supply Chain Management”


- 79 -

the basis of a deep and precise analysis that extracts strategically compatible companies to benchmark

to. Whether now this should happen within SCOR Model, Mr. Keller’s view does not change.

Regarding the indicators derived from the literature and their potential contribution in capturing the

concept of strategic compatibility, Mr. Keller is generally positive. Power Structure Positioning is easy to

measure and directly related to Business Strategy. The question of Mr. Keller is again how relevant is

such a strategic indicator to SCOR Model. Value Creation Compatibility, on the other hand, sounds more

concrete in supply chain terms. The challenge here would be to alter the attitude of most people to

confront Supply Chain Management as a tool for cost reduction, not as a tool for value creation.

The final argument of Mr. Keller relates to the degree of complexity

characterizing SCOR Model. “The lighter the better” argues Mr.

Keller, stating that the more one goes in detail, the more likely they

are to deviate from the goal of the company. This is what his

experience has taught him. There are numerous cases, he recalls,

where using SCOR Model beyond level three generated deviations

that made the management of the process counter-productive.


First of all, Mr. Keller argues that sustainability is a prominent notion when it comes to Supply Chain

Management and it should be included in SCOR Model in whatever terms. He uses the example of

reverse logistics to illustrate this relation and

support his argument that sustainability should

be central in the SCOR Model, not peripheral.

Regarding now the reason that SCOR Model

“green” features usually stay on the margin,

Mr. Keller cannot account this fact on any kind

of conflict between supply chain managers and

environmentalists. He has witnessed in the past

conflicts between manufacturers, claiming for

high productivity and large batch sizes, and supply chain managers, asking for made-to-order and

immediately-deliverable products, but nothing as such described.

“The key to establishing sustainability in Supply Chain Management is to put it on the corporate

agenda”, says Mr. Keller, to make it a decisive factor for companies. Still though, he perceives this as a

top-down process. That is, Business Sustainability is a strategic issue, deriving from the overarching

business plan. It is nice of SCOR Model to offer “green” features, it remains, however, a decision of the

administration whether to use them or not. In this respect, it is not a responsibility of the SCC to further

promote these features. SCOR Model is a reference model. It is the users that will set their priorities

within this reference.

“The key to establishing sustainability

in Supply Chain Management is to put

it on the corporate agenda”

“The lighter the better”


- 80 -

According to the argumentation of Mr. Keller, the “responsibility” for the promotion of sustainability

within Supply Chain Management goes from the SCC to corporations. One step further, Mr. Keller

characterizes sustainability as a demand-driven idea, and shoulders consumers with its promotion and

establishment. Judging from his own experience, his line of reasoning begins from the pertinent

positioning of his company. Atkins is a

consumer-based company that cares about

the consumers’ wants and needs, and

sustainability is occasionally one of these,

embraced by the consumers. Sustainability is

a new area for Atkins, merely confronted as a

branding-strategic issue. That is, Atkins

aspires to establish a brand image that represents the adoption of clear and sustainable policies and

practices. Whether now this image will represent the reality or whether the investments to build this

image are efficiently used or how the related supply chains can become systematically and permanently

green is another topic, falling out of the scope of Atkins; logically, to be said, since these issues are not

directly and autonomously related with profits.

This is where the argumentation of Mr. Keller stops; to the boundaries of Atkins’ interest. He does not

answer who should undertake the stimulation of this demand of the consumers for sustainable

solutions. As long as consumers ask for sustainable products and Atkins offers them, no one cares

whether the related supply chain practices are truly sustainable or as sustainable as it gets. On the other

hand, he admits that eco-efficiency is not enough to provide a company with the “green” stamp.

“Sustainability is something that comes back in many things that we do” and it should be therefore

confronted more spherically if it is to be substantially established. Whether the words of Mr. Keller

sketch the need for intervention of a universally authorized body, such as a government, will not be a

matter of debate in this research.

4.5. Akron Caller

Mrs. Henderson is a supply chain manager of Akron Caller, a company active in the Chemical Industry.

The fact that she interferes with supply chain operations on a daily basis along with the nature of her

company provides this research with rather important arguments in the fields of Business Strategy and

Business Sustainability respectively. On one hand, she has the experience to connect operations with

strategy and capture the overall picture; on the other hand, working in the Chemical Industry elevates

sustainability to a high and urgent priority, both in terms of profitability and ethics. The argumentation

of Mrs. Henderson is presented below, under the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability

categories.

“Eco-efficiency is not enough to provide

a company with the ‘green’ stamp”


- 81 -

Business Strategy

Regarding the overall usefulness of

SCOR Model, Mrs. Henderson appears to

be a keen admirer. She claims that,

when starting from a zero basis, SCOR

Model is the best solution to organize

and manage a company’s supply chain. It can be used as a template, putting in order all the relevant

loose supply chain processes. Akron Caller has already developed a Supply Chain Management system

that puts in context the company’s supply chain processes, a system quite similar to SCOR Model.

With respect to the approach of SCOR Model when it comes to capturing Business Strategy, Mrs.

Henderson appears to be satisfied. She considers the set of the five Performance Attributes to be

sufficient, although she recognizes that all companies may need to customize and enrich this set so as to

serve their own needs. The main advantage of

SCOR Model, related to the way it captures

Business Strategy, is the transparency of the

connection between strategies, processes,

activities and elements. The benefits of this

systematic breakdown structure can be seen in

two ways.

From a top-down perspective, the model analyzes and dismantles Business Strategy on a number of

main processes, which consist of a number of activities and so on, an approach that conditions the

implementation of Business Strategy systematic and straightforward. From a bottom-up perspective, it

is simple to see how each operational block contributes to the overall strategic plan. This bidirectional

transparency is the main strength of the model when it comes to Business Strategy within the Supply

Chain Management domain. Whether now the recognized breakdown branches are sufficient to

describe and capture Business Strategy, the opinion of Mrs. Henderson can be summarized on the

conclusion that they are necessary but not always sufficient.

In this respect, Innovativeness and Acuity could be

potential enrichments of the Performance

Attributes set. Extra emphasis is placed on the

Innovativeness indicator, who is claimed to be a

strong performance indicator in terms of Supply

Chain Management. However, it has to be strictly

defined if it is to be useful. “There are many ways to

measure Innovativeness; you just need to make sure

that everybody measures the same thing”.

Apparently, this argument applies to any type of indicator; even more to the case of Innovativeness,

though, since there is a long distance between, for example, incremental and breakthrough innovations.

“Business Sustainability is a strategic issue”

“The five Performance Attributes are

necessary but not always sufficient”

“There are many ways to measure

innovativeness; you just need to

make sure that everybody

measures the same thing”


- 82 -

It can be seen that Mrs. Henderson confronts SCOR Model from its operational perspective. As an

employee interfering with the Supply Chain Management of massive production lines, she is mainly

interested in the operational side of the model. However, she does see the connection to Business

Strategy and how this process can take place within SCOR Model. This versatility of Mrs. Keller to see the

overall picture despite the fact that she basically interferes with operational issues, is perhaps related

with the organizational structure and the way they do things within Akron Caller.

Comparing to the case of Mr. Keller and

Atkins Electronics, Akron Caller is more

horizontally organized. They have a

decentralized, matrix and process-oriented

organizational system. The reason they

have adopted this system is that they need to manage cross-functional processes, within a technical

environment. As a consequence, although they still use a top-down administrative pattern when it

comes to “big” decisions such as which processes to use and what markets to enter, they need to spread

every-day responsibility horizontally and among various persons. And this is probably the reason that

Mrs. Henderson, although not directly interfering, is acquainted with strategic notions and how they

interrelate to Supply Chain Management. It has to be mentioned, though, that the operational role of

Mrs. Henderson binds her creativity when it comes to the actual suggestion of business solutions. This

deduction should be kept in mind when evaluating her arguments.

With respect to the benchmarking character of SCOR Model, Mrs. Henderson appears aware both of the

way the model makes use of benchmarking practices and of the pertinent pitfalls. “You have to compare

apples with apples” she says and not apples with

oranges when it comes to benchmarking. Her

argument is two-aspect. First of all, she refers to

the type of metrics used within this benchmarking

process. In this respect, she praises SCOR Model for

creating a common communication platform.

Companies usually develop their own metrics to

measure their performance, rendering comparison

a hard and imprecise task, since all of them make

their own calculations and assumptions. A common database like the one created within SCOR Model

surpasses this issue and provides a dependable solution. The second aspect Mrs. Henderson refers to

when talking about benchmarking homogeneity is not the type of the metrics used but the character of

the companies using them. In this aspect, she claims that the type of business the best-in-class

companies belong to and the homogeneity of their overall business context are of vital importance.

Therefore, it would be rather useful, towards the proper implementation of benchmarking practices, if

SCOR Model could incorporate such a differentiating factor.

This brings the discussion to the concept of strategic compatibility, as it is inserted in this research. At

face value, Mrs. Henderson agrees on the necessity of such a variable, at least in a top-down direction.

“You have to compare apples with apples”

“If you could only see how business

people respond to boxes and

arrows, how terrified they get”


- 83 -

The highly-ranked administrative employees could use this variable so as to locate which competitors it

is wise to imitate, and then locate the practices to be adopted and move this information down to the

Supply Chain Management department. However, Mrs. Henderson cannot see how this could happen in

a bottom-up direction. That is, based on her experience, business people, usually dealing with Finance,

Marketing and Strategy, are not in position to understand technical subjects, and become resistant. “If

you could only see how business people respond to boxes and arrows, how terrified they get”, she says to

support her argument that SCOR Model is too technocratic to work in a bottom-up direction.

Exaggerating or not, Mrs. Henderson is definitely making a point regarding the way strategic

compatibility should be incorporated in SCOR Model.

Finally, regarding the indicators derived from the literature towards the assessment of strategic

compatibility, Mrs. Henderson appears generally positive. Both Power Structure Positioning and Value

Creation Compatibility could be effectively used in the described direction. The problem remains the

same for Mrs. Henderson. How and where in the model could these variables be added so as to

overcome the described communication difficulties.


The common grounds between Sustainability and Supply Chain Management are definite and vast,

according to Mrs. Henderson. No matter how, these two concepts should go together she claims,

supporting the initiative of the SCC to

incorporate “green” features in SCOR Model.

Why now this is not the case in reality, as for

example in the case of SCOR Model where

sustainable features remain on the verge, Mrs.

Henderson, perhaps influenced by the nature of

the Chemical Industry she interferes with, puts the blame on the corporate side.

Regarding the conflict between supply chain managers and environmentalists as the inhibiting factor in

the diffusion of sustainability within the Supply Chain Management domain, Mrs. Henderson could not

come to agreement with the SCC. At least on the basis of her experience, sustainability is and has been

for a long time on the top of Akron Caller’s agenda. As it was mentioned before, the influence of the

Chemical Industry character is obvious on

the argumentation of Mrs. Henderson.

She cannot even imagine how a company

could inhibit the realization of

environmental-friendly policies, for two

main, mutually dependent, reasons. On

one hand, the product portfolio of a

chemical company needs to be as “green” as it gets, otherwise the impact on the brand image and on

the customer satisfaction indicators will be massive and destructive. On the other hand, legislation is

severe with the Chemical Industry and so are the pertinent “green” measures, imposed on the chemical

companies. It is easy to imagine how these two situations interrelate, since a company failing to satisfy

“The blame lies on the corporate side”

“Equalizing sustainability to eco-efficiency

indicates lack of responsibility”


- 84 -

the standards will also fail to keep up with the competition. Overall, the responsibility, according to Mrs.

Henderson, remains clearly on the corporate side.

“Equalizing sustainability to eco-efficiency indicates lack of responsibility” claims Mrs. Henderson. The

natural and social implications of sustainability are clear and well-known, and they should not be

neglected. However, it is not the SCC that should take care of this matter. It would be really hard to

incorporate these concepts in SCOR Model whatsoever. It is again a responsibility of corporations to

look over these matters. Departments dealing with Corporate Responsibility and Ethics should look over

the natural and social implications of sustainability and attempt to take them into account when setting

strategic priorities and operational policies.

Finally, with respect to the idea of translating sustainability in

economic terms so as to promote and establish sustainable

solutions, Mrs. Henderson is again categorical. Companies

should actively and voluntarily behave towards sustainability;

otherwise they will not be allowed to operate. “We need to be

dedicated to sustainable thinking”; “Otherwise, how could we

look our children in the eyes”? The deduction that Mrs.

Henderson confronts the issue of sustainability through the Chemical Industry perspective is again

justified. Such questions have always been on the agenda of chemical companies and they increasingly

will, since it is in the core of their survival to convincingly answer them.

Although Mrs. Henderson puts corporations on the spot and appears rather reluctant to discuss about

the translation of sustainability in economic terms, a close examination of her argumentation leads to

the extraction of an alternative, perhaps more convincing, scenario. That is, this translation of

sustainability in economic terms has already happened in the Chemical Industry, long time ago and with

surprisingly positive results. To elaborate on this, Mrs. Henderson claims that the legislative measures

against misbehaving chemical companies are harsh, and those that wish to stay competitively alive are

left with no option but to compromise. One step further, this governmental intervention, as it is

expressed by the enforcement of severe measures, has affected and formulated public opinion, since

consumers demand by chemical products to satisfy specific quality standards. As an indirect

consequence, companies themselves including their employees, in this case Mrs. Henderson, have

learned to comply with governmental measures and have become “dedicated to sustainable thinking”.

This reverse examination of Mrs. Henderson examination not only provides support to the intuition of

this research that governmental intervention is necessary, but also it indicates how successful this

proposal can be.

4.6. Summary

This section is occupied with the analysis of the interview results and the accumulation of all the

important arguments that can be used 1) towards the extraction of the design principles overarching the

proposed updated version, and 2) within the concluding section. In this respect, the questionnaire that

“We need to be dedicated

to sustainable thinking”


- 85 -

is created on the basis of the literature findings is communicated to the supply chain representatives of

four prominent corporations. Appendix D presents the formulation of the interview questionnaire from

the literature research questions, while appendix E presents the questionnaire itself. Details on the

respondents are given in the following table, where the names of their companies and themselves are

imaginary, following their pertinent request for anonymity. The opinions of these experts are recorded

and cited under the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability categories. An overview of their

arguments is given on the two tables concluding this section.

It is mentioned that, given the qualitative nature of this research, there is a need to interpret several

opinions so as to fit the framework of this research. The filters for this interpretation process are given

within the corresponding analyses, wherever considered necessary. This analysis of the interview results

is the first step towards the conceptual design of the updated version that is proposed later on. Next

section is occupied with the accumulation of these results and their synthesis in guidelines for a

conceptual design. Apparently, a great amount of the results of this section is also used in the

concluding section.

Company Name Industry Employee Name Employee Position

ABC Management

Consulting

Rick Wellers Supply Chain


Highlight

Consulting B.V.

Professional

Services

Peter den Haman Supply Chain


Atkins Electronics Electronics Jon Keller Senior Director Global

Logistics

Akron Caller Chemicals Janna Henderson Supply Chain Manager

Table 4-2 Key elements of this chapter: Details about the respondents

Enrichin

g S

CO

R M

odel: R

ecaptu

ring the N

otions o

f B

usin

ess S

trate

gy a

nd B

usin

ess S

usta

inability

8

6

BU

SIN

ES

S S

TR

AT

EG

Y

AB

C

Hig

hli

gh

t A

tkin

s A

kr

on

Ca

lle

r

Th

e fi

rst e

lem

en

t to

exa

min

e a

nd

sta

rt

fro

m is

Bus

ine

ss S

trat

egy.

Th

e fiv

e P

erf

orm

an

ce A

ttrib

ute

s a

re n

ece

ssa

ry

bu

t n

ot s

uffic

ien

t. A

cuity

an

d

Inn

ova

tive

ness

co

uld

pa

rtia

lly

con

trib

ute

, b

ut n

ot s

olv

e t

he p

rob

lem

.

Th

e s

cope

of

the

fiv

e va

riabl

es

is t

oo

lim

ited

to

ca

ptu

re b

usi

ness

str

ate

gy.

E

xam

ple

s o

f ext

ra d

ime

nsi

ons

the

y us

e

are

Ne

w P

rodu

ct D

eve

lop

men

t, O

rgan

iza

tion

al S

tru

ctu

re e

tc. A

cuity

an

d

Inn

ova

tive

ness

co

uld

be

ad

ded

in t

his

list

.

It is

an

op

era

tion

al t

ool,

me

rely

mea

nt

to

tra

nsl

ate

str

ate

gic

dec

isio

ns

and

bus

ine

ss

Con

cept

s in

SC

M t

erm

s an

d p

roce

sses

. T

he

refo

re,

ther

e is

no

ne

ed

to e

nric

h t

he f

ive

P

erf

orm

an

ce A

ttrib

ute

s.

Th

e b

idire

ctio

na

l tra

nsp

are

ncy

is t

he

ma

in

stre

ngth

of

the

mo

de

l wh

en

it c

om

es

to

Bu

sin

ess

Str

ate

gy

with

in t

he

SC

M d

om

ain

.

Th

e c

on

trib

utio

n o

f a

ny

an

aly

tica

l to

ol

is p

erip

hera

l an

d of

se

con

dary

im

po

rta

nce

. It

is t

he

pro

fess

iona

l e

xpe

rien

ce a

nd p

ract

ica

l th

at

rea

ssu

res

the

loca

tion

of v

iab

le

solu

tion

s

Be

ing

diff

ere

nt f

rom

yo

ur

com

pe

tito

r d

oe

sn’t

me

an

yo

u h

ave

to b

e d

iffe

ren

t in

e

very

asp

ect.

Be

nch

ma

rkin

g c

an o

nly

be

pos

itive

. S

CO

R

Mo

de

l, us

ing

sta

nda

rd d

efin

itio

ns

and

p

erf

orm

anc

e in

dic

ato

rs, p

rovi

des

an

inte

rna

lly a

nd

ext

ern

ally

co

mm

on

o

pe

ratio

nal l

an

gu

age

in S

CM

.

Th

e fi

ve P

erf

orm

anc

e A

ttrib

utes

are

ne

cess

ary

bu

t n

ot a

lwa

ys s

uffic

ien

t to

des

crib

e a

nd

cap

ture

Bus

ine

ss S

trat

eg

y. A

cuity

an

d,

esp

ecia

lly,

Inn

ova

tive

ness

are

str

ong

enr

ich

ing

o

ptio

ns.

Be

nch

ma

rkin

g is

cen

tra

l on

ly if

th

e tw

o

com

pa

nie

s p

rese

nt s

imila

r o

r a

na

log

ous

ca

pab

ilitie

s.

It is

alw

ays

impo

rta

nt

to b

enc

hma

rk

com

pa

rab

le (

pe

er)

co

mp

an

ies.

Str

ate

gic

com

pa

tibili

ty c

an

po

ten

tially

co

ntr

ibu

te w

he

n it

com

es

to b

ench

ma

rkin

g,

ho

we

ver

no

t with

in S

CO

R M

ode

l b

ou

nda

ries.

Yo

u h

ave

to c

om

pa

re a

pp

les

with

ap

ple

s w

hen

it

com

es

to b

enc

hm

ark

ing,

bo

th in

te

rms

of th

e

me

tric

s u

sed

an

d o

f th

e co

mpa

nie

s us

ing

the

m.

It is

ha

rd t

o d

ete

rmin

e a

n o

vera

ll se

t of

in

dic

ato

rs th

at

defin

e s

tra

teg

ic

com

pa

tibili

ty in

a s

yste

ma

tic w

ay.

A

ddi

tion

ally

, it

is a

lwa

ys a

pro

ble

m to

e

ffic

ient

ly m

ea

sure

su

ch in

dic

ato

rs.

Po

we

r S

tru

ctur

e P

osi

tion

ing

is p

erh

aps

a

n e

xce

ptio

n.

Bo

th P

ow

er

Str

uctu

re P

osi

tion

ing

and

V

alu

e C

rea

tion

Co

mp

atib

ility

ca

n in

cre

ase

th

e s

ucc

ess

rate

of

the

att

em

pte

d st

rate

gic

ass

essm

ent

, g

iven

the

a

ssu

mp

tion

th

ey c

an

be

ea

sily

and

e

ffe

ctiv

ely

me

asu

red

.

Po

we

r S

tru

ctur

e P

osi

tion

ing

an

d V

alu

e

Cre

atio

n C

om

pat

ibili

ty c

an

po

ten

tially

co

ntr

ibu

te in

cap

turin

g th

e c

onc

ep

t of

stra

teg

ic c

om

patib

ility

.

Alth

oug

h s

tra

tegi

c co

mp

atib

ility

ca

n b

e u

sed

in

a t

op

-do

wn

dire

ctio

n,

the

cas

e m

ay

no

t b

e th

e

sam

e f

or

a b

otto

m-u

p d

irect

ion.

It n

eed

s to

be

as

flexi

ble

as

pos

sibl

e,

lea

vin

g r

oo

m fo

r m

ane

uve

r an

d

initi

ativ

e.

Th

e s

olu

tion

s sh

ou

ld b

e c

om

ple

me

nta

rily

ad

de

d, a

void

ing

re

nde

ring

th

e m

od

el r

igid

a

nd

elim

ina

ting

op

po

rtun

itie

s fo

r im

pro

vem

en

t. E

xam

inin

g s

imila

r co

mp

an

ies

in o

the

r in

dust

ries

can

boo

st

the

qua

lity

of

the

ben

chm

ark

ing

re

sults

.

Reg

ard

ing

the

deg

ree

of c

om

ple

xity

of

SC

OR

Mod

el,

the

lig

hte

r th

e b

ett

er.

Bo

th t

he P

ow

er

Str

uct

ure

Pos

itio

nin

g a

nd

Val

ue

C

rea

tion

Co

mp

atib

ility

ind

ica

tors

th

at w

ere

d

eriv

ed

fro

m t

he

lite

ratu

re c

ould

be

use

d t

o

ass

ess

str

ate

gic

co

mp

atib

ility

.

Ta

ble

4-3

Ke

y e

lem

en

ts o

f th

is c

ha

pte

r: S

um

ma

ry o

f th

e A

rgu

me

nts

on

Bu

sin

ess

Str

ate

gy

de

riv

ed

fro

m t

he

Se

mi-

stru

ctu

red

In

terv

iew

s

Enrichin

g S

CO

R M

odel: R

ecaptu

ring the N

otions o

f B

usin

ess S

trate

gy a

nd B

usin

ess S

usta

inability

8

7

BU

SIN

ES

S S

US

TA

INA

BIL

ITY

AB

C

Hig

hli

gh

t A

tkin

s A

kr

on

Ca

lle

r

Gre

en p

olic

ies

sta

rt t

o flo

uris

h o

nly

wh

en

cu

sto

mer

s st

art

to d

em

and

them

.

We

hav

e to

get

rid

of

sub

-opt

imiz

atio

n,

of t

he

unc

oor

din

ated

sp

asm

odi

c ac

tion

s of

all

the

act

ors

invo

lved

.

Th

ere

is n

o k

ind

of c

onfli

ct

betw

ee

n S

C m

an

ag

ers

and

en

viro

nm

en

talis

ts r

eco

rde

d.

Th

e b

lam

e li

es o

n th

e c

orp

ora

te s

ide

.

Th

e in

flue

nce

of

the

SC

C is

lim

ited

an

d its

co

ntr

ibu

tion

bo

und

to S

CO

R M

od

el f

ea

ture

s.

Bro

ad

er

org

an

iza

tions

are

the

on

es

to p

rom

ote

su

sta

ina

ble

ove

r co

nve

ntio

na

l so

lutio

ns.

It is

th

e e

sta

blis

hm

en

t of

an

inte

gra

ted

ap

pro

ach

, exp

an

din

g,

at l

eas

t, to

all

com

mo

n a

ctiv

itie

s -

such

as

the

on

e o

f pr

od

uct

deve

lop

men

t - th

at

is

beco

min

g n

ece

ssa

ry.

Th

e k

ey t

o e

sta

blis

hin

g

sust

ain

ab

ility

in S

CM

is t

o p

ut i

t on

th

e co

rpor

ate

age

nda

.

SC

ma

na

ge

rs a

nd e

nviro

nm

enta

lists

do

not

disa

gre

e o

n t

he

pro

mo

tion

of s

ust

ain

ab

ility

.

Th

e a

ppro

ach

of

the

SC

C t

o e

qu

aliz

e

sust

ain

abi

lity

with

eco

-eff

icie

ncy

is ju

stifi

ed.

Th

e

incl

usi

on

of

nat

ura

l and

so

cie

tal s

usta

ina

ble

a

spec

ts in

SC

M is

als

o im

po

rta

nt a

nd u

rgen

t, b

ut

no

t a

re

spo

nsi

bili

ty o

f th

e S

CC

.

SC

OR

Mod

el i

s b

ou

nd to

ass

ess

sust

ain

ab

ility

on

th

e c

arb

on fo

otp

rint

patt

ern

.

Bu

sin

ess

Sus

tain

ab

ility

is a

st

rate

gic

issu

e,

deriv

ing

fro

m

the

ove

rarc

hin

g b

usi

ness

pla

n.

Eq

ua

lizin

g s

ust

ain

ab

ility

to

eco

-eff

icie

ncy

ind

icat

es

lack

of

resp

ons

ibili

ty.

Th

ere

is n

o s

uch

th

ing

as

conf

lict

be

twe

en S

C

ma

na

ge

rs a

nd

env

iron

me

nta

lists

.

Th

e c

ontr

ibut

ion

of

com

pan

ies

is

bou

nd

to b

e li

mite

d a

s w

ell,

bou

nd b

y th

e c

on

cep

t of

pro

fita

bili

ty.

Th

e “

resp

onsi

bili

ty”

for

the

pro

mo

tion

of

sust

ain

abili

ty

with

in S

CM

go

es

fro

m t

he

SC

C

to c

orp

ora

tions

.

Co

mp

an

ies

sho

uld

act

ive

ly a

nd

vo

lunt

aril

y b

eha

ve

tow

ard

s su

sta

inab

ility

.

Th

e in

dus

try

sect

or

is a

pro

min

ent

diff

ere

ntia

ting

fa

cto

r w

he

n d

iscu

ssin

g a

bou

t su

sta

ina

bili

ty.

Su

bst

antia

l so

lutio

ns

in t

he

sust

ain

ab

ility

do

ma

in c

an

onl

y b

e

exp

ect

ed

from

gov

ern

men

tal

initi

ativ

es.

Eco

-eff

icie

ncy

is n

ot

en

oug

h to

pr

ovi

de

a c

om

pan

y w

ith th

e

“gre

en

” st

am

p.

Ta

ble

4-4

Ke

y e

lem

en

ts o

f th

is c

ha

pte

r: S

um

ma

ry o

f th

e A

rgu

me

nts

on

Bu

sin

ess

Su

sta

ina

bil

ity

de

riv

ed

fro

m t

he

Se

mi-

stru

ctu

red

In

terv

iew

s


- 88 -

5. Design Principles and Conceptual Design

5.1. Introduction

As it was clarified already by the early beginning of this research, the

purpose here is two-fold; on one hand, the exploration and evaluation of

the way Business Strategy and Business Sustainability are captured by

SCOR Model; on the other hand, on the basis of this evaluation, the

proposal and conceptualization of an updated version of the model. In

this respect, the purpose of this section is to accumulate and synthesize

the interview results, set the design principles and guidelines that will

overarch the updated version proposal and finally march on to the

realization of the conceptual design and to a corresponding evaluation.

In specific, this section consists of four parts. First of all, the results of the

interviews are assessed. Much of the information gathered through the

interviews repeats itself while some points are peripheral to the core of

this research. A clearance process is attempted in this part, a process that

will accumulate and synthesize the interview results into design

principles. If it is to effectively use the interview results and responsibly

confront the located room for SCOR Model improvement, there should be

at least an attempt to organize the accumulated information and propose

a solution. The second part of this section includes this attempt to

organize the derived design principles and extract corresponding

guidelines for the conceptual design. On the basis of this attempt, the

third part proposes a solution to deal with the located room for SCOR

Model improvement, by conceptualizing a design for an updated version

of the model. The fourth and final part of this section contains an

evaluation of this design process. As it was explained in the Research Design section, a supply chain

expert, former employee of the SCC, has been approached in this direction and will undertake the task

of this evaluation.

This section is the final one actively contributing to this research endeavor. It basically draws the line

between the specific research estate and the future research territory. Therefore, it will also lead to a

number of deductions and observations that, along with the already generated conclusions, will be

included in the upcoming closing section. This remark is made to stress the centrality of this section to

this research, a research that aspires not only to locate a problem, but also to provide a plausible

solution. The described line of reasoning that overarches this section is depicted on the following figure:

Introduction

Research Framework


Conceptual Design

Interview Results



Conclusions and

Recommendations


Outline: Design Principles

and Conceptual Design


- 89 -

Figure 5-2 Four Steps from Interview Results to Conceptual Design

5.2. Results Accumulation and Synthesis to Design Principles

As it becomes apparent from a quick overview of the tables that summarize the results of the

interviews, much of the gathered information repeats itself or hovers around the same topic. Partly

because of the focus of the interview questionnaire, partly due to their similar experiences and

judgments, the respondents, in many cases, came with identical answers or commented on the same

topic. Although this repetition reinforces the trustworthiness on the results, it needs to be filtered out if

it is to use these results in practice. This is the aim of this paragraph: to accumulate and synthesize the

results, by getting rid of repetition and by aggregating related arguments around central topics. This

process will be again conducted under two categories, those referring to the concepts of Business

Strategy and Business Sustainability respectively, and will yield corresponding design principles

whenever possible.

Business Strategy

There are five main topics around which the argumentation of the interviewees is hovering around.

Either in agreement or disagreement, the arguments of the selected supply chain representatives

around these topics need to be organized, become part of the same story and lead to a number of

design principles. This process takes place below, separately for each one of the five recognized topics.

A. SCOR Model approach on Business Strategy

The arguments recorded under this topic are presented on the following table:

1. Business Strategy is the first element, to examine and start from, when it comes to Supply Chain

Management. The five Performance Attributes are necessary but not sufficient. Acuity and

Innovativeness could partially contribute, but not solve the problem.

2. The five Performance Attributes are necessary but not always sufficient to describe and capture

Business Strategy. Acuity and, especially, Innovativeness are strong enriching options.

3. The scope of the five variables is too limited to capture business strategy. Examples of extra

dimensions they use are Strategy, Geography, Culture, Business Size, Tax, New Product

Development and Organizational Structure. Acuity and Innovativeness could be added in this list.

4. The contribution of any analytical tool is peripheral and of secondary importance. It is the

professional experience and practical wisdom that reassures the location of viable solutions.

5. It is an operational tool, merely meant to translate strategic decisions and business Concepts in

SCM terms and processes. Therefore, there is no need to enrich the five Performance Attributes.


- 90 -

6. The bidirectional transparency is the main strength of the model when it comes to Business

Strategy within the SCM domain.

Table 5-1 Arguments regarding the approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy

Regarding the first part of the first argument, SCOR Model does take Business Strategy into

consideration, and actually in a quite central position. The five Performance Attributes and the

“Superior”-“Advantage”-“Parity” tool, initiating the function of the model, are indicative elements of

this fact. The design principle (DP) derived from this argument is the following:

DP1: SCOR Model should confront Business Strategy as the first element to examine and start

from.

The second part of the first argument, along with the second and the third arguments, work on the

same direction. They all point out the limited scope of the five Performance Attributes when it comes to

capturing Business Strategy. They are all necessary but not always sufficient. In this direction, Acuity and

Innovativeness, the two indicators located in the literature as potential enrichments to the attempt of

capturing Business Strategy, were generally positively evaluated. On the same track, one of the

interviewees revealed the fact that they enrich this set of attributes when using SCOR Model within his

company, by adding a number of extra dimensions such as Strategy, Geography, Culture, Business Size,

Tax, New Product Development and Organizational Structure. The design principle to be deducted here

is the following:

DP2: SCOR Model should enrich the set of the five Performance Attributes with extra

dimensions, if it is to holistically capture the concept of Business Strategy.

The fourth argument is somewhat contradicting this design endeavor, since it diminishes the

contribution of analytical tools in capturing Business Strategy. They are considered to be of secondary

importance and are positioned quite opposite to professional experience and practical wisdom, which

are the main dynamos behind the location of viable solutions. If it is to derive a design principle from

this argument, it would be the following:

DP3: SCOR Model should keep central the role of and be complementary to the professional

experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners

The fifth argument under this topic sets a limit to the strategic expansion of SCOR Model. Actually, it

underlines the fact that SCOR Model is an operational tool, merely meant to translate strategic decisions

and business Concepts in Supply Chain Management terms and processes. Thereby, the corresponding

design principle is the following:


- 91 -

DP4: SCOR Model should remain an operational tool and use the concept of Business Strategy

merely to translate strategic decisions and business Concepts in Supply Chain Management

terms and processes, and vice versa.

The final argument stresses the bidirectional transparency as the main strength of the model when it

comes to Business Strategy, because it enables the quick and easy transition from business to

operational concepts and vice versa. The corresponding design principle states that:

DP5: SCOR Model should retain this bidirectional transparency when it comes to Business

Strategy, allowing the quick and easy transition from business to operational concepts and vice

versa.

B. SCOR Model and Benchmarking

The arguments referring to this topic are presented on the following table:

1. Benchmarking is central only if the two companies present similar or analogous capabilities.

2. It is always important to benchmark comparable (peer) companies.

3. Being different from your competitor doesn’t mean you have to be different in every aspect.

4. Benchmarking can only be positive. SCOR Model, using standard definitions and performance

indicators, provides an internally and externally common operational language in SCM.

5. You have to compare apples with apples when it comes to benchmarking, both in terms of the

metrics used and of the companies using them.

Table 5-2 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Benchmarking

Regarding the first argument, it refers to the importance of comparing companies that present similar or

analogous capabilities. Support to this argument is also provided by the second argument and by the

second part of the fifth argument. If it is to draw a design principle from these arguments, this would be

the following:

DP6: SCOR Model should strive to promote the occurrence of benchmarking between companies

with similar capabilities.

Apparently, there are constraints in this approach, there are factors inhibiting the exact transfer from

theory to practice. The first one is the extent up to which this similarity between benchmarked

companies is a necessary benchmarking prerequisite. Apparently, as the third argument declares, there

are Supply Chain aspects where competitive similarity is not necessarily negative. Secondly, one should

not forget the unquestionable benchmarking benefits. As it is explained in the fourth argument and in

the first part of the fifth, benchmarking metrics provide a valuable, internally and externally common,

operational language in the domain of Supply Chain Management. These two inhibiting factors can be

translated in the following design principles:


- 92 -

DP7: SCOR Model should take into consideration that practitioners do not need to be different in

every competitive aspect.

DP8: SCOR Model should not abandon its benchmarking character, simply because the

utilization of standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally and

externally common, operational language in Supply Chain Management.

C. SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility

The arguments relevant to this topic are gathered on the following table:

1. Strategic compatibility can potentially contribute when it comes to benchmarking, however not

within SCOR Model boundaries.

2. Although strategic compatibility can be used in a top-down direction, the case may not be the

same for a bottom-up direction.

Table 5-3 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility

The first argument validates the contribution of strategic compatibility, as it has been defined in this

research, in overcoming the recorded benchmarking pitfalls. Nevertheless, from a practitioner’s point of

view, this notion cannot be appropriately captured within SCOR Model boundaries. On the same track,

the second argument reveals the concern of another practitioner, claiming that, although strategic

compatibility could be communicated in a top-down direction, the case might not be the same in a

bottom-up pattern, given the lack of business people’s familiarity with operational concepts. As a result,

the advantageous, already mentioned, bidirectional transparency of SCOR Model could be lost. An

overview of these arguments, while keeping in mind the particular filters described under the results

section, leads to the extraction of the following design principles:

DP9: SCOR Model should somehow capture the concept of strategic compatibility, since it can

contribute in overcoming the recorded benchmarking pitfalls.

DP10: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a level that it does

not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners, who are not always fond of

business notions.

DP11: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a way that it does not violate the

model’s bidirectional transparency, in a way that it allows business people deal with operational

concepts, in the way it happens in the opposite direction.

D. SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility Indicators

The arguments referring to this topic are presented on the following table:


- 93 -

1. It is hard to determine an overall set of indicators that define strategic compatibility in a

systematic way. Additionally, it is always a problem to efficiently measure such indicators. Power

Structure Positioning is perhaps an exception.

2. Both Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility can increase the success rate

of the attempted strategic assessment, given the assumption they can be easily and effectively

measured.

3. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility can potentially contribute in

capturing the concept of strategic compatibility.

4. Both the Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility indicators that were

derived from the literature could be used to assess strategic compatibility.

Table 5-4 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Literature Indicators

This topic overarches arguments related to the appropriateness of the indicators derived from the

literature to define the concept of strategic compatibility. To make the long story short and stick to the

essence of the process deployed under this paragraph, both of the located indicators are more or less

considered capable of contributing in the described direction, with some fluctuations though in their

prioritization due to individual preferences. The second prominent common denominator of these

arguments is the necessity to accompany these indicators with efficient, defining metrics. Summarizing,

the design principle that arises here is the following:

DP12: SCOR Model could use the indicators derived from the literature or any other relevant

indicator to practically, but perhaps partially, define strategic compatibility, always though with

the necessary and sufficient condition that they can be efficiently defined and measured.

E. SCOR Model and Flexibility

The arguments related to this topic are presented on the following table:

1. It needs to be as flexible as possible, leaving room for maneuver and initiative.

2. Regarding the degree of complexity of SCOR Model, the lighter is the better.

3. The solutions should be complementarily added, avoiding rendering the model rigid and

eliminating opportunities for improvement. Examining similar companies in other industries can

boost the quality of the benchmarking results.

Table 5-5 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Flexibility

This is the final topic regarding the interviewees’ argumentation towards Business Strategy. It is related

to the extent up to which an analytical tool such as SCOR Model should be systematic and rigid or

flexible and abstract. In this respect, the first and second arguments emphasize on the human side,

underlining the necessity to keep the model light, to provide practitioners with room for maneuver and

initiative. The third argument, on the other hand, focuses on the model side, stressing the importance of

adding new features in a complementary pattern so as to avoid rendering the model rigid and

eliminating opportunities for improvement. The example that is brought on in this direction is the


- 94 -

examination of strategically similar companies classified in other industries, which can boost the

benchmarking results but could also be overlooked by a rigid, industry-specific model. The design

principles that embody the arguments on this topic are the following:

DP13: SCOR Model should be as flexible as possible, leaving room for maneuver and initiative.

DP14: SCOR Model should add new solutions horizontally and complementarily, so as to avoid

rendering the function rigid, or else the funnel slow-flowing, and eliminating opportunities for

improvement.


Contrary to the case of Business Strategy, there will be no design principles derived for the Business

Sustainability case. The arguments of the interviewees will be again organized around three central

topics, which, however, will not be followed by the extraction of design principles, for a simple reason.

Unlike the case of Business Strategy, the improvement of SCOR Model’s Business Sustainability

approach was found to fall out of the model’s scope. As it will be analyzed below each one of these

three central topics, the respondents particularly and repeatedly expressed their opinion that further

improvement of the way SCOR Model captures Business Sustainability should not be a concern of the

SCC, which, for the moment, deals optimally with Business Sustainability. Therefore, this paragraph will

be limited to the organization of the results so that they become part of the same story, a story that will

be used to record the described truth, not to propose a solution.

A. Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain

The arguments related to this topic are included in the following table:

1. There is no such thing as conflict between SC Managers and Environmentalists.

2. There is no kind of conflict between SC managers and Environmentalists recorded.

3. SC Managers and Environmentalists do not disagree on the promotion of sustainability.

4. Green policies start to flourish only when customers start to demand them.

5. We have to get rid of sub-optimization, of the uncoordinated spasmodic actions of all the actors

involved.

6. It is the establishment of an integrated approach, expanding, at least, to all common activities

(such as the one of product development) that is becoming necessary.

7. The key to establishing sustainability in SCM is to put it on the corporate agenda.

8. Companies should actively and voluntarily behave towards sustainability.

9. The industry sector is a prominent differentiating factor when discussing about sustainability.

10. Business Sustainability is a strategic issue, deriving from the overarching business plan.

Table 5-6 Arguments regarding the Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply

Chain Management Domain


- 95 -

The first three arguments almost coincide and come to invalidate the hypothesis of the SCC that it is this

conflict that hampers the utilization of SCOR Model’s “green” features. Starting from here, there is a

number of arguments coming, attempting to explain this corporate resistance to sustainability. In this

respect, the fourth argument classifies sustainability as a demand-driven idea, by making the remark

that green policies start to flourish only when customers start to demand them. This way, this argument

locates the described resistance on the fact that customers remain indifferent regarding sustainability.

On the other hand, the fifth argument states that it is a matter of sub-optimization, the explanation lies

on the uncoordinated spasmodic actions of all the actors involved. Therefore, it is the establishment of

an integrated approach, expanding, at least, to all common activities that is becoming necessary,

according to the sixth argument. The example of new product development activities is brought on, to

illustrate an area of intersection between the actors involved in Supply Chain Management. Namely,

these actors are customers, corporations, governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Furthermore, the seventh argument claims that the key to establishing sustainability in Supply Chain

Management is to put it on the corporate agenda. The eighth argument also comes to give support to

this confrontation, stating that it is companies that should actively and voluntarily behave towards

sustainability, meaning that the actual inhibiting factor is their resistance to participate. Apparently, as

the ninth argument states, the industry sector is a prominent differentiating factor when discussing

about sustainability in such terms. However, according to the tenth argument, it is an overall truth that

Business Sustainability is a strategic issue deriving from the overarching business plan, which

correspondingly and after all determines whether a company will pursue sustainable solutions or not.

For the record, this final argument, except for presenting a technology-push perception of sustainability,

it also links to the assumption made from the early beginning of this research, that Business Strategy

and Business Sustainability, although probably influencing each other, will be confronted as two

independent concepts.

The conclusion of this topic is that all the recorded arguments imply a lack of coordination when it

comes to the promotion of Business Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management domain. No matter

whether sustainability is confronted as a demand-pull or technology-push concept, there is an overall

agreement that the involved parties should act jointly and accordingly so as to establish the concept of

sustainability in Supply Chain Management. With regard now to who would be responsible to undertake

this responsibility and promote Business Sustainability, it is the next topic that carries on this line of

reasoning.

B. Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain

The arguments relevant to this topic are presented in the following table:

1. The influence of the SCC is limited and its contribution bound to SCOR Model features. Broader

organizations are the ones to promote sustainable over conventional solutions.

2. The “responsibility” for the promotion of sustainability within SCM goes from the SCC to

corporations.


- 96 -

3. The blame lies on the corporate side.

4. The contribution of companies is bound to be limited as well, bound by the concept of

profitability.

5. Substantial solutions in the sustainability domain can only be expected from governmental

initiatives.

Table 5-7 Arguments regarding the Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply

Chain Management Domain

As it has become apparent already from the previous topic of discussion, the influence of the SCC

regarding the promotion of sustainability is limited and its contribution bound to SCOR Model features.

As it is supported by the first argument of this topic, broader organizations are the ones responsible to

promote sustainable over conventional solutions. With respect to who could be the next candidate, this

research has yield two arguments. Specifically, the second and the third argument put the blame on the

corporate side, arguing that the “responsibility” for the promotion of sustainability, within Supply Chain

Management, goes from the SCC to corporations. However, it has to be mentioned at this point that

both these arguments have been connected to a corresponding filter during their analysis within the

Results section. To make the long story short, they have been both found to be heavily influenced by the

nature of the industry they are derived from, and as a result they were considered sufficient merely to

take the responsibility from the SCC, not to actually locate the responsible actor.

The fourth and fifth arguments of this topic, combined, clarify the positioning of this research regarding

the responsibility of corporations when it comes to the promotion of sustainability in the Supply Chain

Management domain. In fact, the contribution of companies is also considered bound to be limited,

bound by the concept of profitability. As long as there are no economic incentives involved, companies

will never care about sustainability in essence. Therefore, substantial solutions in the sustainability

domain can only be expected from governmental initiatives. Governmental bodies are the only one able,

and thus responsible, to promote sustainability, either through economic incentives or by imposing

regulations. Once such initiatives start to take place, corporations will develop an interest in “green”

solutions and customers will start to demand them. Then, it will be beyond doubt a responsibility of the

SCC to holistically capture the concept of Business Sustainability. As it was supported in the Results

section, the Chemical Industry paradigm can be seen as a predecessor of the described series of events.

C. Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency

The arguments related to this topic are gathered in the following table:

1. The approach of the SCC to equalize sustainability with eco-efficiency is justified. The inclusion of

natural and societal sustainable aspects in SCM is also important and urgent, but not a

responsibility of the SCC.

2. SCOR Model is bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint pattern.

3. Eco-efficiency is not enough to provide a company with the “green” stamp.


- 97 -

4. Equalizing sustainability to eco-efficiency indicates lack of (corporate) responsibility.

Table 5-8 Arguments regarding the Topic of Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency

Having removed the responsibility for the promotion of sustainability from the SCC shoulders, it is now

time to focus on the way SCOR model currently deals with the concept of Business Sustainability. As it

has been clarified so far, SCOR Model actually equalizes sustainability with eco-efficiency. According to

the first argument under this topic, this approach is justified. Although the inclusion of natural and

societal sustainable aspects in Supply Chain Management is also important and urgent, it is not a

responsibility of the SCC. Given the overall picture as it was described in the previous topics and as the

second argument here claims, SCOR Model is bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint

pattern.

Apparently, the deduction of the third argument that eco-efficiency is not enough to provide a company

with the “green” stamp, is justified and straightforward. Simultaneously though, it would be unrealistic

to expect from the SCC to undertake the promotion of natural and societal sustainable aspects within

the Supply Chain Management domain. The fourth argument claims that equalizing sustainability to eco-

efficiency indicates lack of corporate responsibility. Taking into consideration that this argument is

derived from the Chemical Industry and by bringing in mind the corresponding analysis and filter, it is

safe to conclude that this equalization actually indicates lack of governmental intervention, coordination

and, yes, even responsibility. In this context, the approach of the SCC on Business Sustainability and the

way it is captured by SCOR Model are considered to be more than sufficient, since there is no room for

improvement in this direction and under their authority.

5.3. Extraction of Design Guidelines

On the basis of the design principles derived so far, a set of design guidelines are extracted, guidelines

that will overarch the conceptual design process. The purpose of these guidelines and the reason they

are extracted is to organize the design principles around central topics, unify their essence and come up

with corresponding fundamental design directions. These design guidelines/ directions represent the

conclusions of this research that should essentially be incorporated in an updated version proposal, if it

is to deal with the recognized issues. Apparently, these guidelines refer merely to the Business Strategy

part of this research, since it has been clarified that improvements regarding the Business Sustainability

part fall out of the scope of SCOR Model.

Hopefully, the central topics, from which the design guidelines will be extracted, have already been

recognized. As it was claimed in the previous paragraph, there have been five central topics around

which the opinions of the interviewees have been hovering around. These topics, along with the

corresponding design principles, are presented in the following table and are subsequently analyzed and

assessed so as to lead in the expected design guidelines.


- 98 -

Design Principles

A.

Bu

sin

ess

Str

ate

gy

Ap

pro

ach

DP1: SCOR Model should confront Business Strategy as the first element to examine and start

from.

DP2: SCOR Model should enrich the set of the five Performance Attributes with extra dimensions, if

it is to holistically capture the concept of Business Strategy.

DP3: SCOR Model should keep central the role of and be complementary to the professional

experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners.

DP4: SCOR Model should remain an operational tool and use the concept of Business Strategy

merely to translate strategic decisions and business Concepts in Supply Chain Management terms

and processes, and vice versa.

DP5: SCOR Model should retain this bidirectional transparency when it comes to Business Strategy,

allowing the quick and easy transition from business to operational concepts and vice versa.

B.

Be

nch

ma

rkin

g

DP6: SCOR Model should strive to promote the occurrence of benchmarking between companies

with similar capabilities.

DP7: SCOR Model should take into consideration that practitioners do not need to be different in

every competitive aspect.

DP8: SCOR Model should not abandon its benchmarking character, simply because the utilization

of standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally and externally

common, operational language in Supply Chain Management.

C.

Str

ate

gic

Co

mp

ati

bil

ity

DP9: SCOR Model should somehow capture the concept of strategic compatibility, since it can

contribute in overcoming the recorded benchmarking pitfalls.

DP10: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a level that it does

not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners, who are not always fond of

business notions.

DP11: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a way that it does not violate the

model’s bidirectional transparency, in a way that it allows business people deal with operational

concepts, in the way it happens in the opposite direction.

D.

Ind

ica

tors

DP12: SCOR Model could use the indicators derived from the literature or any other relevant

indicator to practically, but perhaps partially, define strategic compatibility, always though with

the necessary and sufficient condition that they can be efficiently defined and measured.

E.

Fle

xib

ilit

y

DP13: SCOR Model should be as flexible as possible, leaving room for maneuver and initiative.

DP14: SCOR Model should add new solutions horizontally and complementarily, so as to avoid

rendering the function rigid, or else the funnel slow-flowing, and eliminating opportunities for

improvement.

Table 5-9 Design Principles


- 99 -

The first topic, or else the approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy, generates two prominent

design guidelines. The first refers to the inability of the current version of the model to connect directly

to the Business Strategy of the implementing company. As a result, the bidirectional transparency of the

model is under threat, a threat that needs to be allayed if the object here is to equally move from

strategic to operational terms and vice versa. The second guideline refers to the way SCOR Model

attempts to capture the concept of Business Strategy, i.e. using a set of five Performance Attributes. In

this respect, this research points out the weakness of this approach and the necessity to enrich the set

in use, offering a number of options. Summarizing:

The next three topics, or else benchmarking, strategic compatibility and strategic compatibility

indicators, reflect on the benchmarking character of SCOR Model, the corresponding rising issues and

the way they should be dealt with. In this respect, it is claimed that the concept of strategic

compatibility could aid in the alleviation of benchmarking issues; therefore, it should be expressed on

the basis of representative indicators. To sum up:

Regarding the fifth central topic or else the flexibility of SCOR Model, it cannot lead to the extraction of

a non-shallow design guideline. That is, indeed SCOR Model should by all means retain its flexibility.

However, this is more of a design constraint than a design guideline. Therefore, the corresponding

design principles can only be seen and used as constraints to the already extracted design guidelines.

This observation brings this paragraph to an end and prepares the ground for the next, vital one, where

Third Design Guideline

The updated version of SCOR Model should somehow exclude benchmarking on strategically

incompatible companies.

Second Design Guideline

The updated version of SCOR Model should reinforce the current incomplete capture of the

term Business Strategy.

First Design Guideline

The updated version of SCOR Model should deal with the lack of direct connection to the

Business Strategy of the implementing company.


- 100 -

the extracted design guidelines are used towards the conceptual design of an updated version of the

model.

5.4. Conceptual Design

Once the design guidelines have been derived, it is now time to step into the essence of this section and

the conceptualization of a potential updated version of the model. This updated version attempts to

take into account and deal with the problems and the opportunities for improvement located by the

interviewees, in a format that does not contradict pertinent criteria and constraints. The presentation of

the conceptual design runs in parallel with a description of the current SCOR Model design, in an

attempt to illustrate the directions of improvement. Specifically, there are two aspects examined and

compared, i.e. the functioning approach of both designs and their interference with the corresponding

decision making process.

In this direction, the first important step is to examine the current version of SCOR Model and assess the

pertinent functioning approach and decision-making interference. Regarding the functioning approach,

it can be said that there are four steps between the initial strategic assessment of the implementing

company’s supply chain and the actual location of corresponding supply chain solutions. First of all, the

“Superior-Advantage-Parity” tool is used to determine the current and future desired strategic

positioning of the implementing company. This process occurs on the basis of the five performance

attributes, i.e. SC Responsiveness, SC Reliability, SC Flexibility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency. The

second step refers to the selection of metrics, representative of each one of the targeted performance

categories. Then, the third step benchmarks the performance of the implementing company on the

selected metrics to the analogous of the pertinent best-in-class companies. Depending on the strategic

targets set, the metrics selected and the corresponding distance from these targets and on these

metrics -in performance terms-, the competitive gap is determined. The final step is used to present a

number of supply chain operations, as solutions towards the elimination of the located distances. The

functioning approach of this version is also depicted on the following figure.


- 101 -

1st

Step:

Using the Competitive Positioning Chart (or “Superior-Parity-Advantage” Tool) to determine the current and desired future positioning, on the basis of the five Performance Attributes

SC Responsiveness


SC Costs

SC Agility

SC Reliability

Current Positioning Future Positioning

Superior

Advantage

Parity

SC Responsiveness


SC Costs

SC Agility

SC Reliability

Perfect Order Fulfillment

Return on Fixed Assets

SC Management Cost

Upside SC Flexibility

Order Fulfillment Cycle Time

2nd

Step:

Selection of the metrics considered to be vital and representative for each one of the targeted performance categories

Perfect Order Fulfillment

Return on Fixed Assets

SC Management Cost

Upside SC Flexibility

Order Fulfillment Cycle Time

98%

289%

2,1%

62 days

14 days

Company

Performance

96%

100%

2,8%

62 days

4 days

Industry

Average

-2%

-189%

-0,7%

0 days

10 days

Competitive

Gap

Competitive

GapSelection of Appropriate

Best Practices

3rd

Step:

Benchmarking the performance of the implementing company on the selected metrics to the analogous of the pertinent best-in-class companies; Depending on the targets set, the metrics selected and the corresponding distance from these targets and on these metrics -in performance terms-, the competitive gap is determined

4th

Step:

A number of supply chain operations can be proposed as solutions towards the elimination of the located distances

Figure 5-3 SCOR Model Current Functioning Approach

According to the results of this research, there are three main issues regarding the current approach of

SCOR Model, also expressed by the design guidelines. The first one is the lack of direct connection to

the Business Strategy of the implementing company, as it is set by the top management. The second is

the incomplete capture of the term Business Strategy in supply chain terms. The third is the

benchmarking on, perhaps, strategically incompatible companies, since the characterization best-in-

class may be nothing more than impressive. Unlikely the second and the third issues, which were

already recorded by the literature review, the first issue came up during the interview sessions. As a

result, although the second and third issues have already been described and confronted, the case is not

the same for the first one. In fact, this issue is mainly related to the second SCOR aspect examined here,

i.e. the decision making interference. The following figure is revealing in this direction.


- 102 -

SCM Strategic Decisions

Strategic/ Operational

Translation Inteface

1stFunctioning Step:

Setting Operational Targets

2ndFunctioning Step:

Selecting Metrics

3rdFunctioning Step:

Benchmarking

4thFunctioning Step:

Opting for Solutions

Decision

Making in SCMSCOR Model Involvement

√

?

√

√

√

√

√

√

-

-

-

Cheklist Status Bar

Figure 5-4 SCOR Model Current Decision-Making Involvement

This figure presents a rough estimation of the decision-making process taking place within the Supply

Chain Management domain, and puts it next to SCOR Model features as an indication of the model’s

involvement. In specific, in a bottom-up perspective, SCOR Model does cover all the functioning steps

and the connections between them, and, as a matter of fact, in a rather effective manner. However, as

the second issue describes, the notion of Business Strategy is not captured effectively by the model. In

other words, the connection between the strategic/operational translation interface and the first

functioning step is problematic, as the question mark symbol also witnesses. Returning now to the first

issue, SCOR Model involvement in the decision making process is completed somewhere here, with this

question mark. The model does not take a step further to monitor the connection between supply chain

strategy and business strategy. As a consequence, although directly related, these two types of


- 103 -

strategies appear to be independent within SCOR Model boundaries. Regarding now the consequences

of this irregularity, they have already been recorded and mainly hover around the conclusion that

strategy is somehow demoted by SCOR Model.

Following the reexamination of SCOR Model current version, it is now time to present the updated

version and inspect how it deals with the functioning-approach and decision-making-interference

aspects. With respect to the functioning approach, there are two main advancements from the current

version, both filling the room for improvement as it is described by the design guidelines. The first one

refers to the enrichment of the “Superior-Advantage-Parity” tool with additional SC operational

variables. That is, although kept as the first step in this functioning approach, used to determine the

current and future desired strategic positioning of the implementing company, the tool no longer

consists merely of the five performance attributes. Instead, extra variables are added, such as

geographic location, new product development and so on, as well as Acuity and Innovativeness, derived

from the interviews and from the literature respectively. This advancement deals primarily with the

second issue, or else the incomplete capture of the term Business Strategy in supply chain terms.

The second step of the updated functioning approach remains the same, with the difference that some

extra metrics should be added to describe the potentially added performance attributes. This brings the

discussion to the second advancement, or else to the addition of an intermediate step in this functioning

approach. In detail, this step firstly defines strategic compatibility on the basis of the located variables,

that is, Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility, and perhaps a number of

additional. Then, it filters the benchmarking database so that it excludes strategically incompatible

companies from the comparison. This step is analyzed in deep later on. The essence of this

advancement is that it deals with the third issue, or else the benchmarking on, perhaps, strategically

incompatible companies, by replacing the comparison to the industry average with a comparison to

peer, strategically compatible companies. The third and fourth steps change slightly, they are simply

adjusted to follow from the described advancements. The updated functioning approach is depicted on

the following figure.


- 104 -

Figure 5-5 SCOR Model Updated Functioning Approach


- 105 -

Before continuing with the analysis of the updated version and how it deals with the second aspect

under examination, it is useful to focus on the intermediate step, the way it functions and the added

value it yields. Basically, the intermediate step consists of two sub-steps, two filtering processes, as it is

illustrated on the following figure.

Figure 5-6 Focusing on the Intermediate Step of the SCOR Model Updated Functioning Approach

First of all, the benchmarking data goes through the Power Structure Positioning (PSP) filter. Here, all

the companies of the database are positioned on the PSP spectrum, a spectrum indicating the relative

position of each company in the power structure of the industry it belongs. Apparently, the power

structure positions of the particular companies need to be weighted before put in the same spectrum,


- 106 -

weighted so as they take into account the type of the industry they belong to. For example, number

three in the Electronics Industry might not be proportional to number three in the Constructions

Industry and so on. There are various ways to attach such weights, e.g. by dividing the position of a

company with the number of the companies in the pertinent industry, or else by using the percentile

Power Structure Position. Following the positioning of the companies of the database on this spectrum,

those companies positioned in proximity to the power structure position of the implementing company

are labeled as compatible companies and make it through the PSP filter. The rest is excluded.

Again, the term proximity has to be practically defined. This is a simple task. Since the power structure

positions are weighted before put in the spectrum, they are already expressed in the same scale. Thus,

locating companies in proximity becomes straightforward. In the specific example, where percentile

power structure positions are used, the implementing company can set an absolute percentage to

define proximity, or else the Zone of strategically compatible companies. As it is depicted on the figure,

the value of 10% has been chosen here for the PSP filter. It is mentioned at this point that the possibility

offered to the implementing company to manually set the percentage of PSP compatibility adds a great

deal of versatility in the updated version. That is, it provides practitioners with the possibility to make

use of their own professional experience and practical wisdom, always in accordance with what is

indicated by the design principles.

The PSP-filtered database is ready now to go through the Value Creation Compatibility (VCC) Filter. The

idea here is exactly the same. Regarding the process of putting the companies of the database on the

VCC spectrum, there are again various ways of weighting the channels through which companies create

value. For example, profit margin is a quick and satisfying estimator of value creation. Dividing now the

profit margin of a company with the average profit margin of the industry it belongs to indicates how

VCC values can be turned into percentages, and let the implementing company determine the width of

the pertinent Zone of strategic compatible companies. As it is presented on the figure, a 20% value has

been selected here. Once now the database is both PSP- and VCC-filtered, it is ready to be used in the

SCOR Model benchmarking process, without compromising the strategic context of the implementing

company.

To bring on a simple, yet illustrative example, if it was for Dell to implement SCOR Model and in specific

this proposed benchmarking filtering process, HP would expectedly pass through the PSP filter, since

both companies have a comparable position in the Electronics Industry. However, since these

companies have different SC strategies, it would not be strategically wise for each one of them to

imitate the other. Here is where the VCC filter intervenes, to exclude HP from Dell’s benchmarking

process, since these two companies have a completely different way of creating value for themselves. It

is not considered necessary to dig into details about the SC strategies of these two companies. This is

more of a rough qualitative example, illustrating the functioning of the proposed benchmarking filtering

process. In other words, the brand names used could be considered to be imaginary.

With respect now to the involvement of the updated version with the decision-making process taking

place within the Supply Chain Management domain, it is definitely enhanced. Comparing to the same

rough estimation of decision-making process, the updated version increases the involvement of SCOR


- 107 -

Model by three levels. The enrichment of the performance attributes, along with the examination of

strategically similar companies, facilitates the strategic/ operational translation interface in both

directions; in a top-down pattern, it offers more ways to express and translate strategic decisions in

performance terms and supply chain operations; in a bottom-up pattern, it promotes the extraction of

strategic conclusions from operational subjects, since supply chain performance is now directly related

to strategic orientation. As a result, the third located issue, or else the lack of direct connection to the

Business Strategy of the implementing company, is also dealt with. The following figure illustrates the

added value deriving from the new version, as opposed to the value of the current version.

Figure 5-7 SCOR Model Updated Decision-Making Involvement


- 108 -

5.5. Design Evaluation

As it has been described several times, the output of this endeavor is put under the evaluation of a SC

expert, capable of weighing the contribution of this research and substantially commenting on the

corresponding progress made. This SC expert is Ir. Marcel Wolfs, Corporate Manager in the Supply Chain

Management of DSM N.V., from 1995 up to now. Apart from his rich experience in the Supply Chain

Management domain, as his deep background indicates, Mr. Wolfs is also well acquainted with SCOR

Model, since he has served the European Chapter of the Supply Chain Council as a Leadership Team

Member for three consecutive years, i.e. from 2006 to and including 2008. Furthermore, as it has

already been stated by the early beginning, Mr. Wolfs is also familiar with the orientation of this

research, since he was initially asked to evaluate the selected research scope and direction. Overall, the

relation of Mr. Wolfs to this research endeavor is apparent and it is an honor for the researcher to have

his work evaluated by a SCC expert of Mr. Wolfs’ caliber. It is noted that Mr. Wolfs is asked to reflect

merely on the Business Strategy part, since improvement regarding the Business Sustainability part were

found to be outside the scope of this research.

Generally speaking, Mr. Wolfs is rather fond of the selected approach on the subject. He claims that a

systematic endeavor is what is needed to deal with the essence of the specific problem, and this is what

renders the quality of this research high. Indeed, there is room for improvement regarding the approach

of SCOR Model and there should be solutions proposed, aiming to fill this room. Indeed again, strategic

compatibility can be a solution and yes, it should be examined whether it can be implemented in real

terms. Whether now such an approach is sufficient to lead to an overall solution, Mr. Wolfs expresses

his doubts. The output of this research could at best be the introduction of a customizable solution,

adjusted by the implementing companies on their own corresponding standards. Mainly though, this

research should be confronted as an academic stamp, noticing the limits of SCOR model, illustrating the

way it should be used in real terms and guiding accordingly the actual practitioners.

Specifically now, with respect to the approach of the model on Business Strategy, Mr. Wolfs agrees that

there are more aspects to examine when it comes to strategic context. The elements used in the

approach of SCOR Model are necessary but not sufficient to fully capture the concept of Business

Strategy. In this respect, he understands and supports the intuition of this research that the five

Performance Attributes are not sufficient and that a potential enrichment of this set would be a

reasonable alternative. In fact, he witnesses examples of companies that use SCOR Model as a rough

initial basis of Supply Chain Management, a basis critically enriched to deal with the specific

organizational demands of the implementing companies. That is, a customizable enrichment of the

Performance Attributes set would not only be reasonable, but also it is already out there.

Furthermore, Mr. Wolfs identifies the existence of the SCOR Model benchmarking issues recorded in

this research. He claims that the main reason of falling into the described benchmarking pitfalls is the

difficulty of defining the benchmarking sample properly. Specifically, on the basis of his experience, he

recognizes two potential explanations regarding the weakness of implementing companies to properly

define the benchmarking sample. First of all, it takes time to get acquainted with the philosophy of SCOR


- 109 -

Model, to effectively define the relationships among the various indicators, KPIs, figures and

improvement actions. Thus, difficulties in properly defining the benchmarking sample are logically

expected during this time. As precaution, Mr. Wolfs proposes internal benchmarking as a first step,

against the own performance of the implementing company. Once this reaches an acceptable level, the

implementing company can start benchmarking externally, against the performance of other companies.

The second explanation, regarding the weakness of implementing companies to properly define the

benchmarking sample, coincides with the one identified in this research. That is, the approach of the

model itself can be misleading. While being part of the SCC, Mr. Wolfs remembers of incidents, where

his group members were expressing similar worries, i.e. regarding the effectiveness of the

benchmarking approach of SCOR Model. Either assuming that the current version confronts or leaves

out these worries, proposals for improvement in this direction are more than justified. In this respect,

Mr. Wolfs considers the concept of strategic compatibility -as it is defined here- a potentially prosperous

advancement in the SCOR Model benchmarking process.

Specifically, he understands the need for benchmarking to companies with similar capabilities and

supports the action taken here. Indeed, filtering out companies that have no relation to the

implementing one can lead to the extraction of more substantial results. However, he adds a new

variable in this equation, a perspective that has not been taken into account as seriously as Mr. Wolfs

considers it should have been. He claims that benchmarking to strategically compatible companies can

only lead to incremental and not radical improvements. The reason is that strategically compatible

companies stand most of the times at the same spot; their performance does not differ greatly.

Therefore, if it is to achieve real progress and radical improvements, strategic compatibility is not what

should be primarily sought for; it is innovativeness instead.

The example that is brought on in this direction describes two hypothetical companies, one presenting a

negative cash-to-cash cycle, apparently due to the utilization of innovative solutions, and another

presenting a respectable cash-to-cash cycle of 2-3 months. Now, it may be the case that these two

companies are completely different, both in strategic and operational terms, and that there is no

conclusion to be drawn from their comparison. Nevertheless, the second company would obviously die

to -at least- find out how they do it in the first company. Then, they could examine whether the

corresponding solutions are applicable in their case. According to Mr. Wolfs, this is the only path of

achieving real progress through benchmarking practices, i.e. by putting innovative companies in the

center of analysis.

The concept of innovativeness is not something new for the solutions proposed here. Actually, this

concept was introduced as one of the attributes that could potentially enrich the Performance

Attributes set. Which solution now is most appropriate is something to be explored. The important

remark here is that, one way or another, innovativeness should be brought in the center of SCOR Model,

if it is to lead in radical advancements. This remark can be used as the overall conclusion of this

evaluation. That is, the solutions proposed here are sound and succinct, as it is the impact of this


- 110 -

research endeavor. If now radical advancements are expected by the implementation of SCOR Model,

innovativeness should be brought in the center of the attention.

5.6. Summary

This section is occupied with the accumulation of the interview results, the extraction of design

guidelines and the conceptual design of an updated SCOR Model version that fills the located room for

improvement. In this respect, the interview results are gathered and assessed. This process leads to the

extraction of a number of design principles. It is found that the interview results on Business

Sustainability are not capable of producing design principles, since they are mostly proposing solutions

that fall out of the model’s scope. Thus, the design principles produced are referring to the Business

Strategy aspect of this research. These design principles are subsequently assessed and lead to the

extraction of design guidelines. These guidelines are used for the conceptualization of an updated

version of the model. In fact, two basic advancements are proposed; one suggesting the enrichment of

the Performance Attributes and one the filtering of the benchmarking database so as to leave

strategically incompatible companies out. It is argued that the updated version is capable of dealing with

the primary issues of the current version, as they are described by the design guidelines, without

contradicting any of the design principles. This section is completed with an evaluation of the proposed

solutions, an evaluation by a supply chain expert, former member of the SCC and experienced with the

SCOR Model. Overall, the solutions are found to be sound and to the point, although extra focus on

innovation could be seen as a missing part of this SCOR Model improvement puzzle. The following table

summarizes the key elements of this chapter.

Topic Description

Design

Principles

A. Business Strategy Approach

DP1: SCOR Model should confront Business Strategy as the first element to examine and

start from.

DP2: SCOR Model should enrich the set of the five Performance Attributes with extra

dimensions, if it is to holistically capture the concept of Business Strategy.

DP3: SCOR Model should keep central the role of and be complementary to the

professional experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners.

DP4: SCOR Model should remain an operational tool and use the concept of Business

Strategy merely to translate strategic decisions and business Concepts in Supply Chain

Management terms and processes, and vice versa.

DP5: SCOR Model should retain this bidirectional transparency when it comes to Business

Strategy, allowing the quick and easy transition from business to operational concepts and

vice versa.

B. Benchmarking Process

DP6: SCOR Model should strive to promote the occurrence of benchmarking between

companies with similar capabilities.

DP7: SCOR Model should take into consideration that practitioners do not need to be

different in every competitive aspect.

DP8: SCOR Model should not abandon its benchmarking character, simply because the


- 111 -

utilization of standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally

and externally common, operational language in Supply Chain Management.

C. Strategic Compatibility

DP9: SCOR Model should somehow capture the concept of strategic compatibility, since it

can contribute in overcoming the recorded benchmarking pitfalls.

DP10: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a level that it

does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners, who are not always

fond of business notions.

DP11: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a way that it does not violate

the model’s bidirectional transparency, in a way that it allows business people deal with

operational concepts, in the way it happens in the opposite direction.

D. Indicators

DP12: SCOR Model could use the indicators derived from the literature or any other

relevant indicator to practically, but perhaps partially, define strategic compatibility, always

though with the necessary and sufficient condition that they can be efficiently defined and

measured.

E. Flexibility

DP13: SCOR Model should be as flexible as possible, leaving room for maneuver and

initiative.

DP14: SCOR Model should add new solutions horizontally and complementarily, so as to

avoid rendering the function rigid, or else the funnel slow-flowing, and eliminating

opportunities for improvement.

Design

Guidelines

1) The updated version of SCOR Model should deal with the lack of direct connection to the Business Strategy of the implementing company. 2) The updated version of SCOR Model should reinforce the current incomplete capture of the term Business Strategy. 3) The updated version of SCOR Model should somehow exclude benchmarking on strategically incompatible companies.

Performance

Attributes

Enrichment

Regarding the improvement of SCOR Model’s Business Strategy approach, an enrichment of the Performance Attributes Set is considered to be a simple, yet constructive move. First of all, there are numerous examples of such attributes, able to contribute in the described direction. Additionally, this proposal also complies with the pertinent improving constraints, since it merely builds upon the already established approach of the model. That is, it keeps the role of the model complementary to the professional experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners, and it does not alter the operational character of the model, an alteration that could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners.

Filtering

Benchmarking

Database

As far as the SCOR Model benchmarking process is concerned, the inclusion of an intermediate step, which filters out strategically incompatible companies, is considered a substantial step in the described direction, or else towards the promotion of benchmarking occurrence merely between companies with similar capabilities. This step could intervene in the functioning approach of SCOR Model just before the benchmarking process takes place. The recommended solution comes also in compliance with the constraints characterizing this direction of improvement, since it builds upon and does not alter dramatically the current approach of the model. First of all, it provides practitioners with the possibility to choose the attributes they want to be strategically different at. Secondly, it


- 112 -

retains the central role of benchmarking in SCOR Model, although in a more selective sense. After all, what this step does is to remove strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking database.

Design

Evaluation

The approach is rather systematic; it responsibly and effectively confronts the located room for improvement. The solutions proposed here are sound and succinct, as it is the impact of this research endeavor. If now radical advancements are sought for, innovativeness should be brought on in the center of the attention.



- 113 -

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

The purpose of this section is to gather and present the conclusions derived so far, in order to

systematically answer the research questions posed from the early beginning of this endeavor.

Specifically, these questions were:

There were two areas to be explored before answering these questions,

those related to Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. The

distinction between these two areas of exploration guided the entire

research endeavor, and has been the basic classification factor

throughout the presentation of all the results. As a consequence, the

same format will be followed in this section as well, with all the

conclusions being classified under the Business Strategy and Business

Sustainability categories.

Another important element to keep in mind while reading this section is

the objective of this research. Quickly, this was the following:

1. a) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Strategy concept to the alleviation

of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model


successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model

2. To set the design criteria and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can effectively

incorporate the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts

General Research Questions:

a) “How can Business Strategy practically contribute to the

alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the

enhancement of SCOR Model?”

b) “How can Business Sustainability practically contribute to

the successful incorporation of sustainable solutions,

towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”


Outline: Conclusions and

Recommendations


- 114 -

That is, the objective here has been always two-fold. Regarding the first part, it is satisfied by the

derived conclusions, which primarily answer these questions. Since though the purpose of this endeavor

has been not only to evaluate and criticize, but also to propose solutions, this second part of the

research objective needs to be satisfied as well. In this direction, a number of recommendations have

been produced, on the basis of the derived conclusions and of the author’s critical thinking. There is no

classification under the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability categories here, simply because

the character of the results did not allow the extraction of direct recommendations referring to Business

Sustainability. However, recommendations for future research are given for both these categories.

6.1. Conclusions

Business Strategy

SCOR Model Business Strategy Approach

The approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy, although systematic, straightforward and concise,

fails to capture the essence of the concept and does not elevate it in the central position it should be

when it comes to Supply Chain Management. It was found that action should be taken in this direction,

however within some constraints. In specific, there are two elements to be kept in mind when

reassessing the Business Strategy approach of SCOR Model. The first is the necessity to keep the role of

the model complementary to the professional experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners;

otherwise it may lose its flexibility, inhibit creativity and become unrealistic and useless. The second is to

keep in mind the perception of several practitioners that Supply Chain Management is mainly an

operational domain; thus, if SCOR Model contradicted this perception and exceeded the role of the

operational/ strategic translation interface, it could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners. After

all, the bidirectional transparency of the model when it comes to Business Strategy has been its basic

advantage and is not to be wasted.

SCOR Model Benchmarking Process

With regard to the benchmarking process taking place within SCOR Model, it was found that it needs to

be altered if it is to substantially contribute in the location of solutions compatible with the core

capabilities of the implementing company. In this direction, SCOR Model needs to, somehow, promote

the occurrence of benchmarking only between companies with similar capabilities. There are two

constraints framing this direction for improvement. On one hand, it should be taken into consideration

that practitioners do not need to be different in every competitive aspect. On the other hand, the

benchmarking character of the model should not be -by any means- compromised. The utilization of

standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally and externally common,

operational language in Supply Chain Management, a language that needs to be not only retained, but

also promoted.


- 115 -

SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility

The concept of strategic compatibility, as it has been described in this research, needs to be taken into

account by SCOR Model, as an ideal remedy against the recorded benchmarking pitfalls. There are two

elements to keep in mind here. The first refers to the occasional denial of several practitioners to

interfere with business notions. In this respect, SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a

pattern and at a level that it does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners.

Secondly, the incorporation of strategic compatibility in SCOR Model should comply with the model’s

bidirectional transparency. That is, it should promote the interference of business people with

operational concepts, just as it happens in the opposite direction; it should not violate what has already

been effectively established.


Regarding the subject of defining and measuring strategic compatibility, extra attention needs to be

placed on the selection of the corresponding indicators. There have been located many alternative

indicators and probably there could be found several more. In any case, though, the necessary and

sufficient condition for the selected indicators is that they can be efficiently defined and measured.

Additionally, it should be kept in mind that strategic compatibility is more of a subjective concept than

an objective value. Therefore, it may not be possible to end up with a set of indicators that can be

universally applied. A customizable solution is needed, since it seems to be more suitable in this case.

SCOR Model and Flexibility

Above all, when it comes to the incorporation of new features and concepts, preserving the level of

flexibility characterizing SCOR Model is a prominent prerequisite. It has already been witnessed by

several practitioners that SCOR Model gets complex and rigid, especially as the level of analysis

increases. Apparently, this perception should at least not deteriorate. Therefore, new features have to

be added horizontally and complementarily, so as to avoid rendering the function of the model rigid.


Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain

The SCC perception, presenting corporate disputes between supply chain managers and

environmentalists as the main factor inhibiting the utilization of SCOR Model’s “green” features, is

falsified. Instead, there are several alternative arguments rising to explain corporate resistance to

sustainability. The indifference of the customers, the uncoordinated spasmodic actions of the actors

involved and the fact that sustainability is still out of the corporate agenda are the main ones. Overall,

the common denominator is that the involved parties should act jointly and accordingly so as to

establish the concept of sustainability in Supply Chain Management. With regard now to who should

undertake the responsibility of coordinating the actors and promoting Business Sustainability, SCC and

SCOR Model are not even close.


- 116 -

Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain

Broader organizations are the ones responsible to promote sustainable over conventional solutions. The

contribution of companies in this direction is also considered bound to be limited, bound by the concept

of profitability. As long as there are no economic incentives involved, companies will never care about

sustainability in essence. Therefore, substantial solutions in the sustainability domain can only be

expected from governmental initiatives. Governmental bodies are the only one able, and thus

responsible, to promote sustainability, either through economic incentives or by imposing regulations.

SCOR Model: Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency

The approach of the SCC on Business Sustainability and the way it is captured by SCOR Model are

considered to be more than sufficient, since there is no room for improvement in this direction and

under their authority. Indeed, the inclusion of natural and societal sustainable aspects in Supply Chain

Management is important and urgent. Furthermore, the argument that eco-efficiency is not enough to

provide a company with the “green” stamp is also accurate. However, it would be unrealistic to expect

from the SCC to undertake the promotion of natural and societal sustainable aspects within the Supply

Chain Management domain. SCOR Model is still bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint

pattern.

6.2. Recommendations

Enriching the Performance Attributes Set

Regarding the improvement of SCOR Model’s Business Strategy approach, an enrichment of the

Performance Attributes Set is considered to be a simple, yet constructive move. First of all, there are

numerous examples of such attributes, able to contribute in the described direction. To illustrate,

Innovativeness and Acuity are two of them discovered in the literature, while Strategy, Geography,

Culture, Business Size, Tax, New Product Development and Organizational Structure are the ones

already added by Highlight Consulting B.V. for the same reasons. Additionally, this proposal also

complies with the pertinent improving constraints, since it merely builds upon the already established

approach of the model. That is, it keeps the role of the model complementary to the professional

experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners, and it does not alter the operational character of

the model, an alteration that could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners. An illustration of the

recommended solution, as it has been also visualized in the conceptual design section, is given below:


- 117 -

Updated Version:

Enrichment of Performance

Attributes

Figure 6-2 Enrichment of the Performance Attributes Set

Intermediate Step: Filtering Out Strategically Incompatible Companies

As far as the SCOR Model benchmarking process is concerned, the inclusion of an intermediate step,

which filters out strategically incompatible companies, is considered a substantial step in the described

direction, or else towards the promotion of benchmarking occurrence merely between companies with

similar capabilities. This step could intervene in the functioning approach of SCOR Model just before the

benchmarking process takes place. The recommended solution comes also in compliance with the

constraints characterizing this direction of improvement, since it builds upon and does not alter

dramatically the current approach of the model. First of all, it provides practitioners with the possibility

to choose the attributes they want to be strategically different at. Secondly, it retains the central role of

benchmarking in SCOR Model, although in a more selective sense. After all, what this step does is to

remove strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking database. The recommended

solution is depicted on the following figure, as it has been also visualized in the conceptual design

section:


- 118 -

Figure 6-3 Intermediate Step: Filtering Out Strategically Incompatible Companies

Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility

In respect of describing and defining strategic compatibility within SCOR Model, there are two main

indicators recommended, derived from the literature and supported by the interviews. These are Power

Structure Positioning (PSP) and Value Creation Compatibility (VCC), defined as:

Power Structure Positioning indicates the positioning of a company in the power structure of the

pertinent industry. Thus, the imitating company can weigh its strategic compatibility to a company,

simply by comparing their positions in the pertinent industry power structure.

Value Creation Compatibility indicates the way a company accumulates value for itself. That is, some

companies are obliged by competition to give out much value to their customers, while others have the

possibility to retain much of this value for themselves. As a result, the imitating company can again

determine its strategic compatibility to a company, simply by comparing their ways of creating and

capturing value.

These indicators, along with the proposed way for their introduction in the model, appear capable of

capturing and applying the concept of strategic compatibility, while remaining in compliance with the

corresponding constraints. First of all, this solution captures strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a

level that it does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners. Secondly, it does

comply with the bidirectional transparency of the model. Thirdly, it allows the customized use of the

added features and offers several degrees of freedom.


- 119 -


Having in mind the necessary and sufficient condition that selected indicators have to be not only

defined, but also measured efficiently, this research has already provided examples of metrics that could

accompany the PSP and VCC indicators. In fact, industrial power structures and profit margins were

recommended respectively, as concepts that can be turned into scales and thereby measure their

corresponding indicators. Apparently, the proposed metrics satisfy the pertinent condition.

Recommendations for Future Research

With respect to the Business Strategy part, recommendations for future research are mainly related to

the assessment of the proposed solutions. There are two basic solutions proposed in this research, them

being the enrichment of the Performance Attributes set and the incorporation of an intermediate step

that filters out strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking database. Both these

solutions should be assessed on the basis of four steps. First of all, the assessment of their actual

contribution and the evaluation of their overall impact should be explored. Secondly, their compatibility

with the characteristics of the current SCOR Model version should be investigated. Thirdly, the located

attributes and indicators respectively should be assessed and, if possible, enriched with other

compatible concepts. Finally, corresponding metrics should be identified and evaluated in both cases. In

general, priority should be given to quantitative approaches, since the next step of performing a

qualitative research is to come up with tangible facts and practical solutions. Whether and how the

concept of innovativeness could be brought in the center of the SCOR Model approach is another topic

to be explored in the Business Strategy direction.

In regard of the Business Sustainability part, the first recommendation is to explore whether the

confrontation of sustainability as a strategic issue can boost the promotion of the concept in the Supply

Chain Management domain. Secondly, the industry factor appears to influence strongly the translation

of sustainability in supply chain terms. Therefore, a second direction for future research is the

examination of the same issue, i.e. the diffusion of sustainability in the Supply Chain Management

domain, but within the borders of a specific industry, e.g. the pharmaceutical or the electronics industry.

Last but not least, since governmental bodies appear to be the most appropriate for promoting the

concept of sustainability in the Supply Chain Management domain, research on how these bodies can be

motivated, how cooperation between them can be stimulated and how tangible and overall solutions

can be produced and diffused is strongly recommended.

Overall, it is the personal belief of the author that it is about time for SCOR Model to take the leap into

the business world. As it is indicated by the literature and as it is supported by the decision of SCC to add

a risk management section in the latest, 10.0, version of the model, the odds are in favor of this leap.

Specifically, given that the Balanced ScoreCard (BSC) is probably the most dominant analytical tool when

it comes to business affairs, linking SCOR Model to BSC seems a rather prosperous move, able to solve

several of the strategic and sustainable issues located in SCOR Model. Whether now this connection is

straightforward or how it could be implemented in real terms, this is definitely an area to be explored.


- 120 -

7. Reflection

The long path from the beginning of this research to the extraction of the corresponding conclusions has

finally come to an end. There have been numerous arguments expressed and various elements cited, in

such an extent that several of them that are of major importance might have lost their centrality in this

research. This section takes a step backwards and looks over and beyond this research, so as to connect

these diverse components and achieve an overall consensus that stresses 1) the contribution, 2) the

character, as well as 3) the limitations of this research endeavor.

Research Contribution

First of all, the course from the recognition of the research problem to the extraction of conclusions and

recommendations has become clear so far. Following the establishment of the research objective and

the corresponding research questions, a research framework is created and adopted, a framework that

predicts the utilization of the triangulation methodology so as to combine elements from various data

sources and come up with universal and spherical deductions. There are three data sources exploited,

the first being a SC expert, former member of the SCC, the second literature and relevant publications

and the third a group of SC professionals, familiar with SCOR Model. This course has led to the

completion of this research endeavor in a rather systematic manner. What has been not yet examined is

how this adopted approach responds to the contribution of this research, as it is already expressed from

the early beginning. That is:

Indeed, guidelines and design solutions have been extracted, while it has been mentioned how this

endeavor can inspire and motivate future research. In other words, the contribution of this research is

clear and straightforward. There is not much to be said in this direction. What should be, though,

examined is the weight of this contribution, the actual importance of the final outcome. In this respect,

the character and the limitations of this research need to be discussed in deep.

Research Contribution:





case basis





- 121 -

Research Character

There are certain points that need to be stressed regarding the character of this research, that is, a) how

it is related to its core element, i.e. SCOR Model, b) whether the adopted scope is appropriate, c) how

the derived conclusions are supported by the examined literature and d) why this research can, after all,

draw the attention of the recognized clients.

a) Relation of this Research to SCOR Model

With respect to the relation of this research to its core element, SCOR Model, the initial statement, as it

is reproduced below, still expresses the character of this approach:

“There is no intention of questioning or invalidating the contribution of the SCOR Model in the Supply

Chain Management domain. This does not mean, though, that there is no room for improvement. That is,

a potential successful expansion of the model’s horizons, towards the Business Strategy and Business

Sustainability directions, would substantially improve the significance and the effectiveness of this

already established approach. Either seen as a heavy responsibility or as a generous inheritance,

research on this field is from justified to essential”.

In other words, the dynamo behind the development of this thesis is not even close to questioning the

quality and weight of SCOR Model. After all, the presence of SCOR Model in the Supply Chain

Management domain is indubitably dominant and well-respected. Therefore, a wise next step would be

to seek for ways to increase the impact of SCOR Model, to locate and fill the room for further

improvement of the model. And this is the idea here; to record the opinion of a SC expert, explore the

literature and ask SC professionals on how SCOR Model could be improved, what would be the next step

towards the improvement of the model. In this manner, value can be added in the already established

and effective approach of SCOR Model. The line of reasoning presented here is also evident in the

nature of the recommendations. That is, the recommended solutions are incremental, they do not, by

any means, question the systematic approach of SCOR Model. They merely propose a number of

additions, either peripheral or to the core of the model, which may improve the model in certain

directions. Overall, the relation of this research to SCOR Model is clearly complementary, parallel and

incrementally reinforcing.

b) Appropriateness of Adopted Scope

The second element, regarding the character of this research, is the selection of its scope. That is, why

focusing on SCOR Model, why selecting Business Strategy and Business Sustainability perspectives, and

why in the specific manner. Although a lot of discussion has been made on this topic in the introductory

section, it is important to maturely summarize these arguments while concluding. On one hand, focusing

on SCOR Model is logical, considering that this report is the outcome of a master thesis in the Supply

Chain Management domain, where the role of SCOR Model, as a managerial tool, is central. On the

other hand, the examination of notions such as Business Strategy and Business Sustainability is again

expected, since this thesis has been developed for the master program “Management of Technology”.

Whether now the selection of these two concepts to examine the potential improvement of SCOR

Model is justified, there is a number of supporting arguments. Apart from the intuition of the researcher


- 122 -

who has been specializing in the Supply Chain Management domain, the SCC itself attempts to enrich

SCOR Model in the selected here directions. Regarding Business Strategy, the SCC has included in its

latest, 10.0, release a risk management section that clearly attempts to reinforce the model by adding

strategic elements. Regarding Business Sustainability, “green” features have been added to the model

already by the 9.0 release. Furthermore, support to the potential contribution of these two concepts is

also provided by relevant literature, as well as from the interviewed here SC professionals, apparently in

an ex post pattern.

With respect now to the selection of these two concepts exclusively, it can be accounted to contextual

constraints and to the assumptions that need to be made so as to move from theory to reality. That is, it

has been claimed from the early beginning that, although there are more, and perhaps better,

opportunities for improvement, Business Strategy and Business Sustainability are the ones to be

emphasized upon and exploited here, since this report is the outcome of a master thesis and is followed

by pertinent time and budget constraints. The same goes for the prism through which these concepts

are exploited. It might not be as holistic as it should or can be, but it is a respectable initial approach. To

illustrate this latest argument, it has been claimed in several parts of this research that the examination

of Business Sustainability through the concept of Business Strategy might be the most prosperous

approach for the confrontation of both these concepts within SCOR Model, in specific, and the Supply

Chain Management domain, in general. However, such an approach requires the examination of these

concepts separately and in deep before they can be seen in positive feedback relationship. Therefore,

the boundaries of this research were set on the exploration of how these concepts interrelate with SCOR

Model, building this way the foundations for a future research that can emphasize on their mutually

reinforcing relationship.

To sum up, regarding the scope of this research and the extent up to which it affects its character, it is

noted that there are several assumptions and selections leading to the formulation of the specific topic.

These assumptions and selections allow the realization of this research in a master thesis context, and

do not compromise either the conclusions derived on the specific subject, or the conclusions that could

be derived from a similar one but based on different premises.

c) Literature Support on the Derived Conclusions

The third element, regarding the character of this research, is how the examined literature supports the

derived conclusions. With respect to the Business Strategy part, there were four main articles leading to

the creation of the interview framework and the continuation of the research, all of them, more or less,

of great importance to the outcome of this endeavor. Above all, the approach of Porter (1996) on

Business Strategy has defined and directed the entire reconsideration of this concept and the way it is

captured by SCOR Model. This approach is used from the early beginning to stress the problems of SCOR

Model benchmarking process and point out the appropriate mindset to deal with them. Statements

such as “strategy is about being different” and “strategy should be above operations and not vice versa”

are representative. Furthermore, the work of Stalk, Evans and Shulman (1992) indicates the prominence

of capabilities-based competition and the advantages enjoyed by those companies that decide to follow

this example. In this respect, they identify five main dimensions of advantages deriving from


- 123 -

capabilities-based competition, them being Speed, Consistency, Acuity, Agility and Innovativeness.

These dimensions constitute the inspiration behind one of the two main recommendations of this

research, that is, the enrichment of the performance attributes set. In the end, only Acuity and

Innovativeness are found not to coincide with the already established Performance Attributes of SCOR

Model. Nevertheless, the contribution of this literature finding is apparent.

On the other hand, the direction provided by the latter literature findings that strategic fit among the

operations of a company is a vital component, is strongly supported by the work of Smith and Reece

(1999). Their argument that strategic fit has a significant positive and direct effect on business

performance, as well as that the accomplishment of strategic fit appears to have greater significance

than the selection of the strategy itself, sets the line straight regarding the importance of strategic fit

and guides the emergence of the strategic compatibility concept, as it is herewith defined. One step

further, the work of Cox (1999) is rather substantial and helpful in the direction of defining the concept

of strategic compatibility. That is, the strategic factors of Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation

Compatibility appear to be representative variables of strategic compatibility, and for that reason

constitute the basis of the second main recommendation of this research, i.e., the addition of an

intermediate step that filters out strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking

database.

Regarding now the support of literature to the Business Sustainability part, again, there are four

endeavors substantially contributing to the adopted line of reasoning. First of all, the framework

developed by the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (2009) legitimizes the close relation between

Supply Chain Management and Sustainability, as well as it indicates that the former does not pay much

attention to the latter. One step further, the work of Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) has a rather central

position in this research, since it provides an explanation to the research problem of SCOR practitioners

not making use of the “green” features of the model. In this respect, Dyllick and Hockerts support that

the main reason such attempts usually fail is that they frequently and mistakenly equalize sustainability

with eco-efficiency, with the latter comprising only one out of the six dimensions of the former.

Moreover, the work of Waage et al (2005) and Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001) stress the necessity for

sustainability approaches to be systematic and comprising of distinct steps that facilitate the

implementation of corresponding solutions. In this regard, SCOR Model appears to fulfill this

requirement, since the approach of the model on sustainable solutions is rather straightforward. This

generates the question, why then SCOR Model presents the described problem. The answer is partially

given by Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers and Steger (2005), who claim that the reason that this effort, as well

as many other similar efforts during the last 15 years, does not produce impressive results is the refusal

of managers to espouse the business logic for adopting corporate sustainability strategies. This

argument has formed the basis for exploring further the described research problem and coming up

with the conclusion that further improvement on the sustainability approach of SCOR Model falls out of

the SCC authority.


- 124 -

d) Drawing the Attention of Prospective Clients

The fourth element, regarding the character of this research, is why this research can, after all, draw the

attention of the recognized clients. It is reminded at this point that this research refers to the SCC,

companies and consultancies making use of SCOR model, researchers from the Supply Chain

Management domain and governmental and (non-)governmental organizations responsible for the

promotion of sustainable solutions. The answer to this question is strongly related to the contribution of

this research, as it is described in the beginning of this section. That is, extraction of guidelines and

design solutions, as well as inspiration and motivation for future research. It is now important to reflect

on how each of these solutions can draw the interest of the recognized prospective clients.

In regard of the SCC, the conclusions and recommendations on how the concepts of Business Strategy

and Business Sustainability can be recaptured so as to increase the effectiveness of SCOR Model can be

used towards one main direction: to increase the value of SCOR Model as a product. In other words, the

essence of the current version of the product is indubitable; however, there is, as there will always be,

room for further improvement. Apart from the literature and the other elements supporting the

existence of this room, most of the interviewees admitted that they already enrich SCOR Model with

strategic context while using it for their activities. That is, the “market” for the proposed enrichments

already exists and is currently dealing with the located room for improvement by itself. Therefore, the

SCC should be logically interested to fill this room and correspondingly increase the value of its product.

After all, it can be seen that the developing steps of the model over the years, point out to the located

directions for improvement.

Whether now the outcome of this research is compatible with the nature of SCOR Model and capable of

producing the aspired solutions, this is something the SCC has to decide. That is, the outcome of this

research consists of guidelines and design solutions that point out to certain directions. Whether the

SCC should retain, alter, adjust or ignore this output, this is a decision falling out the authority of this

research. What has been underlined several times here is that any solution adopted in the located

directions should be offered in a customizable way, so as to provide certain degrees of freedom and

allow practitioners to adjust it on their own demands and standards, as well as it should, in any case, not

deteriorate the level of flexibility of SCOR Model, a level that has been found to be quite low and should

at least be kept where it stands right now.

Supposing that this research falls out of the SCC’s interest, companies using the model are the next to be

concerned about the outcome of this endeavor. That is, assuming that most of them already adjust

SCOR Model so as to comply with and reinforce their Supply Chain Management, this research proposes

certain guidelines and design solutions of improving such approaches, or at least it sets the grounds on

how to confront the model and indicates the extent up to which it should be trusted. Apparently, the

amount of interest placed on the outcome of this research depends strongly on the type of the company

the discussion is about. For example, companies having the strategy of a leader would be more

interested in solutions that promote strategy above operations and allow for strategic differentiation.

On the other hand, companies that act as followers would not mind imitating practices of their best-in-

class competitors, since they do not aim for long-term competitive advantage. This is, after all, the


- 125 -

reason that this research has underlined the necessity for customizable solutions; because what is good

for one company can be bad for another and vice versa. In this respect, benchmarking can be the best

approach for a follower and the worst for a leader. Therefore, benchmarking should, by no means, be

removed from SCOR Model. There should just be an option for companies more interested in strategic

context to use it in a more strategically sound manner.

Overall, it is the idea of the researcher here that when dealing with strategy, the examination of all the

possible options and paths should be available at any time; because what seems right now might be

wrong the next moment; for example, being a follower for a long time may very well lead to becoming

redundant. Therefore, companies using SCOR Model for their Supply Chain Management can benefit

from the proposed guidelines and design solutions, in the sense that they can, at least, get a deeper

insight on the way Business Strategy interferes with the domain of Supply Chain Management. It is

noted that the argumentation used here for companies applies also to the case of consultancies, with

the difference that they mainly use SCOR Model to produce advice for their clients.

Apart from the guidelines and design solutions that mainly refer to the SCC, companies and

consultancies, this research also aspires to inspire and motivate researchers to build upon this endeavor

and explore this subject on the located directions. These directions are presented under the

recommendations for future research, and are mainly related with issues and elements that, although

not covered within this report, are directly related with the subject. The necessity to support the derived

conclusions with quantitative results is a characteristic example. Another is the urgency to explore the

proposed solutions and check whether they can be further enriched, e.g. adding more filters next to PSP

and VCC.

Aside from researchers, governmental and (non-)governmental organizations, especially those

responsible for the promotion of sustainable solutions, can be also inspired to explore ways of

promoting sustainability in business environments and in the Supply Chain Management domain. It has

been underlined that not only supply chains account for most of the environmental pollution, not only

most of the companies do not have a policy regarding such issues, but also governmental bodies appear

to be inert and merely observing the –by definition- limited efforts of companies and individuals to

come up with substantial solutions. Therefore, there is definitely a market asking for systematic,

responsible, integrated solutions promoting Business Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management

domain. The problem is that the customers of this market do not appear willing to pay for these

solutions; and here is where the necessity for governmental intervention becomes apparent.

Research Limitations

Following the discussion about the contribution and the character of this research, the last topic to

discuss is the limitations of this research and how they appear to influence the final output. As any type

of research, this endeavor here presents some limitations, it has been based on some assumptions and

is framed by a number of constraints that affect the magnitude of its impact. These limitations have

been already recognized, as well as their mitigators. It has been claimed that, whether these limitations

have a major or minor impact on this research, this is to be decided individually, by the actual reader.


- 126 -

The purpose of recognizing and enlisting these limitations, is to declare knowledge of their existence

and, thereby, reduce their effect.

Regarding the first limitation, or else the qualitative nature of this research and how it affects the

extraction of tangible solutions, it has been claimed that a systematic and constructive research

approach and a step-by-step confrontation of the research problem are considered sufficient to direct

the collection, organization, analysis and synthesis of data towards valuable conclusions and tangible

solutions. Indeed, it is the belief of the researcher that the adopted approach keeps up with the

characteristics of qualitative research and manages to produce tangible guidelines and design solutions.

Whether now these are to be adusted or not upon implementation, this is to be decided by the

recognized clients of this research.

Other limitations that have been recognized are related with decisions that have been made during the

pertinent research set-up. The sample selection criteria, the sample size, the quality and

appropriateness of the respondents, even the ability of the researcher to conduct the interviews can be

seen as inhibiting factors. However, as it has been claimed under the research methodology paragraph,

when it comes to qualitative research, trustworthiness on the results is translated as trust on the ability

of the researcher to run the research. There are no objective criteria such as the reliability and validity

ones in quantitative research. The only relevant action that can be taken is the assessment of

corresponding literature so as to gather and comply with already established approaches and practices.

Among the various decisions that have been made in this research set-up, the size of the sample is,

perhaps, the only one that may be problematic and needs to be discussed. It has been found that, using

a critical case/ criterion/ homogeneous/ convenience sampling strategy, a sample of four interviewees

can be sufficient in this research context. On one hand, the fast convergence of the results supports and

justifies this decision. On the same track, the successful implementation of the triangulation

methodology, where data from three different sources appears to point at the same direction, is also

supporting.

On the other hand though, the assumption of homogeneous sample is somehow invalidated, since

additional criteria appear to influence the opinions of the repondents, such as the industry their

companies belong to and the organizational structure of their companies. In this respect, homogeneity

might not be a valid assumption when looking backwards, and as a result there may have been needed

more respondents to reassure qualified results. However, this argument is by no means sufficient to

justify the invalidation of the entire research. The evidence supporting the derived conclusions is clear

and, again, always sided by the other methods of the triangulation methodology. Overall, the opinion of

the researcher is that the endeavor here is merely an initial attempt. Further research and quantitative

results are necessary for the production of safe, concrete and specific solutions. Therefore, this research

can be still and always used as an initial approach on the described subject, an approach that can be

always furthered and supported by analogous attempts. After all, qualitative research is about the

production of hypotheses.


- 127 -

The final issue found to be limiting the effectiveness of this research, is the overall context within which

this researh is taking place. That is, as an MSc dissertation, this research is seriously limited by time and

budget constraints. Along with the unpredictable and hard to schedule nature of qualitative research, it

has been claimed that there could be a problem created at this point. However, dedicated work and

well-structured planning have been considered to be dynamos, sufficient to confront this limitation.

Additionally, another key mitigator of this constraint has been claimed to be the careful selection of the

boundaries between the teritorries of current and future research. Overall, it is the view of the

researcher that this constraint has been effectively dealt with and that the final outcome is of high-

quality and beyond the limits of an MSc dissertation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the research endeavor that has led to the creation of this report manages to keep up with

the initial objective and the aspired contribution. The relation of this research to its core element, i.e.

SCOR Model, is clear and complementary, while the scope of this research is sensibly selective.

Additionally, the connection of the literature to the results of this research is clear and unquestionable.

As a result, the extracted guidelines and design solutions, as well as the inspiration and motivation for

future research, respond responsibly to the demands of their prospective clients, as they have been

recognized in the specific research context. On the other hand, this research is found to respond

successfully to most of the recognized limitations, in a manner that does not allow the invalidation of

the pertinent results.

Overall, the research problem has been responsibly explored and the research questions have been

systematically confronted. The foundations of the interrelation between SCOR Model and the concepts

of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability have been dismantled and reset. The one, large and

vague, question mark set in the beginning of this research has been replaced by many more, small and

definite. Thus, the purpose of the qualitative research has been accomplished and the academic stamp

has been put, regarding the establishment and continuation of this research topic. It is now to be seen,

whether each one of the engendered question marks would ultimately draw the required attention.


- 128 -


- 129 -

References

Electronic Sources (alphabetically ordered):

1. Bryman, A. (2008). Triangulation. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from: http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf

2. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). (2009). Official Web Site: https://www.cdproject.net

3. Enders, A, & König, A. (2009). Social Proof, Benchmarking and Incumbent Failure. Retrieved, June 15, 2009, from IMD, A Leading Global Business School Web site:

http://www.imd.ch/research/challenges/upload/TC023_social_proof_benchmarking_and_incumbent_failure.pdf

4. Environmental Leader. (2009). Official Web Site: http://www.environmentalleader.com

5. Francis, J. (2007). Managing BPM. Retrieved, May 4, 2009, from BPM, Business Process Trends Web site: http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/NINE-03-07-COL-ITSupplyChainSCORcard-Managing%20BPM-Francis-Final.pdf

6. International Finance Corporation (IFC). (2004). Official Web Site: http://www.ifc.org

7. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. (2009). Official Web Site: http://sustainableproduction.org

8. Mongabay. (2009). Official Web Site: http://www.mongabay.com

9. Supply Chain Council (SCC). (2009). Official Web Site: http://www.supply-chain.org

Print Sources (alphabetically ordered):

1. Abell, D. (1993). Managing with dual strategies. New York, NY: The Free Press (Macmillan Inc.).

2. Anderson, D. R. (2006). The critical importance of sustainability risk management. Risk Management, 53, (4), 66-71.

3. Andrews K. (1980). The Concept of Corporate Strategy (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones Irwin.

4. Bogdan, R. B., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and

Methods (3rd ed.) Allyn & Bacon.

5. Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development: Brussels

6. Camp, R.C. (1989). Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior

Performance. Milwaukee, WI; Quality Press, p.12.


- 130 -

7. Cialdini, R. (1993). Influence: Science and practice. New York, NY: Harper Collins, pp. 131-132.

8. Cooper, M.C., & Ellram, L.M. (1993). Characteristics of Supply Chain Management and the Implication for Purchasing and Logistics Strategy. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 4, (2), 13-24.

9. Cooper, M., Ellram, L.M., Gardner, J.T., & Hanks A.M. (1997). Meshing Multiple Alliances. Journal of

Business Logistics, 18, (1), 67-89.

10. Cox, A. (1998). Clarifying complexity, Supply Management, 28 January.

11. Cox, A. (1999). Power, value and supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International

Journal, 4, (4), 167-175.

12. David, F. (1989). Strategic Management. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company

13. DeSimone, L., & Popoff, F. (1997). Eco-Efficiency: the Business Link to Sustainable Development. Cambridge: MIT Press.

14. Diekmann, J. (1999). Okologischer Strukturwandel als vergessene Komponente des essourcenverbrauchs,

Zwischen Effizienz und Suffizienz. Okologisches Wirtschaften 3, 25–26.

15. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainablity. Business Strategy

and the Environment, 11, (2), 130-141.

16. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone: Oxford.

17. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The Sustainability Balanced ScoreCard-Linking

Sustainability Management to Business Strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, (5), 269-284.

18. Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., & Krause, T.S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review 20, (4), 874–907.

19. Goven, J. (2003). Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and

Deproblematization. Public Understanding of Science, 12, (4), 423–40.

20. Grant, J.H., & King, W.R. (1982). The logic of strategic planning. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.

21. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey.

22. Harris, B. (1995). Best Practices Emerge from the Synergy of Technology, Processes, and People.

Emerging Technologies, Supplement to Government Technology, October, p.16.

23. Hax, A.C., & Majluf, N.S. (1984). Strategic Management: An Integrative Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

24. Hecht, J.E. (2005). National Environmental Accounting: Bridging the Gap between Ecology and Economy.

RFF Press.

25. Hockerts, K. (1996). The SusTainAbility Radar (STAR∗), a Step towards Corporate Sustainability

Accounting, discussion paper. London: New Economics Foundation.


- 131 -

26. Hockerts, K. (1999). The sustainability radar – a tool for the innovation of sustainable products and services. Greener Management International, (25), 29–49.

27. Hofer, C., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts. St. Paul, MN: West.

28. Horton K.S. (2003). Strategy, Practice and the Dynamics of Power. Journal of Business Research, 56, (2),

121-126.

29. Houlihan, J.B. (1988). International Supply Chains: A New Approach. Management Decision, 26, (3), 13-19.

30. Hitt, M.A., Freeman, R.E., & Harrison, J.S. (2001). The Blackwell handbook of strategic management (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

31. Huang, S.H., Sheoran, S.K., & Wang, G. (2004). A Review and Analysis of Supply Chain Operations

Reference (SCOR) Model. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9, (1), 23-29.

32. Huang, X. & Zhang, R. (2007).The art of value creation strategy: Evidence from a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Chinese Management Studies, 1, (3), 180-197.

33. IISD (1992). Business Strategy for Sustainable Development: Leadership and Accountability for the 90s.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development, Deloitte & Touche and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

34. Jeston, J., & Nelis, J. (2008). Management by Process: A Practical Road-map to Sustainable Business

Process Management. Butterworth-Heinemann.

35. Jones, T., & Riley, D.W. (1985). Using Inventory for Competitive Advantage through Supply Chain Management. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, 15, (5),16-26.

36. Kaplan, R.S. (2005). The Limits of Benchmarking. Balanced Scorecard Report, 7, (6).

37. Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard

Business Review, January February, 71-79.

38. Kearns, G.S., & Lederer, A.L. (2000). The effect of strategic alignment on the use of IS-based resources for competitive advantage. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, (4), 265-293.

39. Klein, N. (2000). No Logo: Taking Aim at Brand Bullies. London: Picador.

40. Kreibich R, (1997). Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Leitbild für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.

UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 3, (2).

41. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

42. Lambert, D.M., Stock, J.R., & Ellram, L.M. (1998). Fundamentals of Logistics Management. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Ch. 14.

43. La Londe, B.J., & Masters, J.M. (1994). Emerging Logistics Strategies: Blueprints for the Next Century.

International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 24, (7), 35-47.

44. Luftman, J.N., Papp, R., & Brier, T. (1999). Enablers and Inhibitors of Business-IT Alignment. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11, (3), 1-33.


- 132 -

45. Mentzer, J.T, Witt, W., De, Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., & Zacharia, Z.G. (2001). Defining Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22, (2),17.

46. Mintzberg, H., (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Basic Books.

47. Monczka, R., Trent, R., & Handfield, R. (1998). Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Cincinnati, OH:

South-Western College Publishing, Ch. 8.

48. Nagurney, A. (2006). Supply Chain Network Economics: Dynamics of Prices, Flows, and Profits. Edward Elgar Publishing.

49. O'Donoghue, T., & Punch, K. (2003). Qualitative Educational Research in Action: Doing and Reflecting.

Routledge, p.78.

50. O'Malley, P. (1998). Value Creation and Business Success. The Systems Thinker, 9, (2).

51. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton R.I. (2006). “Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from

Evidence-Based Management”, Harvard Business School Press.

52. Poluha, R.G. (2007). Application of the SCOR Model in Supply Chain Management. Cambria Press.

53. Porter, M.E. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74, (6), 61-78.

54. Ren, T. (2008). Application of Supply Chain Performance Measurement Based on SCOR Model. Wireless

Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, October, 1-4.

55. Robert, M. (1993). Strategy: Pure and Simple. McGraw-Hill.

56. Sachs, W. (1993). Die vier E’s. Merkposten fur einen maßvollen Wirtschaftstil. Politische Okologie Special Issue ’Lebensstil oder Stilleben’ Sept/Oct: 69–72.

57. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability:

literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23, (1), 27-36.

58. Schumacher, E.F. (1974). Small is Beautiful. Abacus: London. Schweizerische Bundesverfassung vom

18.4.1999. Bundesrat: Bern.

59. Schwan, C., & Spady, W. (1998). Total leaders: Applying the best future-focused change strategies to

education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.

60. Smith, T.M., & Reece, J.S. (1999). The relationship of strategy, fit, productivity, and business performance in a services setting. American Production and Inventory Control Society Inc., Journal of Operations

Management, 17, (2), 145-161.

61. Stalk, G., Evans, P., & Shulman, L. E. (1992). Competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 70, (2), 57-69.

62. Steiner, G. (1979). Strategic Planning. Free Press.

63. Stevens, G.C. (1989). Integrating the Supply Chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and

Materials Management, 8, (8), 3-8.

64. Swiatek, R. (2005). The Importance of Strategic Alignment in Small to Medium Sized Businesses. University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies.


- 133 -

65. Treacy, M., Wiersema, F. (1994). The Discipline of Market Leaders. Addison-Wesley.

66. Tregoe, B., & Zimmerman, J. (1980). Top Management Strategy. Simon and Schuster.

67. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic

Management Journal, 18, (7), 509-533.

68. Umweltbundesamt. (1997). Nachhaltiges Deutschland, Wege zu einer dauerhaft-umweltgerechten

Entwicklung. Schmidt: Berlin.

69. Velde, van der M., Jansen, P., & Anderson, N. (2007). Guide to Management Research Methods (3rd ed.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

70. Veleva, V. & Ellenbecker, M. (2001). Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology.

Journal of Cleaner Production 9, (6), 519-549.

71. Venkatraman, N., Henderson, J.C. & Olbach, S., Continuous Strategic Alignment: Exploiting Information Technology Capabilities for Competitive Success. European Management Journal, 11, (2), 139-149.

72. Waage, S.A., Geiser, K., Irwin, F., Weissman, A.B., Bertolucci, M.D., Fisk, P., Basile, G., Cowan, S., Cauley,

H., & McPherson, A. (2005). Fitting together the building blocks for sustainability: a revised model for integrating ecological, social, and financial factors into business decision-making. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 13, (12), 1145-1163.

73. Zavestovski, S. (2001). Environmental concern and anticonsumerism in the self-concept: do they share the same basis? In M.J., Cohen, & J., Murphy (eds.), Exploring Sustainable Consumption (pp.173-190). Amsterdam: Pergamon


134

Appendices

Appendix A: Qualitative Research Characteristics

With regard to Qualitative Research, there can be found numerous pertinent definitions, the citation of

which is considered to be redundant. A generic but representative one, developed by Denzin and Lincoln

(2005)1, states that:

This condensed explanation primarily aims to underline the explorative nature of qualitative research.

The purpose is to get a general understanding about the research object, a conceptual theory that

provides an initial explanation to the pertinent field of investigation. This is the reason qualitative

research attempts to answer questions starting with How and Why, rather than What, Where, When

that are more of a quantitative nature. In other words, it is a naturalistic approach pursuing to

investigate research problems within their context-specific circumstances, i.e. "real world setting

[where] the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest" (Patton, 1990)2.

An alternative broad definition describes qualitative research as "any kind of research that produces

findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification" (Strauss &

Corbin, 1990)3. Instead, the purpose of this research paradigm is to come up with findings strongly

related with the real world, where the "phenomenon of interest unfolds naturally" (Patton, 1990)2.

According to Hoepfl (1997)4, qualitative research seeks for illumination, understanding, and

extrapolation to similar situations, unlike the quantitative paradigm that emphasizes on causal

determination, prediction, and generalization of findings.

1 Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y.

Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

2 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

3 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

4 Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of

Technology Education, 9, (1), 47-63.

“Qualitative research is a field of inquiry that crosscuts disciplines and subject matters”.


135

The approach of van der Velde, Jansen and Anderson (2007)5 provides more details about qualitative

research. First of all, being of explorative nature, qualitative research investigates possible causes or

influencing factors for attributes or objects. In this sense, it attempts to tentatively formulate

relationships between phenomena, with the purpose of developing more precise hypotheses and

theory. In other words, it seeks for plausible explanations of certain facts, in theoretical areas that are

unclear, dynamic and not well-established. The output of a qualitative research is usually a set of

hypotheses, which can be subsequently used as the input of a quantitative research. Therefore, it needs

to be quite open to grasp the opinions of expert interviewees and to analyze the conclusions of multiple

and diverse literature. In parallel though, it also needs to be clear and systematic so as to avoid

becoming impressionistic. Another characteristic of this paradigm is the use of small samples of

individuals with expertise, since the purpose is to come up with an explanatory theory, not with

abundant statistical data.

The following table unifies these qualitative research characteristics under universal research elements:

Research

Type

Research

Question

Research Aim Research

Theory

Research Strategies Data Collection

Explorative How?

Why?

Development

of Hypotheses

Not Well-

Established

Qualitative (Case

Studies or Theoretical

Research)

Mostly Interviews

(Unstructured &

Semi-structured)

Table A-1: Explorative Research Elements

5 Velde, van der M., Jansen, P., & Anderson, N. (2007). Guide to Management Research Methods (3rd ed.).

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.


136

Appendix B: Triangulation Method and Qualitative Research

Before rushing into the examination of the appropriateness of this method in the context of this

research, it is important to provide a substantive definition and description of its basic characteristics.

Triangulation is a typical representative of multi-method research principles. The idea behind the

method is derived by the field of Surveying, i.e. “the technique and science of accurately determining the

terrestrial or three-dimensional space position of points and the distances and angles between them”

(Genovese, 2005)6. In this context, triangulation basically uses a series of triangles to map out an area. In

research context, Cohen and Manion (1986)7 define triangulation as “an attempt to map out, or explain

more fully, the richness and complexity of human behavior by studying it from more than one

standpoint“. The connection is apparent.

Webb et al. (1966)8 pointed out three important benefits associated with the triangulation method and

its utilization in research. The first is that “once a proposition has been confirmed by two or more

independent measurement processes, the uncertainty of its interpretation is greatly reduced. The most

persuasive evidence comes through a triangulation of measurement processes”. The second comes as a

response to the criticism of triangulation, stating that it does not reassure consistency between the

results of the various research methods used. In this respect, they claim that this argument is by itself

illustrating the problem of relying on one single research method. The third is that such an absence of

convergence can generate new research questions, more precise and appropriate to explore the

research topic. This third argument should be always kept in mind, since even the occurrence of

convergence between the results of two methods may simply mean that both methods are flawed.

There are four types of triangulation, as they were recognized by Denzin (1970)9, who attempted and

managed to systemize this notion and its various applications. These four types are enlisted and

described on the following table:

Types Description

Data Triangulation

Gathering data through several sampling strategies, so that slices of

data at different times and social situations, as well as on a variety of

people, are gathered

Investigator Triangulation Using more than one researcher in the field to gather and interpret

data

Theoretical Triangulation Using more than one theoretical position in interpreting data

Methodological Triangulation Using more than one method for gathering data

Table B-1: Types of Triangulation

6 Genovese, I. (2005). Definitions of Surveying and Associated Terms. ACSM.

7 Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (2000). Research methods in education (5

th ed.). Routledge, p. 254.

8 Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Measures

in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.

9 Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine.


137

The fourth type recognized, i.e. Methodological Triangulation, is the most representative of the

triangulation method and the one that is adopted in this research. There is an extra classification of

Methodological Triangulation, the one distinguishing between within-method and between-method

approach (Denzin, 1970)10. The former refers to the case where varieties of the same method are used

during the investigation, i.e. contrasting scales of the same variable. The latter refers to the utilization of

contrasting research methods, i.e. interviews and questionnaires. The between-method approach is the

one followed in this research. Details about the research methods that are used in this direction are

provided later on. Namely, unstructured interviews, semi-structured interviews and archiving data are

the three adopted methods.

As it becomes apparent by the definition of triangulation and its analysis by Webb et al. (1966)11, the

method attempts to enhance confidence in the ensuing findings by approaching the research topic from

various angles. There are two main directions of criticism against triangulation (Alan Bryman, 2008)12.

The first refers to the strong assumption of the method that results deriving from different methods can

be unequivocally taken into account, compared and combined. However, as it was logically advocated

by Webb et al., this lack of universality between research methods is merely indicating how narrow and

questionable can a single-method research approach be.

The second direction of criticism is deeper and requires extra attention. It is mainly associated with the

notion of Constructionism (Alan Bryman, 2008)12, the supporters of which claim that research findings

should not be confronted as the only one and absolute plausible explanation and answer to the research

question. They merely represent one potential solution, one perspective. However, the aggregative

approach of triangulation that accumulates the results of different methods appears to subscribe to a

naïve Realism, to a doubtful principle that there is a single definitive account of the world. This is the

objection of Constructionists to the method of triangulation. However, they themselves recognize that,

apart from this debatable approach, triangulation shows great potential when it comes to the

enhancement of the credibility and persuasiveness of a research account. In this regard, the criticism of

Constructionists can be alleviated by using triangulation carefully and systematically. In order to achieve

such an optimal use of triangulation, it is necessary to understand the way it enhances the quality of a

research.

To efficiently dismantle the mechanism through which triangulation can enhance confidence in research

findings, it is necessary to define first what “confidence” means in the context of qualitative research.

10 Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine.

11 Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Measures

in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally. 12 Bryman, A. (2008). Triangulation. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from:

http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf


138

According to Golafshani (2003)13, the so far referred concepts of confidence, credibility and

persuasiveness are used in qualitative research (naturalistic approach) to describe in analogy the terms

of validity and reliability that are used in quantitative research (positivist approach). In this respect, it is

important to carefully perform this redefining process for the cases of reliability and validity, so as to

“reflect the multiple ways of establishing truth” and realize in deep how triangulation enhances the

quality of the research.

In regard of reliability and validity in quantitative research terms, their meaning is quite clear. Reliability

is the concept examining “whether the result of the research is replicable”, while Validity examines

“whether the means of measurement are accurate and whether they are actually measuring what they

are intended to measure” (Golafshani, 2003)13.

In qualitative terms now, the replicability of the results is not a matter of concern (Glesne & Peshkin,

1992)14. The reason is that qualitative research refers to quality, not to quantity that can be

reproducible. Correspondingly, “the concept of reliability is even misleading in qualitative research. If a

qualitative study is discussed with reliability as a criterion, the consequence is rather that the study is no

good” (Stenbacka, 2001)15. However, the question “how can an inquirer persuade his or her audiences

that the research findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to?" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)16

remains. As an answer to this question, Healy and Perry (2000)17 claim that the quality of a study in each

paradigm should be judged by its own paradigm's terms (Golafshani, 2003)13. In this respect, the

concepts of Credibility, Neutrality or Confirmability, Consistency or Dependability, and Applicability or

Transferability are considered to be essential indicators of quality in qualitative research (Lincoln &

Guba, 1985)16. Trustworthiness is added next to these concepts by Seale (1999)18. The question now is

whether the approach of Lincoln and Guba (1985)16 or Stenbacka (2001)15 is the most appropriate; that

is, whether replacing the quantitative term of reliability with these five qualitative terms is a better

approach than simply overruling the applicability of reliability in qualitative research. The answer to this

question is subjective. However, in a Solomon Judgment pattern, Lincoln and Guba (1985)16

autonomously state that "since there can be no validity without reliability, a demonstration of the former

13 Golafshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8,

(4).

14 Glesne, C., & Peshkin, P. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York, NY: Longman.

15 Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39, (7),

551-555.

16 Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. New York, NY: Sage.

17 Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research

within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research – An International Journal, 3, (3), 118-126.

18 Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, (4), 465-478.


139

is sufficient to establish the latter". Credit to this general rule, that reliability is essential but not

sufficient to demonstrate validity, is also given by Patton (1990)19.

The next logical step is to examine how the quantitative term of validity is translated in qualitative

terms. Then, ways to reassure this qualitative validity can be sought for, while, as it was argued, the

qualitative sense of reliability is indirectly but automatically satisfied. In qualitative research, the

concept of validity is neither single nor universal, it is “a contingent construct, inescapably grounded in

the processes and intentions of particular research methodologies and projects” (Winter, 2000)20. In

other words, researchers usually formulate their own definition of validity, depending on their choice of

paradigm assumption (Creswell & Miller, 2000)21. As a consequence, an abundance of relevant terms

have been produced, such as quality, rigor and trustworthiness (Davies & Dodd, 2002; Lincoln & Guba,

1985; Mishler, 2000; Seale, 1999; Stenbacka, 2001)22 23 24 25 26. However, it can be generally claimed that,

in qualitative terms, “the idea of discovering truth through measures of reliability and validity is replaced

by the idea of trustworthiness, which is defensible and establishing confidence in the findings”

(Golafshani, 2003)27.

This differentiation indicates the divergence between the approaches of the two paradigms,

quantitative and qualitative (Kuhn, 1970)28. However, both paradigms end up with the need to test

and demonstrate the credibility of their findings. And here is the essential difference between the

two paradigms; on one hand, quantitative research reassures credibility through the construction of

effective research instruments; on the other hand, in qualitative research, “the researcher is the

19 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2

nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc. 20 Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of validity in qualitative and quantitative research. The

Qualitative Report, 4, (3&4), 1. Retrieved July 26, 2009, from:

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html

21 Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, (3),

124-131.

22 Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health research, 12, (2),

279-289.


24 Mishler, E.G. (2000). Validation in inquiry-guided research. The role of explemplars in narrative studies. In B. M.,

Brizuela, J. P., Stewart. R. G., Carrillo, & J. G., Berger (Eds.), Acts of inquiry in qualitative research (pp. 119-146).

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.

25 Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, (4), 465-478.


551-555.

27 Golafshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8,

(4).

28 Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


140

instrument" (Patton, 1990)19

. In other words, quantitative research develops instruments to assess

reliability and validity and thereby establish credibility, while qualitative research relies on the

ability and effort of the researcher to establish credibility.

As it was explained before, to increase credibility in the findings of a qualitative research, one needs

to increase trustworthiness. Increasing trustworthiness can increase generalizability (and vice

versa), which is a prominent concept when it comes to increasing the quality of qualitative research

(Stenbacka, 2001)29

. And how generalizibility in qualitative research increases? This happens

through the triangulation method. As Mathison (1988)30

supports, “Triangulation has risen an

important methodological issue in naturalistic and qualitative approaches to evaluation [in order to]

control bias and establishing valid propositions because traditional scientific techniques are incompatible

with this alternate epistemology”.

In this appendix, the research methodology was established. The triangulation method was selected,

defined and described. The advantages and criticisms of this method were analyzed. It was shown how

the criticism of the method can be countered by redefining reliability and validity in qualitative terms. It

was logically concluded that, in qualitative terms, reliability, if relevant, can be satisfied through validity,

which, in the qualitative paradigm, is translated in the term trustworthiness. Then, trustworthiness was

claimed to be analogously related to generalizability, which can be increased by using the triangulation

method. Triangulation method was described to be a flexible method that can be adjusted, depending

on the criteria of the researcher. After all, qualitative research relies on the ability and effort of the

researcher to establish credibility.


551-555.

30 Mathison, S. (1988). Why Triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17, (2), 13-17.


141

Appendix C: Determining the Sample Size

In order to systematically determine the sample size, it is necessary to take a step back and reexamine

the adopted sampling strategy as a whole. In qualitative terms, the responsibility of the researcher is to

provide sufficient information regarding the context of the sample. This way, other people will be able

to evaluate the ensuing findings and the extent up to which they apply to their own situation.

Apparently, this approach leaves room for future research. However, it is capable of providing the

reader with increased understanding of the research topic. The realization of this responsibility

illustrates the role and the limits of the sample strategy in qualitative research.

The key factor in selecting a qualitative sample is the purpose of the research. There are numerous

sampling practices and different reasons to choose between them. Hence, a sample is chosen

purposefully and can be a result of many sampling strategies (Patton, 1990; Coyne 1997)31 32. The

typology of the available sampling strategies, developed by Patton (1990)31, and the various purposes

they serve are depicted on the following table:

Type of Sampling Purpose

Maximum variation Documents diverse variations and identifies

important common patterns

Homogeneous Focuses, reduces, simplifies; facilitates group

interviewing

Critical case Permits logical generalization and maximum

application of information to other cases

Theoretical Finding examples of a theoretical construct and

thereby elaborating and examining it

Confirming/ disconfirming Elaborating initial analysis, seeking exceptions,

looking for variation

Snowball or chain Identifies cases of interest from people who know

people who know what cases are information rich

Extreme or deviant case Learning from highly unusual manifestations of the

phenomenon of interest

Typical case Highlights what is normal or average

Intensity Information-rich cases that manifest the

phenomenon intensely but not extremely

Politically important cases Attracts desired attention or avoids attracting



Publications, Inc.

32 Coyne, I.T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research: Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear

boundaries. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, (3), 623-630.


142

undesired attention

Random purposeful Adds credibility to sample when potential

purposeful is too large

Stratified purposeful Illustrates subgroups; facilitates comparisons

Criterion All cases meet some criterion; useful for quality

assurance

Opportunistic Follow new leads; taking advantage of unexpected

Combination or mixed Triangulation, flexibility, meets multiple interests/

needs

Convenience Saves time, money and effort but at expense of

information and credibility

Table C-1: Typology of Sampling Strategies in Qualitative Inquiry (Patton, 1990)33

In the research conducted here, several of the enlisted strategies are used towards the sample

definition. The first of these strategies is the critical case sampling strategy. According to Maxwell

(1996)34, “If the purpose is to illuminate theory through well-chosen examples, then critical case

sampling is appropriate”. Indeed, the purpose of this research is to illuminate the way Business Strategy

and Business Sustainability interrelate to Supply Chain Management, in general, and SCOR Model, in

specific, through well-chosen interviews. This sampling strategy “permits logical generalization and

maximum application of information to other cases because if it’s true of this one case it’s likely to be

true of all other [‘similar’] cases” (Patton, 1990)33. In other words, the focus of the researcher is to come

up with a good story that illuminates the questions under study (Crabtree and Miller, 1999)35.

The second sampling strategy is derived by the approach of Creswell (1998)36, who, in a similar manner,

suggests that “certain kinds of qualitative research tend to favor certain kinds of sampling”. In this

respect he argues that when the qualitative tradition is phenomenological, the commonly used sampling

strategy is to set a criterion. Indeed, the “phenomenon” here is SCOR Model and, in order to understand

the functionality of this phenomenon, a number of experts are interviewed, fulfilling a number of

criteria, which have already been described, used to accomplish quality assurance.

The sample selection criteria, already set, promote the consistency among the selected respondents.

This consistency can also be seen as the third, or else the homogeneous sampling strategy. This strategy,

like all fixed sampling strategies, is rather helpful in small, exploratory researches (Crabtree & Miller,

1999)35. The reason is it focuses, reduces, simplifies, it helps in understanding a particular part of the



Publications, Inc.

34 Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative Research Design. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

35 Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (Eds.) (1999). Doing Qualitative Research (2

nd ed.). London: Sage.

36 Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design; Choosing Among Five Traditions. London, New Delhi

and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 372 p. + notes, index.


143

general context, while admitting the existence of unrecorded diversity and suggesting relevant

directions for future study (Crabtree & Miller, 1999)37.

As it is implicated here, there are some constraints in this research that promote the emergence of the

homogeneous sampling strategy. That is, instead of examining all the relevant aspects, the research

topic focuses on specific areas. The reasons that inhibit the utilization of such a “maximum variation”

strategy are the time and budget constraints related to a Master of Science thesis project. Hopefully,

this compromise occurs at the minimum expense of information and credibility. Parenthetically, this is

the fourth strategy used here, or else the convenience sampling strategy.

Summarizing, the sampling strategy used here is a critical case/ criterion/ homogeneous/ convenience

strategy. The purpose of this strategy, like all sampling strategies, is that of that of “theoretical

saturation” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)38, or sampling to the point of redundancy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;

Morse, 1995)39 40. That is, when data resulting from the interviews starts repeating itself, it is a good

point in time to stop the sampling process. The contribution of this saturation technique is two-fold; on

one hand, it increases the credibility of the developed theory; on the other hand, it answers the

question, “when can the sampling process stop (Crabtree & Miller, 1999)37”?

Although there are no fast and hard rules, experience has shown that five to eight data sources or

sampling units often suffice for a homogeneous sample (Crabtree & Miller, 1999)37. In the specific

research, this repetition of data started from the second interview already, while the fourth interview

was very similar to the third. Thereby, it was decided that four interviews are sufficient for data

convergence and towards reaching theoretical consensus (details about the respondents are given in the

interview results section, up to the extent that the pertinent requests for secrecy and anonymity are not

violated). This confidence for the sufficiency of the four interviews is based on two facts. Firstly, the fast

convergence of the results is a strong indication of the credibility of the developed theory. Secondly, the

interviews constitute only one part of the triangulation method adopted in this research. That is, the

parallel contribution of the unstructured interview and of the data archives increases the confidence in

these results critically.

Although recognized as one of the main stakeholders, the participation of the SCC has not yet been

discussed. The SCC appears to be the most direct stakeholder of this research, since the research topic

refers to its main product, i.e. the SCOR Model. In this respect, the need for SCC’s participation is

unquestionable. However, considering the qualitative nature of this research, extra attention should be

placed on the degree of activeness of this participation. That is, this research aims to be as unbiased as

possible; it aspires to approach SCOR Model from a totally neutral angle. In this respect, developing this

37 Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (Eds.) (1999). Doing Qualitative Research (2

nd ed.). London: Sage.

38 Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.


40 Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5, (2), 147-149.


144

research hand in hand with the SCC could only lock the innovative aspiration of this research to the

already established approach of the SCC. Therefore, the SCC’s point of view is taken into account only in

the early beginning and the very end of this research, not during the development phase. Specifically, an

unstructured interview is conducted in the early beginning to grasp the SCC idea on the research subject

and the way it is positioned, and a semi-structured interview in the end, as a way to capture the SCC

perception of the results. This way, the relevance of the topic and of the results is validated, without

compromising the equitability of the results. One step further, a former administrative member of the

SCC is chosen to participate in the described research phases, so as to avoid any kind of bind to the SCC

perspective (details about this person are given in the conceptual design section). It has to be

mentioned that the decision to run this research in parallel to the work of the SCC is not - in any case -

an attempt of reduction or negligence. On the contrary, it is a modest initiative, aiming to think out of

the box so as to potentially enrich the already ingenious contribution of the SCC in the Supply Chain

Management domain, as it is expressed by the creation and establishment of the SCOR Model.

This contribution of this appendix is two-fold. On one hand, it takes a look on the adopted sampling

strategy and systematically concludes on the semi-structured interviews sample size. On the other hand,

it examines and clarifies the type of the SCC participation in this research.


145

Appendix D: From Literature Research Questions to Interview Questionnaire

Regarding the literature research questions, they are organized here under general representative

themes, considered to capture the entire spectrum of the research topic. There are separate themes for

Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. Now, each of the literature research questions is used in

the questionnaire either unchanged or slightly changed to become more neutral, more flexible, and in

general more appropriate for a semi-structured interview question, always according to the standards of

the researcher. Sometimes, questions are combined, when they are considered to overlap. Overall, the

idea is to retain the essence of the themes and correspondingly adjust the questions from the literature,

so as they represent the theme they belong to appropriately, as well as they comply with the

unstructured interview character they mean to serve. The tables below present in detail this transition

process:

Themes Literature Research Questions Questionnaire Questions

General

• At what extent are Acuity and Innovativeness relevant to the Supply Chain Management domain and capable of contributing to the alleviation of benchmarking effects?

• At what extent do Acuity and Innovativeness

overlap with the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model?

• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the

inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR Model? • How could they be measured? What could be

potential corresponding Metrics?

• At what extent are these variables capable of capturing Business Strategy?

• At what extent do they overlap with the

Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model? • How straightforward and/ or realistic would

be the inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR Model?

• How could they be measured? What could be

potential corresponding Metrics?

Benchmar

king

Character • How likely is it for an implementing company to fall

into the recorded benchmarking pitfalls? • How likely is SCOR Model, as a typical

benchmarking process, to lead in this pitfall and prevent companies from becoming best in their class?

The Concept

of Strategic

Fit

• At what extent does the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool promote Strategy above Operations?

• At what extent do the “Superior”, “Advantage” or

“Parity” tool and the Five Performance Attributes manage to capture the concept of strategic fit?

• At what extent does SCOR Model manage to capture the concept of strategic fit, as it is described by Porter, and promote strategy above operations?

Capturing Strategic

Compatibility to

Promote Strategic Fit • How straightforward and/ or realistic would it be to

assess strategic fit through an analytical tool, such as the SCOR Model?

• What could be the indicators to define and

measure strategic fit?

• Do you think the Five Performance Attributes are sufficient to capture this strategic compatibility and promote internal strategic fit? Why?

• If not, should they be enriched with additional

attributes? What would be your suggestions? Or Strategic Compatibility should be an attribute by itself?


146

Strategic Concepts from the

Literature

• How important can be the contribution of Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility, when it comes to strategic positioning and benchmarking effects’ confrontation within the domain of Supply Chain Management?

• What would be the indicators to define and

measure Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility?

• What could be other variables to be included in the

strategic positioning process taking place within the SCOR Model? What would their indicators be?

• At what extent are these variables capable of measuring strategic compatibility?

• At what extent do they overlap with the

Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model? • How straightforward and/ or realistic would

be the inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR Model? How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?

Rigid or

Flexible

Model

• At what extent can the concept of strategic fit be taken into consideration manually and through the comprehensive use of its practitioners?

• In this sense, should the concept of strategic fit be incorporated in the model or it should just be confronted as an external factor, assessed manually by the practitioners? Why?

Table D-1: From Literature Research to Questionnaire Questions, regarding Business Strategy


147

Themes Literature Research Questions Questionnaire Questions

General

• What could be alternative scenarios regarding the effective implementation of Sustainability within the SCOR Model?

• How systematic is the sustainability approach of

SCOR Model? • At what extent does the sustainability approach of

SCOR Model capture and promote the idea of sustainability?

• How could the sustainability implementation

process within the SCOR Model be improved?

• Are you familiar with this endeavor? • If so, how appropriate is the approach of

SCC to capture and promote the notion of Sustainability?

• If not, what would be your suggestions to

improve this approach?

• How could your suggestions contribute in the improvement of this approach?

Corporate Culture

Resistance

• Why would corporate cultures resist to the diffusion of sustainable strategies or strategic elements?

• To what extent could this incompatibility be accounted to Supply Chain or Environmental actors?

• Apart from corporate culture, what could be other

factors inhibiting this diffusion (i.e. type of industry or type of operation etc. simply disguised under the visor of corporate culture)?

• What could be the reasons resulting in this situation? Why?

• To what extent do you think this is a plausible

explanation? • If not, what could be alternative

explanations? • What could be other examples of such

factors?

Lite

ratu

re R

ev

iew

: T

he

Su

sta

ina

bil

ity

Co

nce

pt

• At what extent would eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards Sustainability?

• What could be the input of the rest of the criteria, in

case they were included? • At what extent could the inclusion of the rest of the

criteria improve the implementation of sustainable solutions?

• How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include

the rest of the criteria? • At what extent is effective implementation of

Sustainability a responsibility of SCC?

• At what extent can eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards sustainability?

• At what extent could the inclusion of natural

and societal criteria improve the implementation of sustainable solutions?

• How realistic/ straightforward would that be? • At what extent is effective implementation of

sustainability a responsibility of SCC?

Rigid or Flexible

Model

• At what extent would such a holistic approach on Sustainability promote or restrain the emphasis of practitioners on supply chain sustainable solutions?

• In this sense, should the general concept of sustainability be incorporated in the model or it should just be confronted as an external factor, assessed manually by the practitioners? Why?

• How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to

include natural and societal criteria of sustainability in SCOR Model?

Table D-2: From Literature Research to Questionnaire Questions, regarding Business Sustainability


148

Appendix E: Semi-structured Interview Questionnaire Skeleton

Introduction

This research is about SCOR Model and the ways it can be improved. In general, SCOR Model, an

analytical tool developed by the SCC, has been claimed to have all the qualifications to gradually become

an industry standard. In brief, SCOR is as a process reference model that unifies well-known concepts of

business process reengineering, benchmarking and process measurement into a cross-functional

skeleton. It consists of three levels. Level One captures the “as-is” state of the implementing company

and derives the desired “to-be” future state on the basis of five strategic-related Performance

Attributes, them being SC Reliability, SC Responsiveness, SC Agility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency.

Level Two, depending on the targets of the company set at level one, compares the performance

between the implementing and the analogous best-in-class company. This comparison is a

benchmarking process, based on a set of predefined Metrics. Level Three, depending on the outcome of

the second level, distinguishes the management practices and software solutions that result in “best-in-

class” performance.

• What is your previous experience with SCOR Model?

• How positive or negative is your opinion about the applicability/ usefulness of the model?

• What would be the main opportunities for improvement you locate and suggest?

Business Strategy Potential Contribution

General

The first main direction of my approach is how the domain of Business Strategy can contribute in the

improvement of SCOR Model. So firstly, I would like to ask you about the current strategic approach of

the model. SCOR model attempts to capture Business/ Corporate Strategy using five Performance

Attributes, them being SC Responsiveness, SC Reliability, SC Agility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency.

• At what degree do you think this approach is sufficient and capable of capturing strategic

context? Why?

• If not, what would be your suggestions to improve this approach?



149

While reviewing the literature, I found two strategic concepts that are not included in the model, but

appear rather relevant in the direction of capturing Business Strategy. The first is Acuity, or else the

ability to see the competitive environment clearly and thus to anticipate and respond to customers’

evolving needs and wants. The second is Innovativeness, or else the ability to generate new ideas and to

combine existing elements to create new sources of value.

• At what extent are these variables capable of capturing Business Strategy?

• At what extent do they overlap with the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model?

• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR

Model?

• How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?

Benchmarking Character

SCOR Model presents strong benchmarking characteristics. According to various authors, a common

benchmarking pitfall is the achievement of, at best, equal and not superior performance.

• How likely is SCOR Model, as a typical benchmarking process, to lead in this pitfall and prevent

companies from becoming best in their class?

The Concept of Strategic Fit

According to Michael Porter, Strategy is about being different from your competitors. In this respect, he

underlines the importance of strategic fit, meaning that the operations that are adopted by a company

should be strategically compatible; they should serve the same strategic purpose. Therefore, strategy

should be above operations, it should define operations and not vice versa. By doing so, companies can

avoid the benchmarking pitfall of simply following their best-in-class competitors. Therefore, they can

have a clear image of who they imitate during the implementation of SCOR Model and why.

• At what extent does SCOR Model manage to capture the concept of strategic fit, as it is

described by Porter, and promote strategy above operations?

Capturing Strategic Compatibility to Promote Strategic Fit

In my view, this strategic alignment of a company’s operations is important and crucial to achieve. In

specific, when it comes to SCOR Model and its benchmarking process, it is crucial for the implementing

company to understand which of the operations to be adopted are strategically aligned with its overall

strategy. In this direction, the implementing company could compare its strategy with the one of its

best-in-class competitor who makes use of the operation to be adopted. Now, if the two companies are

strategically compatible, then the implementing company can consider the operation to be adopted as,

indeed, strategically aligned. Otherwise, it can exclude this operation and look for another field to


150

improve its SC performance (Example of Ford, choosing between Fiat and Mercedes). Given the

structure of SCOR Model, this comparison can only be performed on the basis of the Five Performance

Attributes.

• Do you think the Five Performance Attributes are sufficient to capture this strategic

compatibility and promote internal strategic fit? Why?

• If not, should they be enriched with additional attributes? What would be your suggestions?

Or Strategic Compatibility should be an attribute by itself?

Strategic Concepts from the Literature

While reviewing the literature, I found two strategic concepts that are not included in the model, but

appear rather relevant in the direction of capturing strategic compatibility. The first is Power Structure

Positioning, indicating the positioning of a company in the power structure of the pertinent industry.

This can indicate how strategically compatible is an operation, depending on the power structure

position of the best-in-class company it is derived from. The second is Value Creation Compatibility,

indicating the way a company accumulates value for itself, i.e. some companies have the possibility to

hold most value for themselves, such as Microsoft, while others realize that they have to appropriate

much of the created value to their customers, such as Toyota.

• At what extent are these variables capable of measuring strategic compatibility?

• At what extent do they overlap with the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model?

• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR

Model? How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?

Rigid or Flexible Model

It is a subject for debate whether analytical tools, such as the SCOR Model, should be more rigid or more

flexible in order to achieve their goals. In other words, it is not certain whether all the discussed issues

should be incorporated in the model or they should be managed by the practical wisdom of the

practitioners.

• In this sense, should the concept of strategic fit be incorporated in the model or it should just

be confronted as an external factor, assessed manually by the practitioners? Why?

Advisory Examples

In case you were to use the strategic part of SCOR Model or advise another company on how to do it,

you would come up with a set of guidelines.

• Could you give some examples of such guidelines?


151

Business Sustainability Potential Contribution

General

The latest release of the SCOR Model has incorporated sustainability features, derived from the Green

version of the model.

• Are you familiar with this endeavor?

• If so, how appropriate is the approach of SCC to capture and promote the notion of

Sustainability?

• If not, what would be your suggestions to improve this approach?


Corporate Culture Resistance

There has been recorded a resistance of corporate cultures to foster and promote the incorporation of

sustainable elements in their supply chain practices.

• What could be the reasons resulting in this situation? Why?

This resistance has been accounted by the SCC to the diversity of priorities between supply chain

managers and environmentalists within a company.

• To what extent do you think this is a plausible explanation?

• If not, what could be alternative explanations?

Apart from corporate culture, there can be other factors influencing the diffusion of sustainability in

corporate environments, such the type of the industry.

• What could be other examples of such factors?

Literature Review: The Sustainability Concept

Several authors locate the problematic diffusion of sustainability on the way it is perceived by

companies. That is, companies mistakenly equalize sustainability with eco-efficiency, disregarding other

important aspects of sustainability related to nature (e.g. global warming) and society (e.g. traffic

congestion and creation of employment). SCOR Model appears to follow the same path.


152

• At what extent can eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards sustainability?

• At what extent could the inclusion of natural and societal criteria improve the implementation

of sustainable solutions?

• How realistic/ straightforward would that be?

Looking at the general picture, there is a thin line between -let’s say- the “responsibilities” of SCC and

those of more generic societal organizations, such as governmental and non-governmental

organizations.

• At what extent is effective implementation of sustainability a responsibility of SCC?

Rigid or Flexible Model

It is a subject for debate whether analytical tools, such as the SCOR Model, should be more rigid or more

flexible in order to achieve their goals. In other words, it is not certain whether all the discussed issues

should be incorporated in the model or they should be managed by the practical wisdom of the

practitioners.

• In this sense, should the general concept of sustainability be incorporated in the model or it

should just be confronted as an external factor, assessed manually by the practitioners? Why?

• How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include natural and societal criteria of

sustainability in SCOR Model?

Advisory Examples

In case you were to use the sustainable part of SCOR Model or advise another company on how to do it,

you would come up with a set of guidelines.

• Could you give some examples of such guidelines?

Conclusion

At this point, I would like to recap this interview and summarize your argumentation.

• Listening to this summary, would you like to add or reconsider an argument?