Journal of Operations Management · 2010 · 335 citations · 101 references
ManagementOperations ManagementSupply Chain ManagementOperations PlanningStrategic PlanningSupply Chain StrategyOrganizational AlignmentSupply Chain CollaborationSupply Chain CoordinationSupply Chain IntegrationSupply Chain Performance MeasurementIncentive ProvisionSupply Chain Integration MechanismsSupply Chain Performance AlignmentSupply Chain Performance EvaluationSupply Chain Performance Trade-offsSupply Chain Process IntegrationSupply Chain Strategic Objectives
Supply‑chain planning is a cross‑functional effort, yet functional areas such as sales, marketing, finance, and operations traditionally specialize, creating conflicts over expectations, preferences, and priorities. This case study investigates how a supply‑chain planning process can achieve integration despite conflicting functional incentives by distinguishing the incentive landscape from the planning process. Through iterative coding, the authors identified key process attributes—information, procedural, and alignment quality—and social elements that shape planning performance within a broader organizational context. The study shows that integration is attainable even when formal incentives differ, and that alignment in plan execution, rather than merely informational or procedural quality, is the most critical driver of performance.
Abstract In most organizations, supply chain planning is a cross‐functional effort. However, functional areas such as sales, marketing, finance, and operations traditionally specialize in portions of the planning activities, which results in conflicts over expectations, preferences, and priorities. We report findings from a detailed case analysis of a supply chain planning process that seemingly weathers these cross‐functional conflicts. In contrast to traditional research on this area, which focuses on incentives, responsibilities, and structures, we adopt a process perspective and find that integration was achieved despite formal functional incentives that did not support it. By drawing a distinction between the incentive landscape and the planning process, we identify process as a mediator that can affect organizational outcomes. Thus, organizations may be capable of integration while functions retain different incentives and orientations to maintain focus on their stakeholders’ needs. Through iterative coding, we identify the attributes of the planning process that can drive planning performance—information, procedural, and alignment quality—but also find evidence that achieving alignment in the execution of plans can be more important than informational and procedural quality. In addition to process attributes, we also identify social elements that influenced the performance of the planning process and place the information processing attributes within a broader social and organizational context.
101
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Kathleen M. Eisenhardt · Academy of Management Review · 1989 · 23.2K citations · Full text
An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change.
Brian J. Loasby, Richard R. Nelson, Sidney G. Winter · The Economic Journal · 1983 · 21.7K citations