The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

Aligning products with Supply chain

processes
supply chain processes and strategy
and strategy
Euthemia Stavrulaki and Mark Davis 127
Management Department, Bentley University, Waltham,
Massachusetts, USA
Abstract
Purpose – As supply chain management has become more strategic (rather than transactional) in
nature the need for a more integrated perspective of how products, and processes should be aligned
with strategic decisions to enhance competitive advantage has been amplified. The purpose of this
paper is to provide a better understanding of how this alignment should be done.
Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual framework was developed that emphasizes the
need for alignment between the key aspects of a product and its supply chain processes and
highlight, the links between supply chain processes and supply chain strategy.
Findings – Products can be produced with one of four distinct supply chain structures: make to
stock, assemble to order, built to order and design to order. Each supply chain structure is
appropriate for different products based on their demand characteristics. Each supply chain structure
orients its production and logistics processes differently based on its strategic priorities.
Practical implications – High volume, low demand uncertainty products should be matched with
lean supply chains enabled by efficient processes, whereas low volume, high uncertainty products
should be matched with agile supply chains enabled by flexible processes. Medium volume and
medium demand uncertainty products should use leagile supply chains that use a combination of
efficient and flexible processes.
Originality/value – After thoroughly reviewing and synthesizing important findings from existing
literature, an integrated framework is derived that highlights how products should be best matched
with their production and logistics processes. Also, the framework is compared with two well-known,
process-oriented supply chain frameworks: the supply chain operations reference (SCOR) and the
global supply chain forum (GSCF) models.
Keywords Supply chain management, Operation management, Lean production, Agile production,
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
With the increasing advances in technology, and information technology in particular,
manufacturing companies, their suppliers and their distributors can all be linked
together in a seamlessly integrated organization. Supply chain processes that cross
organizational boundaries can, therefore, be more easily defined, analysed and
improved to provide companies with a sustainable competitive advantage. As a result,
supply chain processes are becoming more strategic rather than transactional (Niezen
and Weller, 2006). This growing strategic importance of supply chain management has
motivated the need for managers to more clearly understand the links among products,
the supply chain processes used to produce and deliver them, and the strategy used to
manage the supply chain activities. To help managers better understand these
relationships, researchers and practitioners often use simple but effective supply chain
frameworks. Such conceptual frameworks can: The International Journal of Logistics
Management
. provide a dashboard view that, in conjunction with key performance metrics, can Vol. 21 No. 1, 2010
pp. 127-151
be used for overall performance assessment; # Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-4093
. assist managers in making rational strategic decisions; DOI 10.1108/09574091011042214
IJLM . effectively communicate the supply chain strategy to employees.
21,1 Given the complexity of supply chain management, it is not surprising that there exists a
number of frameworks that attempt to provide insights into the relationships among
products, strategy and supply chains (we review the relevant literature in the next section).
Yet, the linkages between products, their respective supply chain strategies and respective
supply chain processes have not been clearly delineated in existing frameworks.
128 Beginning in the late 1960s with the work of Skinner (1969) early conceptual models
focused primarily on understanding the relationships between products and production
processes, whereas subsequent models focused on understanding how products and
supply chains interact, with no focus on distinguishing between production and logistics.
Nevertheless, as Lambert et al. (2005) acknowledges, there still remains a need for a
broader supply chain framework that can "support the execution of corporate strategy
by enabling the alignment of all necessary resources required to respond to the demands
of the market". Our aim is thus to contribute to this stream of research by proposing a
conceptual framework that can clearly and succinctly communicate a firm’s strategic
vision as it relates to a product and its supply chain. In contrast to previous frameworks,
we specifically focus on both manufacturing and logistics processes and discuss how
they should be aligned to achieve the strategic objectives of the supply chain.
Specifically, we highlight the need for alignment between the strategic capability of a
supply chain (leanness, leagility or agility) and the operational objectives of its
manufacturing and logistics processes (efficiency or flexibility). The foundation of our
framework is based on indentifying four representative supply chains (build-to-stock
(BTS), assemble-to-order (ATO), make-to-order (MTO), and design-to-order (DTO)) that
are appropriate for different products depending on the product’s characteristics. We use
the manufacturer as our focal point in the supply chain. As we later discuss in more
detail, our framework can be used by researchers interested in empirically testing a
product-supply chain matrix, along the lines of prior empirical tests that have established
Hayes and Wheelwright’s (1979a, b) product-process matrix. Our framework can also
benefit educators and managers in a number of ways, including:
. emphasizing the need for appropriately mapping a product’s strategic
positioning with both the corresponding production and logistics processes and
also the supply chain capabilities available to the firm;
. evaluating and comparing a product’s competitive positioning with that of
similar products and supply chains;
. evaluating the need for agility, leanness or leagility in a product’s supply chain;
. highlighting the strategic implications of changing the relative positioning of a
product and its corresponding supply chain; and
. facilitating the planning of a product’s growth strategy by selecting the
appropriate supply chain processes for both existing and new products and
markets.
We proceed by reviewing the pertinent literature and discussing our contributions and
how they relate to existing work in section 2. Section 2 presents four well known
supply chains that provide the building blocks for our unified framework. Section 2
describes our framework in detail, section 2 compares our framework with two
prominent supply chain process frameworks and section 2 summarizes our findings
and concludes.
2. Literature review Supply chain
Several frameworks have been previously developed that classify and match products processes
with processes and/or supply chains.
and strategy
2.1 Products and the production process
Hayes and Wheelwright (1984, 1979a, b) first introduced the now classic product-
process framework shown in Figure 1 for aligning products with their corresponding
production processes. The main objective of this framework was to assist managers in
129
strategically matching a process type (for example, continuous, assembly line, batch,
job-shop, or project) with a product based on its volume, mix, and demand variability
characteristics. High volume, low variety products are best produced with a continuous
process (for example, an oil refinery or a paper mill), medium volume and medium
variety products are best suited for an assembly line or batch process (for example, an
automobile assembly line or a fast food restaurant), and low volume, high variety
products are best made with a job-shop or project-type process (for example, a printing
shop or movie production).
Aligning products with production processes in this way clearly highlights the
problems that can occur when a product is produced with the wrong process. For
example, if a continuous process is used for the production of low volume, high variety
products, unacceptably high out-of-pocket fixed costs are incurred due to the high capital
investment that continuous processes typically require and the lack of volume to justify
those high fixed costs. At the opposite end of the spectrum, firms with growing product
volumes that don’t make the necessary investments in capital in order to reduce their
variable costs will find themselves with high opportunity costs as their customers shift
their business to competitors that offer comparable but lower priced products.
There have been many subsequent studies that have discussed and empirically tested
the product-process matrix attesting to its continued influence and interest (see Devaraj
et al., 2001; Kemppainen et al., 2008 for reviews). Several of the studies have found
empirical support for the product-process matrix, while others suggest ways to enhance
it. None of these studies, however, address the need for connecting the production process
with other supply chain processes. Our proposed framework attempts to integrate

Figure 1.
Hayes-Wheelwright’s
product-process matrix
IJLM product characteristics with not only the production process, as does the Hayes and
21,1 Wheelwright’s framework, but also with the supply chain process in general.

2.2 Products and supply chains

As supply chain management continues to be a critical factor for achieving and
maintaining a competitive advantage (see Lee, 2002; Mohammed et al., 2008), several
authors have proposed alternative supply chain focused frameworks for the strategic
130 alignment of products with specific types of supply chains based on their demand and
supply characteristics. One of the most influential and often cited frameworks was
proposed by Fisher (1997) who separated products into either functional or innovative
categories based on their degree of demand uncertainty, their profit margin levels, and
product mix. Functional products are typically characterized by low profit margins, low
product variety, and high volumes, whereas the exact opposite is true for innovative
products. Fisher suggested in his framework that supply chains for functional products
should focus on operational efficiency (emphasizing primarily cost reduction strategies),
in contrast to supply chains for innovative products that should focus on market
responsiveness (emphasizing quick turnarounds for time to market) as illustrated in
Figure 2.
Fisher’s framework does not discuss how production and logistics processes may
achieve efficiencies, nor does it clearly define responsiveness and its relationship to
flexible processes; subsequent research has incorporated the notion of responsiveness
within the more general capability of agility, as we later discuss in more detail. Rather
than simply separating supply chains by the type of product offered (functional or
innovative), we instead distinguish between four types of supply chains and discuss
how they align with specific products. By specifically aligning the four supply chain
types with product characteristics and their corresponding manufacturing as well as
logistics processes, we provide a more complete picture of how managers should think
strategically when managing their supply chains.
Several authors have subsequently discussed and expanded Fisher’s framework. In
addition to categorizing products as functional or innovative, Lamming et al. (2000)
included the dimension of product complexity in their framework. Christopher and Towill
(2002), Christopher et al. (2006) included the dimension of a product’s replenishment lead
time and contrasted lean, leagile (hybrid), and agile supply chains. Huang et al. (2002),
Lummus et al. (2006) also characterized products and supply chains based on leanness
and agility. While not directly related to Fisher’s framework, Webster (2002) proposed a
pyramid model that has its base rooted in product and process characteristics and its top
leading to improved supply chain performance. Although all these efforts discuss how
products should be matched with lean, agile or hybrid supply chains, as we do in this
work, they do not methodically discuss how both the production and logistics processes
should vary according to the type of product and supply chain considered.
Lee (2002) also expanded Fisher’s framework by incorporating not only demand
uncertainties but also supply uncertainties in his proposed framework, stating that the
supply process can be either stable or evolving (unstable) for both functional and

Figure 2.
Fisher’s product-supply
chain matrix
innovative products. This suggests four different types of supply chains, which Lee Supply chain
defined as: processes
(1) ‘‘efficient’’, appropriate for functional products with stable supply processes and strategy
such as non-perishable food products;
(2) ‘‘risk hedging’’, appropriate for functional products with unstable supply
processes, such as hydroelectric power;
131
(3) ‘‘responsive’’, appropriate for innovative products with stable supply processes,
such as fashion apparel; and
(4) ‘‘agile’’, appropriate for innovative products with unstable supply chains, such
as new technology product introductions.
Although supply uncertainty is an important distinction, we do not address it in our
framework. However, despite the inclusion of supply uncertainty, Lee’s framework does
not consider which production and logistics processes are most appropriate for each
supply chain type, as we do. Furthermore, his framework does not consider when efficient
or agile supply chains might be more appropriate for the more common supply chains
with stable (certain) supply. Specifically, Lee’s framework suggests that responsiveness is
the ultimate goal for innovative products with stable supply, but does not go into detail on
how responsiveness relates to agility or flexibility. Reichhart and Holweg (2007) recently
provided a clarification of the relationship between responsiveness, flexibility and agility,
which they noted was lacking from prior literature. They defined responsiveness as a form
of external flexibility (visible to the customer and triggered by a customer order). External
as well as internal flexibility (which focuses on manufacturing and inbound logistic
processes) are key prerequisites to a company’s agile capabilities. We incorporate this view
of agility within our framework as we discuss in detail in section 3.
Overall, the goal in developing these frameworks is to provide a better
understanding of how product characteristics relate to supply chain characteristics,
and the need for alignment between the two. Again, what appears to be currently
lacking is a more unified view, from the manufacturer’s perspective, of how product
characteristics should relate not only to production processes, but also to logistics
processes, and based on these characteristics what the competitive priorities of the
manufacturer and its supply chain should be. Our framework builds upon this
literature by providing a clearer and more integrated perspective of these concepts.

2.3 Supply chain processes

2.3.1 Production and logistics processes within a supply chain. As we have suggested,
the literature to date does not provide a supply chain process orientation. There is,
however a growing interest in a process-oriented view of an organization (Davenport
et al., 1995) and of the supply chain in particular. Lambert et al. (2005) for instance
emphasize the importance of relating supply chain processes to the strategic decisions
within a firm. These authors provide a comprehensive review of five supply chain
process-oriented frameworks, comparing two of the more developed and influential
ones in detail: the global supply chain forum (GSCF) model and the supply chain
operations reference (SCOR) model. As we discuss in detail in section 5, these two
process frameworks clearly describe the key supply chain processes, but do not
concentrate on how these processes relate to supply chain strategy and to a product’s
characteristics, as we do in this work.
IJLM 2.3.2 Alignment of logistics processes with other functional areas. A separate
research stream has focused on how logistics processes should be aligned or integrated
21,1 with other peer functions that are both internal and external to a company. Empirical
research in this area validates that internal and external integration among key supply
chain processes (such as production and logistics) tends to improve firm performance
(Droge et al., 2004; Gimenez and Ventura, 2005; Fabbe-Costes and Jahre, 2008; van Hoek
et al., 2008). While this literature empirically verifies the benefits of integration, and the
132 challenges associated with implementation, it does not identify what the focus of the
integrative efforts should be as determined by a product’s characteristics. In other
words, the focus of this research stream does not articulate the strategy of product/
process integration, but rather it explores the value of such integration in various
industries. Our contribution here is that we focus on product/process integration from a
strategic perspective that highlights when manufacturing and logistics processes
should be efficient or flexible depending on a product’s characteristics.

2.4 Summary
Existing literature on aligning products with processes has focused primarily on:
. the interface between products and production processes;
. the interface between products and supply chains; and
. descriptions of supply chain processes.
Figure 3 provides a summary of representative papers in the literature and the various
subsets of issues they consider. The figure illustrates that the existing literature does
not provide an integrated link between product characteristics, the transformation (or
production) processes used to produce these products, the logistics processes required
to source components and raw material and deliver the finished products to customers,
and the strategic focus of the supply chains. The goal of this paper is to address this
gap by providing such a link, which will ultimately lead to better decision making.

Figure 3.
Literature summary and
comparison
3. Defining four key supply chains Supply chain
Before introducing the four types of supply chains that provide the building blocks of
our framework, we define the three key supply chain elements identified by Lambert
processes
et al. (2005) required to make products available to customers: and strategy
(1) the supply chain network;
(2) the supply chain processes the network operates with and supports; and
(3) the supply chain decisions required for managing the network.
133
Simchi-Levi (2006) defines a supply chain network as the infrastructure (suppliers,
manufacturing centres, and warehouses) and the material (raw material, work-in-
process, and finished goods inventory) that flows between the facilities to satisfy end-
customer demand. Davenport et al. (1995) define a business process as a set of activities
with specified business outcomes for customers. Accordingly, supply chain processes
are defined as the set of activities used to carry out the movement of material through
the supply chain network. As suggested by the Council of Supply Chain Management
Professionals, supply chain processes include both production and logistics processes.
In particular, logistics processes include the activities relating to the forward and
reverse flows and storage of goods, such as transportation and warehousing. Finally,
supply chain management represents the management (planning, organizing,
implementing, and controlling) of supply chain processes. For brevity and convenience,
we use the term supply chain to refer to the supply chain network, the supply chain
processes, and the supply chain management for a given product. The relationships
between these terms are shown in Figure 4.
The objective of our framework is to provide a better understanding of supply chain
choices from the viewpoint of a manufacturer that produces a single product or family of
similar products. If a company has a large number of business units, each producing
dissimilar products in terms of their demand and process characteristics, then its senior
management should apply our proposed framework separately to each business unit.
Our framework builds upon four well-known supply chains that are differentiated
by:
. the types of products they make;
. their production processes; and
. their logistics processes.

Figure 4.
Relationship among
supply chain terms
IJLM These four supply chains, each of which also has its own primary strategic focus, are:
21,1 BTS, ATO, MTO, and DTO. We recognize that these four supply chains represent four
specific points on a continuum that ranges from the BTS process to the DTO process.
Several operations management textbooks (e.g. Davis and Heineke, 2004; Krajewski et al.,
2007) distinguish between ‘‘make to stock’’/‘‘build-to-stock’’, ‘‘make-to-order’’ and hybrid
processes. There has also been recent interest in the academic literature in understanding
134 and comparing these supply chain types. For example, Gunasekaran and Ngai (2005)
reviewed the concepts and classified the literature relating to build-to-order supply
chains as well as suggested directions for further research in this area. Skipworth and
Harrison (2006) considered three supply chains, an engineer-to-order (which we refer to
as DTO), a MTO, and a hybrid supply chain they term ‘‘form postponement’’ The SCOR
model also distinguishes between three types of ‘‘products’’ (as opposed to supply
chains): stocked products, MTO products, and engineer-to-order products, detailing in
each case how each of five supply chain processes (plan, source, make, deliver, and
return) vary depending on the type of product involved. While the four supply chains we
discuss, and particularly the BTS and MTO, commonly appear in the press and in the
academic literature, all four, to our knowledge, have not been previously brought
together in a unified framework as we present here. We next discuss each supply chain in
detail. The main characteristics of each supply chain are summarized in Figure 5.

3.1 Build-to-stock supply chain

In BTS supply chains, the end consumer has no individual inputs into the
configuration of the product, and typically purchases the product from a retailer or
e-tailer. While the end consumers may have a choice in products (e.g. whole milk, 2 per
cent milk, 1 per cent milk, and non-fat milk), none of the products associated with this
supply chain are made specifically for individuals. Examples here include groceries,
books, appliances, toiletries, house wares, etc.
3.1.1 Build-to-stock product characteristics. BTS supply chains are very common
because they are appropriate for high volume, low profit margin, commodity products.
These low-cost products tend to have a relatively stable demand, which can therefore
be forecasted with a low degree of error when accurate historical demand information
is available.
3.1.2 Build-to-stock production process characteristics. The production processes for
these mature, highly standardized products focus primarily on achieving low-cost
operations, which is typically accomplished with high volume transformation
processes, such as continuous processes or high-volume assembly lines. Production is
often highly automated resulting in little or no labour. Barilla SpA, for example, the
largest pasta manufacturer in the world, manufactures its products with continuous
(when mixing, forming, and rolling the dough to the desired thickness) and large batch
processes (when sizing and cutting the pasta) that are located in large dedicated
facilities yielding thousands of kilos of pasta per day (Hammond, 1994).
3.1.3 Build-to-stock logistics process characteristics. Manufacturers in these supply
chains tend to push product onto retailers’ shelves based on end-product forecasts. The
product flow relies heavily on distribution centres and retailers that deliver products to
consumers in the most cost-efficient manner. If the volume allows it, manufacturers
may also make direct-to-store distribution agreements with large retailers such as
Wal-Mart and Costco for their stable, high-volume products (Lee, 2002). The many
layers and multi-ownership characteristics of BTS supply chains make efficient
 Supply chain
processes
and strategy

135

Figure 5.
Comparison of supply
chain characteristics

operations and information sharing challenging. Therefore, this type of supply chain is
the most prone to the bullwhip effect (Lee and Whang, 1997).
Another important characteristic of BTS supply chains is that direct contact with the
end consumer happens only at the retail level. Therefore, since these commodity-type
products are hard to differentiate from competitors, retailers tend to have significant
power in these supply chains. For example, supermarkets charge slotting allowances to
manufacturers in exchange for the space allocated to their products and large retailers
such as Wal-Mart often dictate product delivery schedules, order payment terms and
even quality levels for the products they carry in their stores (Facenda, 2004).
As implied by Fisher’s (1997) framework, efficiency is the primary focus for both
manufacturing and logistics processes of BTS supply chains. High volume
manufacturing processes emphasize efficiency through automation (such as Barilla
does with pasta production) and large volume assembly lines (such as those used by
commercial bakeries). High volume logistics processes are likewise geared towards
ensuring that sourcing, warehousing and transportation costs are minimized. For
example, warehousing costs are reduced through the cross-docking concept developed
by Wal-Mart, while transportation costs are minimized through the shipment of
IJLM products in full truckloads. Purchasing in large volumes can further increase the
efficiencies of BTS supply chains.
21,1 3.1.4 Build-to-stock supply chain strategy. BTS supply chains must relentlessly focus
on minimizing costs. For example, Posco, a Korean-based steel manufacturer, has
become the largest steel processor in the world by emphasizing efficient BTS
operations based on cost cutting lean principles such as JIT production (Lee, 2002). As
the Posco example illustrates, efficient production and logistics processes are enablers
136 of the lean paradigm. Lean principles originally aimed to improve manufacturing
processes by eliminating waste and were first practiced in the Toyota Production
System (Ohno, 1986). Goldsby et al. (2006) describe how the meaning of lean has been
progressively expanded over the past two decades to apply to the extended supply
chain enterprise. In addition to representing a set of production and associated logistics
tools, it is now often regarded as a strategic capability. Christopher (2000) emphasizes
that lean concepts work best when demand is relatively stable and product variety is
low, as characterized by BTS supply chains. Moreover, Mason-Jones et al. (2000)
describe cost as the ‘‘market winner’’ (as opposed to just a market qualifier) for a lean
supply chain. It is therefore within this context that our framework relates BTS supply
chains with the lean capability and its emphasis on minimizing waste and costs.
Lean supply chains typically mandate close collaborative relationships with
suppliers (Choi and Wu, 2009). Such cooperative relationships are possible due to the
large volume, long-term commitments that can be made among the manufacturer and
its suppliers. Close supplier relationships allow for information sharing among supply
chain members that can reduce costs and counteract the bullwhip effect (Agrawal et al.,
2009). Therefore, information sharing initiatives such as quick response, efficient
consumer response, and vendor managed inventory are common in BTS supply chains
(Sharland et al., 2003; Balakrishnan and Geunes, 2004). For example, in the early 1990s
Marks and Spencer, a UK-based retailer instituted vendor managed inventory practices
with key suppliers of its stable products resulting in significant cost savings for both
the suppliers and Marks and Spencer (Storey et al., 2005).

3.2 Assemble-to-order supply chain

This supply chain provides customers with a limited number of choices in the
configuration of the final product. Customers can pick and choose among various
standard components that are available in arriving at their own product, but have no
control at the individual level in determining the design of these components. In order
to offer customers a number of options companies typically delay the final assembly of
products until orders are received. Dell provides a well-known example of an ATO
supply chain that offers customized desktops and laptops at relatively low prices to
both businesses and individual consumers. Similarly, automobile manufacturers offer
several options, such as air conditioning, power windows, or heated seats to their
dealers; end consumers can also special order cars not immediately available at the
dealerships, while end consumers in Europe may even have the option to order cars
directly from the manufacturer.
3.2.1 Assemble-to-order product characteristics. ATO supply chains are typically
appropriate for higher priced consumer goods that are assembled to individual end
customer specifications. These products are also frequently updated with the latest
technologies, increasing their rate of obsolescence. With the ATO supply chain,
forecasting takes place at the component level where aggregate demand tends to
increase accuracy. In contrast to the BTS supply chain, where the final product is
immediately available to the customer, ATO supply chains necessarily imply a certain Supply chain
amount of waiting from when an order is placed to when the product is actually processes
received. However, in very competitive industries, or those with products that have a
high rate of depreciation, such as the personal computer industry, the quoted delivery and strategy
lead time can be relatively short (for example, as little as five to seven business days).
3.2.2 Assemble-to-order production process characteristics. A modular approach is
often used in both the design and production of ATO products to address the trade-off
between efficiency and flexibility. With modular production processes, standardized
137
components are produced efficiently in appropriate batch sizes and then assembled to
meet individual customer orders. For example, Dell’s assembly lines use state-of-the-art
equipment that can assemble pre-made components quickly while achieving efficiencies
in production. Similarly, Toyota is able to offer a relatively large variety of features and
options for their Scion series of cars by producing basic vehicles on their assembly line
located in Japan, which are later customized based on dealer’s orders (Goldsby et al.,
2006). In both examples, however, the standardized components used to produce the
basic product impose a constraint to the degree of customization each product can have.
3.2.3 Assemble-to-order logistics process characteristics. The ATO supply chain is
typically controlled by the firms doing the assembly (e.g. Dell (personal computers) and
Toyota (automobiles)). There are often a small number of intermediaries in ATO supply
chains with end products either going to retailers/dealers for delivery to the end
customer, or directly to the end customer. Toyota, for instance, ships its basic Scion
model from Japan to distribution facilities located near US ports of entry where they
are customized before being shipped to various dealerships. Toyota also ships some
inventories of these cars directly to their dealers who can accommodate simpler
customization requests (Goldsby et al., 2006).
Because ATO supply chains usually have low profit margins and tend to operate
within very competitive environments, they need to maintain relatively efficient
manufacturing and logistics (especially upstream logistics) processes. At the same
time, ATO supply chains must maintain some amount of flexibility in their production
and logistics (especially downstream logistics) processes so they can customize and
deliver products quickly.
It is important to clarify here how we use the terms flexibility and agility. As with
the concept of lean, flexibility was initially only associated with manufacturing
processes, beginning with Slack (1987) who described flexible production processes as
those processes that can quickly react to changes in product mix and ramp up or
reduce production volumes as required. In recent years, however, the term flexibility is
often viewed from a company-wide or a supply-chain-wide perspective. There is a large
amount of literature on the subjects of flexibility and agility and how they might relate
to each other and to supply chains, but as Narasimhan et al. (2006) recently conceded
‘‘there is a considerable confusion over [lean and agile] paradigms as to their content’’.
Similarly, Reichhart and Holweg (2007) acknowledge that the terms flexibility, agility,
and responsiveness are often used interchangeably by both practitioners and
academics. For consistency, we employ the term flexibility within the context of
manufacturing and logistics processes (to highlight processes that have the ability to
change quickly in response to production or logistics requirements). At the same time,
we use the term agility to denote a business-wide capability to react quickly to market
changes, enabled among other things by flexible processes. In section 3.4, we discuss in
detail the characteristics of flexible production and logistics processes as well as agile
IJLM supply chains that also apply for the final assembly and downstream logistics
processes of ATO supply chains.
21,1 3.2.4 Assemble-to-order supply chain strategy. The major management challenge
with the ATO supply chain is the need to carefully balance the pressures of achieving
low cost, timely production and delivery (both of which are essential to remain
competitive) while still offering a wide range of product variety. In other words, ATO
supply chains must embrace both agile and lean elements in their capabilities. Such
138 hybrid supply chains are often called leagile (Christopher and Towill, 2001) and relate to
a postponement supply chain strategy (Feitzinger and Lee, 1997; Skipworth and
Harrison, 2006) since the actual production is postponed until individual customer
information is available. Leagile supply chains separate their lean and agile focus in
reference to a decoupling point (Naylor et al., 1999; Mason-Jones et al., 2000). The
decoupling point determines where the lean emphasis stops and the agile emphasis
begins. For some supply chains, this decoupling point is naturally the point where the
assembly or final production takes place. For other supply chains, the decoupling point
can be time-based, as suggested by Christopher (2001), starting with the lean production
of base level demand prior to the selling season and then switching to flexible production
for restocking inventory during the selling season. This latter type of leagility is
practiced by several fashion retailers such as the ski clothing manufacturer Sport
Obermeyer (Fisher et al., 1994) and the fashion retailer Benetton (Meichtry, 2007).
Like BTS manufacturers, ATO manufacturers tend to establish long-term relationships
with their respective suppliers to achieve efficiencies in their manufacturing and logistics
processes (Langfield-Smith and Greenwood, 1998). They also tend to encourage their
suppliers to replenish consumed components on a just-in-time basis, following the
principles of lean manufacturing (Choi and Wu, 2009). Both Dell and Toyota have such
close relationships with their suppliers (Magretta, 1998; Kraemer and Dedrick, 2002).
Toyota, in fact, not only has close relationships with its suppliers, many of whom locate
near its assembly plants, but also cultivates close relationships among their suppliers,
thereby allowing them to share best practices (Dyer and Nobeoka, 2000).

3.3 Make-to-order supply chain

The MTO supply chain provides consumers with the opportunity to have at least some
part of the product uniquely built to their individual specifications. At the same time, the
end consumer has no input into the overall design of the product, which remains fixed
within the design parameters established by the firm. Examples of products that fall into
this category include custom made clothing and shoes (e.g. as offered by Land’s End,
Tommy Hilfiger, and Nike), pre-designed houses, commercial airplanes like those
produced by Boeing, and custom made furniture, such as those offered by the Sherrill
Furniture Company, located in Hickory, NC. Sherrill Furniture produces a large variety of
MTO upholstered furniture. With its 9,600 sofa series, for example, customers can
choose from four types of arms, two legs, five backs, five bases, five frames, three
cushions, two back pillows, and more than two dozen types of toss pillows. In addition,
they can select from ten different wood stains and more than 700 fabrics.
3.3.1 Make-to-order product characteristics. The MTO supply chain delivers
customized, relatively expensive products that are specifically built to meet the needs
of individual customers, although the actual design specifications have previously
been established. These products are low volume and high margin products.
Interviews with the management of one of Sherrill’s retailers, Jordan’s furniture, a retail
chain with locations in eastern Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire, revealed
that Jordan’s has seen significant growth over the last several years in its customized, Supply chain
MTO furniture sales. The senior sales manager at Jordan’s Natick, MA store observed processes
that ‘‘Even though the delivery time for customized furniture is typically six to nine
weeks, most of our customers don’t mind the wait because they are getting exactly and strategy
what they want’’.
3.3.2 Make-to-order production process characteristics. Customization with these
products usually consists of a combination of standardized modular components and
additional elements that are specifically produced to meet individual customer 139
requirements. Some MTO supply chains are highly automated using flexible
manufacturing equipment, while others are more labour intensive. Higher labour skills
are usually required in these production processes compared to the ATO and BTS
production processes.
In MTO supply chains, forecasting is primarily done for raw materials and
standardized components. The raw material and components may be on hand to
ensure quick customization, but actual production does not begin until the customer’s
order is received, a characteristic typical of a pure pull process. As Gunasekaran and
Ngai (2005) point out, MTO supply chains can have longer lead times than ATO supply
chains because components and parts may not be as readily available to assemble the
final product.
Project or job-shop type processes tend to dominate here. Sherrill Furniture, for
example, operates as a job shop beginning the construction of the various components
of a sofa (arms, legs, backs, frames, etc.) only after an order is received. Sherrill aims to
strike the right balance between efficient and flexible production by designing the
various components of a sofa with a modular approach in mind, thus allowing for
different sofa designs to be produced from a smaller number of components.
3.3.3 Make-to-order logistics process characteristics. The control of a MTO supply
chain lies primarily with the builder or the product manufacturer (e.g. The Boeing
Company). There may be no distributors or retailers in MTO supply chains. The
smaller number of supply chain intermediaries allows for a faster response to customer
requests, as well as easier sharing of information among the supply chain members.
To ensure satisfied customers, the logistics processes of a MTO supply chain must
minimize delays. Although customers of Sherrill furniture need to wait for several
weeks before receiving their orders, unnecessary delays are avoided by purchasing
raw lumber in large quantities from various suppliers and maintaining a large
inventory of fabrics and various other components, such as wooden sofa legs,
purchased from outside vendors. Unlike the case of Sherrill furniture, competitive
pressures often dictate that custom-made products be produced and delivered within a
short amount of time. For example, manufacturers that supply Marks and Spencer
with exclusive, short-life-cycle, designer products are required by Marks and Spencer
to deliver such products in as little as four days (Christopher et al., 2006)[1]. In such
cases, manufacturers must not only ensure they have the appropriate raw materials on-
hand, but they must also pay close attention to their delivery schedules, which are
often optimized with the help of reliable outbound logistics partners.
3.3.4 Make-to-order supply chain strategy. Because of the relatively low volumes and
high profit margins associated with MTO products, firms here focus primarily on
attracting and maintaining new customers, ensuring customer satisfaction by
producing a high quality, customized product, and being sufficiently flexible to address
the demand uncertainty inherent in this supply chain. Similar to ATO supply chains,
MTO supply chains are leagile, only the decoupling point that separates the lean from
IJLM the agile emphasis is moved upstream to the beginning of the production process
where raw materials are processed (rather than at the start of the assembly where
21,1 components are processed). With the decoupling point between lean and agility
shifting towards the raw materials, a larger proportion of key supply chain processes
begin to focus on flexibility. MTO supply chains may therefore have less opportunities
to practice lean principles (e.g. they may be forced to carry large amounts of raw
materials inventories, as Sherrill Furniture does), although they should still attempt to
140 gain efficiencies as much as possible. One way to achieve efficiencies is through
collaborative relationships with key suppliers. As many authors have attested to, long
term, collaborative relationships has been a growing trend over the last decade (Storey
et al., 2005; Choi and Wu, 2009) regardless of the type of supply chain used. It is thus
important for MTO manufacturers to establish long-term relationships with suppliers
of standardized components and materials whenever possible, especially for
strategically important components (Tang, 1999). Close relationships with key
suppliers cannot only ensure reasonably priced, high quality raw materials, but they
can also help with their timely delivery. For example, with highly customized, low
volume networking products, Cisco maintains close relationships with their suppliers
and chooses them based on their proximity to the main markets rather than solely on
their ability to provide the cheapest price (Lee, 2004).
Although establishing close supplier relationships has many benefits, there can also
be several barriers to attaining them in MTO supply chains. One such barrier is that
MTO manufacturers must have a sufficiently flexible supplier base to be able to explore
alternative sources of raw materials that may be required for certain orders. In addition,
given the large demand variability of customized products, MTO supply chains may find
it beneficial to use more than one vendor for key raw materials in order to ensure their
availability during sudden or seasonal surges in demand. Another barrier can be the
small order volumes for some components, which reduce the manufacturer’s bargaining
power with suppliers. Tang (1999) describes several criteria that a buyer should have to
achieve higher bargaining power with a supplier. These include having in-house
capability to produce the part, incurring low supplier switching costs, and being an
important customer to the supplier. Tang (1999) also develops a supplier relationship
map based on a buyer’s bargaining power and the importance of a part to the buyer.
Accordingly, MTO manufacturers should carefully map their supplier relationships to
ensure the right balance of efficiency and flexibility with their supplier base.

3.4 Design-to-order supply chain

The ability to completely customize a product is the key characteristic of the DTO
supply chain, resulting in the customer having the greatest amount of input into the
finished product. (Products produced with this process are often referred to as bespoke
products.) In addition to having unique individual characteristics built into the
product, as is done with the MTO process, the DTO process allows customers to design
the products to meet their unique individual tastes. Products made with the DTO
supply chain represent the ultimate in customization, as there are virtually no
constraints on the customers with respect to incorporating their individual preferences
and requirements into the final design of the product. Examples of products in this
category include designer dresses for women that may be used for special occasions
(e.g. weddings, or special awards ceremonies), custom made men’s suits like those
made on London’s Savile Road, original architecture house construction and large
luxury yachts. The Electric Time Company, located in Medfield, MA, provides another
good example. Most of Electric Time’s clocks are one-of-a-kind that are designed and Supply chain
built to meet specific architectural requirements for the buildings in which they are processes
installed. Often these clocks need to be fully integrated into the building itself, both
because of their physical size as well as their individual electrical requirements. These and strategy
customized clocks, which typically range in price from $4,000 to $50,000 each but can
sometimes cost more than $100,000 and be up to 30 feet in diameter, often require 12-15
weeks to build, but can run as long as 25 weeks.
3.4.1 Design-to-order product characteristics. Such products are by definition low
141
volume (often volumes of one), with highly variable characteristics, and very high
priced. Forecasting is hardly done at all in the DTO supply chain, as the raw materials
are either commodities readily available in the market place or must be individually
sourced based on the specific needs of the product’s final design.
3.4.2 Design-to-order production process characteristics. Project and job-shop type
processes tend to dominate the DTO supply chain to ensure flexibility in production.
Much work has been done in the literature in identifying important characteristics of
these flexible manufacturing processes (see Oke, 2005 for a review).
At Electric Time, each customized clock is treated like an individual project. While
the company tries to incorporate standard components wherever possible, it will
customize any clock to whatever degree a customer requires, including customized
controllers and clock movements. In fact, it is the only clock manufacturer that
produces its own controllers and clock movements, which it considers to be one of its
competitive advantages. Process flexibility is accomplished through the use of
computerized machine tools that can adjust to a wide range of sizes and thicknesses of
sheet metal, and through the use of highly skilled workers in fabrication and assembly
operations.
There is typically no finished goods inventory in DTO supply chains. As with our
MTO example of Sherrill Furniture, maintaining inventories of only commodities, such
as sheet steel, and commonly used components such as clock hands, controllers, and
clock movements, provides Electric Time with significant flexibility to meet individual
customer requirements while at the same preventing the delivery time from getting
unacceptably long.
3.4.3 Design-to-order logistics process characteristics. The DTO supply chain is
usually controlled by the designer and builder, which typically deals directly with the
end customer, and lead times tend to be long. Electric Time, for example, deals directly
with the end customer who is usually the architect of the building. (In some cases, the
actual production, or some part of it, may be subcontracted out, in which case the
supply chain is controlled by the designer.).
Flexible logistics processes are essential in DTO supply chains. Electric Time
handles the delivery and installation of the customized clock to the end customer using
logistics partners that are flexible enough to transport products of significantly
different shapes and sizes. (The final assembly of the clock is often done at the
customer’s site.) More generally, Swafford et al. (2006) define distribution flexibility as
the availability of a range of delivery options with multiple carriers, which reduces the
likelihood of late deliveries. In addition, sourcing flexibility is defined as the
availability of a range of tier one suppliers as well as the ability to have flexible
contracts with these suppliers and to influence their performance in terms of delivery
frequencies, quantities, and lead times. Similarly, Lummus et al. (2003), Duclos et al.
(2003) argue that flexible logistics processes should be able to adjust to global
requirements, serve individual customer needs, and have the ability to change both
IJLM warehouse space and transportation carriers. Makeyourownjeans.com, for instance, is
a DTO supply chain that uses multiple carriers for their custom product deliveries. The
21,1 company produces a variety of custom made clothes, such as jeans, suits, and tuxedos.
After customers specify their measurements and style preferences on-line they can
receive their custom-made products two to three weeks later. Makeyourownjeans.com
uses multiple shipping partners that include FedEx, DHL, TNT Global Express
Logistics and Mail, and Aramex to serve its customers worldwide.
142 3.4.4 Design-to-order supply chain strategy. DTO supply chains must provide its
diverse customers with the highest quality of product and service in a highly uncertain
environment. Because of its emphasis on responding to uncertain and changing
customer needs, agility is the ultimate competitive priority of DTO supply chains.
DTO supply chains must maintain highly flexible production and logistics processes to
achieve agile capabilities. As we already mentioned, although some papers in existing
literature use the term flexibility with respect to both processes and supply chains
(Stevenson and Spring, 2007), it is more prevalent to employ the term ‘‘agility’’ to
describe the capability of the entire supply chain to respond effectively to market
changes (Reichhart and Holweg, 2007; Naylor et al., 1999; Goldman and Nagel, 1993).
Flexible production and logistics processes are thus enablers of agile supply chains
(Swafford et al., 2006; Narasimhan et al., 2006; Mohammed et al., 2008). In addition to
flexible logistics and production processes, Mason-Jones et al. (2000) identifies the key
elements of agile supply chains to be:
. focus on reducing lead times; and
. focus on enabling supply chain visibility.
Similar to Mason-Jones et al. (2000), Lee (2004) suggests that information visibility and
rapid data availability is a key element of supply chain agility, as are collaborative
relationships among supply chain members. Baker (2006) examines the role that
distribution centres play for overall supply chain agility and discusses how
warehouses should be designed to enable agility (via practices such as cross-docking
and in-transit merging).
Close supplier relationships have also been discussed within the context of agility in
the literature (e.g. Lee, 2004; Swafford et al., 2006) because they enable manufacturers to
influence the agility of their key suppliers. At the same time, however, the literature
stresses the importance of having a range of options for suppliers and delivery carriers to
ensure rapid response to changing demand and supply conditions. Therefore, as with
ATO supply chains, although close supplier relationships can be beneficial in DTO
supply chains, multiple supplier options must be explored and several barriers need to be
acknowledged. For example, some suppliers may be used so infrequently or in such low
volumes that close supplier relationships can be difficult to maintain. Scale can offer a
significant advantage in this respect. DTO supply chains that operate on a larger scale,
such as the Makeyourownjeans.com example we mentioned earlier may be able to
develop and maintain long-term partnerships with some suppliers, such as those who
supply denim for their popular jeans. In contrast, smaller scale DTO operations are likely
to have a harder time establishing and maintaining close supplier relations. Hersey, for
example, is a small scale custom-made shoe company based in Fitchburg,
Massachusetts. Hersey is such a small company that it simply cannot afford to offer a
variety of colour options for their custom designed shoes because they have chosen to
focus on getting high quality leather in just two colours (blue and gray) from key
suppliers.
4. Aligning products with supply chains Supply chain
Our discussion of the four supply chains and their respective strategic emphases in the
previous section naturally leads to our complete framework, which is presented in
processes
Figure 6. and strategy
Our framework illustrates that as the product characteristics change so does the
focus of the production and logistics processes as well as the focus of the supply chain
strategy. As with the Hayes and Wheelwright (1984) framework, the diagonal of our
product-supply chain matrix in Figure 6 represents the zone of strategic fit in which 143
companies can operate successfully by aligning their production and logistics
processes with the product characteristics as well as the overall supply chain strategy.
As we discussed in section 2, various authors and frameworks have captured different
aspects of alignment between products, processes, and supply chains. However, our
framework presents a more complete and detailed picture of the alignment among
these three entities that had not been addressed in previous literature.
Figure 6 also suggests that there may be significant opportunity costs incurred
when products and their corresponding processes operate outside the zone of strategic
fit. Consider, for instance, a company operating in the upper right corner of Figure 6. In

Figure 6.
Aligning products with
supply chain processes
and strategy
IJLM this case, a BTS supply chain operates with efficient production but flexible logistics
processes. Clearly there is a missed opportunity here. Even though the production
21,1 function appropriately focuses on efficient operations to address the high-volume
demand, the transportation, and sourcing functions are inappropriately focusing on
agility (at an unnecessarily higher cost), thus reducing the opportunities for low cost
sourcing and transportation of the goods to be stocked for final purchase. Such a
scenario would correspond, for example, to Barilla or Dell putting more emphasis on
144 hedging strategies with their suppliers (which is appropriate when there is a lot of risk
due to highly uncertain supply), when in fact the emphasis should be on cultivating
relationships with specific suppliers to ensure lean and just-in-time deliveries.
At the other extreme, misalignment also occurs in the lower left corner of Figure 6. In
this case, a DTO supply chain operates with flexible production but efficient logistics
processes. Such misalignment can again cause potentially high opportunity costs
because even though production appropriately focuses on low volume, high variety
output, the supply chain cannot source or deliver these products with the same levels of
flexibility. It would be as if Sherrill Furniture or Electric Time focused exclusively on the
cost savings achieved when sourcing and transporting raw materials in large batches, or
when delivering products to their customers. The focus should be on having the
appropriate variety of raw materials in place and the appropriate delivery structure so
that production and final delivery are not delayed and ensure a high quality product.
Finally, we should emphasize the applicability of the product-supply chain matrix in
Figure 6 for various supply chain ownership structures and the importance of
applying the framework separately to each product line.
With respect to supply chain ownership structure, the product-supply chain matrix
applies even when manufacturing is outsourced, or when the manufacturer sells directly
to the end customer. Consider, for instance the case where the brand owners (who design
or sell the product) outsource its manufacturing. Our framework suggests that the brand
owners would need to outsource to the appropriate manufacturing company based on
how the manufacturer’s processing capabilities relate to the overall supply chain strategy
for the product. For example, if the brand owners operate with a DTO supply chain, they
should then choose a manufacturing company based on the flexibility of their production
processes. On the other hand, if the brand owners sell high volume, undifferentiated
products with a BTS supply chain, they should choose a manufacturing company with
production processes that focus on efficiency as well as arrange for the efficient
transportation of the final products to the end customers. To illustrate, consider the case
of Woolworths, a U.K. retailer that sells a million plastic Christmas trees each year
(Christopher et al., 2006). Woolworths (the brand owner in this case) outsources these
trees mainly to Chinese manufacturers. Because Woolworths have very accurate product
demand, they can place orders as much as six months in advance and achieve significant
cost savings in this BTS supply chain with little risk.
With respect to product categories, successful companies with multiple product
lines should consult the product-supply chain matrix in Figure 6 and create specialized
supply chains depending on each product line’s characteristics. Cisco, for example,
uses a DTO supply chain for their highly customized, low volume networking products
choosing vendors based on their proximity to the main markets. For its wide variety of
mid-value products, Cisco operates with an ATO supply chain employing vendors in
low-cost countries that build core sub-assemblies, which are then customized by Cisco.
And for its standard, high volume products, Cisco maintains a BTS supply chain that
uses contract manufacturers in low-cost countries (Lee, 2004).
5. Comparisons with existing process-oriented supply chain frameworks Supply chain
Our discussions thus far emphasized the need for aligning the production and logistics processes
processes of a product with its demand characteristics and for matching supply chain
types with products. We next discuss how our framework relates to the two most and strategy
prominent process-oriented supply chain frameworks introduced in the literature
review in section 2.3. The SCOR framework consists of five operations-based processes
(plan, source, make, deliver, and return) but does not include other key processes such 145
as sales and marketing, or new product development. As Lambert et al. (2005) deduces,
the SCOR model focuses primarily on operations (rather than supply chain) strategy.
Our proposed framework is compatible with the SCOR approach, while taking a
broader view of supply chain strategy by clearly identifying the necessary strategic
capabilities for each of the four supply chains we defined in detail. Figure 7 highlights
how the five SCOR processes relate to our framework.
We should emphasize that although we regarded reverse logistics, including product
returns, as part of logistics processes, reverse logistics was not the focus of our
framework. The literature on how return processes relate to supply and product
characteristics is sparse. Our framework represents a starting point for how managers
can begin to think about integrating supply chain strategy with product characteristics
and reverse logistics processes. We suggest that BTS and ATO supply chains should
primarily focus on efficient return processes, whereas MTO and DTO supply chains
should primarily focus on flexible return processes. This view concurs with Blackburn et
al. (2004) who recommend that an efficient return process using a centralized processing
facility is appropriate for time insensitive products, whereas a responsive return process
using decentralized processing is more appropriate for time sensitive products.
The GSCF framework is broader than the SCOR framework and identifies eight
supply chain management processes that encompass all of the key processes within a
company’s operations (see Figure 8 for a list of the eight processes and how they relate
with our framework). Croxton et al. (2001) describe these supply chain processes in
detail and connect the strategic activities of each of these processes with their
respective operational activities. In addition, the demand management, the returns
management, and the order fulfilment processes are individually examined by Croxton
et al. (2002), Rogers et al. (2002), Croxton (2003), respectively. These efforts focus on
documenting the activities of key supply chain processes and highlighting how these
activities relate with the strategic planning process, but do not discuss (as we do in our

Figure 7.
Aligning products,
manufacturing, and
logistics processes within
the SCOR framework
IJLM
21,1

146

Figure 8.
Aligning products,
manufacturing, and
logistics processes within
the GSCF framework

framework) what strategy or what type of supply chain processes would be more
appropriate for different types of products.

6. Conclusion and future research

In this paper, we described in detail four distinct supply chains: BTS, ATO, MTO, and
DTO. We discussed the product characteristics as well as the important features of the
corresponding production and logistics processes for each supply chain. We also
identified and discussed the key management challenges that exist with each supply
chain (including supplier relationships) and distinguished between the strategic focus
on leanness (enabled by efficient processes), agility (enabled by flexible processes), and
leagility (a blend of both lean and agile capabilities), which are directly related to the
individual characteristics of each supply chain. We then positioned these four supply
chains within a unified conceptual framework that assists both researchers and
practitioners to assess the strategic fit between a company’s products, its supply chain,
and its production and logistics processes.
By synthesizing and expanding on existing conceptual frameworks identified in the
literature, our proposed framework emphasizes a process-oriented view of supply
chains (not as common in prior work) and highlights the important linkages between a
product, its supply chain processes and its supply chain strategy. It also underscores
the need for alignment between the product and its supply chain processes and
clarifies how this alignment should be achieved. As new products are introduced more
frequently in the marketplace and as supply chains become more fragmented with
more and more companies outsourcing key elements of their supply chains (Shapiro, Supply chain
2004), alignment can no longer be assumed, yet the need for alignment becomes even
more important. In this increasingly complex environment, our framework can aid
processes
managers to better visualize and understand the implications of their decisions as they and strategy
design or monitor a product’s supply chain over time or as they devise a supply chain
strategy for different products serving different customer segments. Consider, for
instance, a new product launch. Existing literature has recognized the importance of
integrating new product development with supply chain design and the need to pre-
147
inform and engage supply chain members before a product launch to ensure product
availability (Fine, 2000; Rungtusanatham and Forza, 2005; Forza et al., 2005; van Hoek
and Chapman, 2006). This body of work focuses on identifying the benefits of and
mechanisms for coordinated new product development, but does not provide a unified
framework for how new products should be matched with both production and logistics
processes. Our product-supply chain matrix can provide some guidance in this context,
suggesting that the higher the demand uncertainty associated with a new product
launch (such as for radically new products) the more flexibility must be built into its
production and logistics processes so that its supply chain is agile. As the product gains
customer visibility and demand volumes become more predictable, the focus can
gradually shift to a higher volume leagile or lean supply chain to gain efficiencies in
production and logistics. Over time, alignment between the product and its supply chain
processes must be reassessed as supply chains can gradually shift away from the zone of
strategic fit due to growth in their production and distribution networks, technology
advances and customer base expansion. To illustrate, consider Microsoft, which in 2001
successfully entered the video game market by outsourcing the hardware production
of its Xbox video game to Singapore-based Flextronics (Lee, 2004). Flextronics decided
to initially assemble the Xbox in facilities in Mexico and Hungary to ensure a more
agile ATO supply chain, and only much later shifted production to China to achieve
efficiencies.
There are two interesting research directions suggested by this work, both relating
to empirically testing parts of our framework. First, one could empirically explore
specific hypotheses corresponding to our four supply chain types in order to link
process choice to product and supply chain characteristics. For example, do BTS
supply chains indeed tend to operate with efficient production and logistics processes
and focus on lean capabilities? And more generally, do lean and agile supply chain
capabilities relate to products with different demand and volume characteristics?
Although, as we reviewed, much discussion of such concepts has appeared in the
literature, empirical analysis has only recently begun to appear in the literature.
Narasimhan et al. (2006) for instance empirically tested the distinctions between lean
and agility within the confines of manufacturing organizations. Similar tests need to be
expanded to examine the broader supply chain and to distinguish between supply
chains types and products.
In addition, it would be interesting to empirically validate the link between product/
supply chain alignment and performance. Several researchers have empirically
explored the validation of prior manufacturing-oriented conceptual frameworks such
as the Hayes and Wheelwright’s product-process matrix (e.g. Safizadeh et al., 1996;
Ritzman and Safizadeh, 1999; Devaraj et al., 2001; Kemppainen et al., 2008). Along the
same lines, empirically validating that firms that operate on the diagonal of our
product-supply chain matrix in Figure 6 are more likely to have better performance
compared to firms that don’t would be an interesting avenue for future research.
IJLM Note
21,1 1. Incidentally, Marks and Spencer’s strategy for these customized products is different
from the one it uses for their stable products (refer to section 3.1).

References
Agrawal, S., Sengupta, R.N. and Shanker, K. (2009), ‘‘Impact of information sharing and lead time
on bullwhip effect and on-hand inventory’’, European Journal of Operational Research,
148 Vol. 192 No. 2, pp. 576-93.
Baker, P. (2006), ‘‘Designing distribution centers for agile supply chains’’, International Journal of
Logistics: Research and Applications, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 207-21.
Balakrishnan, A. and Geunes, J. (2004), ‘‘Collaboration and coordination in supply chain management
and E-commerce’’, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-2.
Choi, T.Y. and Wu, Z. (2009), ‘‘Triads in supply networks: theorizing buyer-supplier-supplier
relationships’’, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 8-25.
Christopher, M. (2000), ‘‘The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets’’, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2001), ‘‘An integrated model for the design of agile supply
chains’’, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 235-46.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2002), ‘‘Developing market specific supply chain strategies’’,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Christopher, M., Peck, H. and Towill, D. (2006), ‘‘A taxonomy for selecting global supply chain
strategies’’, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 277-87.
Croxton, K.L. (2003), ‘‘The order fulfillment process’’, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 19-32.
Croxton, K.L., Garcia-Dastugue, S.J., Lambert, D.M. and Rogers, D.S. (2001), ‘‘The supply chain
management processes’’, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 13-35.
Croxton, K.L., Lambert, D.M., Garcia-Dastugue, S.J. and Rogers, D.S. (2002), ‘‘The demand
management process’’, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 51-66.
Davenport, T., Beers, H. and Michael, C. (1995), ‘‘Managing information about processes’’, Journal
of Management Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 57-71.
Davis, M. and Heineke, J. (2004), Operations Management: Integrated Manufacturing and
Services, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York, NY.
Devaraj, S., Hollingworth, D.G. and Schroeder, R.G. (2001), ‘‘Generic manufacturing strategies: an
empirical test of two configurational typologies’’, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 427-52.
Droge, C., Jayaram, J. and Vickery, S.K. (2004), ‘‘The effects of internal versus external integration
practices on time-based performance and overall firm performance’’, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 557-73.
Duclos, L.K., Vokurka, R.J. and Lummus, R. (2003), ‘‘A conceptual model of supply chain
flexibility’’, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103 Nos 5/6, pp. 446-75.
Dyer, J.H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000), ‘‘Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-
sharing network: the Toyota case’’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, special
issue: Strategic Networks, pp. 345-67.
Fabbe-Costes, N. and Jahre, M. (2008), ‘‘Supply chain integration and performance: a review of the
evidence’’, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 130-54.
Facenda, V.L. (2004), ‘‘Caught in the squeeze?’’, Retail Merchandiser, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 20-4.
Feitzinger, E., Lee, H.L. (1997), ‘‘Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: the power of Supply chain
postponement’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 1, pp. 116-21.
Fine, C.H. (2000), ‘‘Clockspeed-based strategies for supply chain design’’, Production and
processes
Operations Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 213-22. and strategy
Fisher, M.L. (1997), ‘‘What is the right supply chain for your product? A simple framework can
help you figure out the answer’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 105-16.
Fisher, M.L., Hammond, J., Obermeyer, W.R. and Raman, A. (1994), ‘‘Making supply meet demand 149
in an uncertain world’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 83.
Forza, C., Salvador, F. and Rungtusanatham, M. (2005), ‘‘Coordinating product design, process
design, and supply chain design decisions: Part B. Coordinating approaches, tradeoffs, and
future research directions’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 Nos 3/4, pp. 319-24.
Gimenez, C. and Ventura, E. (2005), ‘‘Logistics-production, logistics-marketing and external
integration: their impact on performance’’, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 20-38.
Goldman, S.L. and Nagel, R.N. (1993), ‘‘Management, technology and agility: the emergence of a
new era in manufacturing’’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8
Nos 1/2, pp. 18-39.
Goldsby, T.J., Griffis, S.E. and Roath, A.S. (2006), ‘‘Modeling lean, agile, and leagile supply chain
strategies’’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-80.
Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2005), ‘‘Build-to-order supply chain management: a literature
review and framework for development’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 5,
pp. 423-51.
Hammond, J. (1994), Barilla SpA, Harvard Business School Publishing, Case 9-694-046.
Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.G. (1979a), ‘‘The dynamics of process-product life cycles’’,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 127-36.
Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.G. (1979b), ‘‘Link manufacturing process and product life
cycles’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 133-40.
Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright, S.G. (1984), Restoring Our Competitive Edge: Competing Through
Manufacturing, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Huang, S.H., Uppal, M. and Shu, J. (2002), ‘‘A product driven approach to manufacturing supply
chain selection’’, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 7 Nos 3/4, pp. 189-99.
Kemppainen, K., Vepsalainen, A.P.J. and Tinnila, M. (2008), ‘‘Mapping the structural properties of
production process and product mix’’, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 111, pp. 713-28.
Kraemer, K.L. and Dedrick, J. (2002), ‘‘Dell computer: organization of a global production
network’’, report of the Center of Information Technology and Organizations, University of
California, Irvine, CA.
Krajewski, L., Ritzman, L.P. and Malhotra, M. (2007), Operations Management: Process and
Value Chains, 8th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lambert, D., Garcia-Dastugue, M.S.J. and Croxton, K.L. (2005), ‘‘An evaluation of process-oriented
supply chain management frameworks’’, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 25-51.
Lamming, R., Johnsen, T., Zheng, J. and Harland, C. (2000), ‘‘An initial classification of supply
networks’’, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 675-91.
Langfield-Smith, K. and Greenwood, M.R. (1998), ‘‘Developing co-operative buyer-supplier
relationships: a case study of Toyota’’, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 35 No. 3, p. 31.
Lee, H.L. (2002), ‘‘Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties’’, California
Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 105-19.
IJLM Lee, H.L. (2004), ‘‘The triple-a supply chain’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 1, pp. 102-12.
21,1 Lee, H.L. and Whang, S. (1997), ‘‘The bullwhip effect in supply chains’’, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 93-103.
Lummus, R., Duclos, L.K. and Vokurka, R.J. (2003), ‘‘Supply chain flexibility: building a new
model’’, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 1-14.
Lummus, R., Vokurka, J. and Duclos, L.K. (2006), ‘‘The produce-process matrix revisited:
150 integrating supply chain trade-offs’’, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 71 No. 2,
pp. 4-10.
Magretta, J. (1998), ‘‘The power of virtual integration: an interview with Dell computers’ Michael
Dell’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 72-85.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D.R. (2000), ‘‘Engineering the leagile supply chain’’,
International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 54-61.
Meichtry, S. (2007), ‘‘Benetton picks up the fashion pace; tracking trends with fast deliveries, the
Italian brand makes a comeback’’, Wall Street Journal, 10 April, Eastern edition: B.1.
Mohammed, I.R., Shankar, R. and Banwet, D.K. (2008), ‘‘Creating flex-lean-agile value chain by
outsourcing: an ISM-based interventional roadmap’’, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 338-89.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M. and Kim, S.W. (2006), ‘‘Disentangling leanness and agility: an
empirical investigation’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, p. 440.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M. and Berry, D. (1999), ‘‘Leagility: integrating the lean and agile
manufacturing paradigms in the total supply chain’’, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1/2, pp. 107-18.
Niezen, C. and Weller, W. (2006), ‘‘Procurement as strategy’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84
No. 9, p. 22.
Ohno, T. (1986), ‘‘Kanban and just-in-time at Toyota: management begins at the workplace’’,
Industrial Management, Vol. 1, September, p. 48.
Oke, A. (2005), ‘‘A framework for analysing manufacturing flexibility’’, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25 Nos 9/10, pp. 973-96.
Reichhart, A. and Holweg, M. (2007), ‘‘Creating the customer-responsive supply chain: a
reconciliation of concepts’’, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 27 No. 11, pp. 1144-72.
Ritzman, L.P. and Safizadeh, M.H. (1999), ‘‘Linking process choice with plant level decisions about
capital and human resources’’, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 374-92.
Rogers, D.L., Lambert, D.M., Croxton, K.L. and Garcia-Dastugue, S.J.J. (2002), ‘‘The returns
management process’’, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Rungtusanatham, M. and Forza, C. (2005), ‘‘Coordinating product design, process design, and
supply chain design decisions: part a: topic motivation, performance implications, and
article review process’’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 Nos 3/4, pp. 257-65.
Safizadeh, M.H., Ritzman, L.P., Sharma, D. and Wood, G. (1996), ‘‘An empirical analysis of the
product-process matrix’’, Management Science, Vol. 42 No. 11, pp. 1576-91.
Shapiro, J. (2004), ‘‘Strategic planning: now more important than ever’’, Supply Chain
Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 13-15.
Sharland, A., Eltantawy, R.A. and Giunipero, L.C. (2003), ‘‘The impact of cycle time on supplier
selection and subsequent performance outcomes’’, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 4-12.
Skinner, C.W. (1969), ‘‘Manufacturing – missing link in corporate strategy’’, Harvard Business
Review, pp. 136-45.
Skipworth, H. and Harrison, A. (2006), ‘‘Implications of form postponement to manufacturing a Supply chain
customized product’’, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44 No. 8, pp. 1627-52.
Slack, N. (1987), ‘‘The flexibility of manufacturing systems’’, International Journal of Operations
processes
& Production Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 35-46. and strategy
Stevenson, M. and Spring, M. (2007), ‘‘Flexibility from a supply chain perspective: definition and
review’’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 685-712.
Storey, J., Emberson, C. and Reade, D. (2005), ‘‘The barriers to customer responsive supply chain
151
management’’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25
Nos 3/4, pp. 242-60.
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2006), ‘‘A framework for assessing value chain agility’’,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26 Nos 1/2, pp. 118-40.
Tang, C.S. (1999), ‘‘Supplier relationship map’’, International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
van Hoek, R. and Chapman, P. (2006), ‘‘From tinkering around the edge to enhancing revenue
growth: supply chain-new product development’’, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 385-9.
van Hoek, R., Ellinger, A.E. and Johnson, M. (2008), ‘‘Great divides: internal alignment between
logistics and peer functions’’, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 110-29.
Webster, M. (2002), ‘‘Supply system structure, management and performance: a conceptual
model’’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 353-69.

Further reading
Guide, D., Souza, G.C. and Van Wassenhove, L. (2004), ‘‘Reverse supply chains for commercial
returns’’, California Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 6-22.
Skinner, C.W. (1974), ‘‘The focused factory’’, Harvard Business Review, pp. 113-21.
Supply-Chain Council (2008), ‘‘Supply-chain operations reference-model’’, Overview of SCOR,
version 8.0.

Corresponding author
Euthemia Stavrulaki can be contacted at: estavrulaki@bentley.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.