Supply Chain Matrix

Introduction

The primary objective of valuechain management is integration ofthe value chain partners leading toimprovement in efficiencies andresulting in value creation to thestakeholders. In general thedecisions in any organization canbe classified into - Strategic,Operational and Tactical (SOT)(Ilyas et al, 2005). Supply chainmanagement decisions are oftensaid to belong to one of threelevels; the strategic, the tactical, orthe operational level (Teigen andBarbeceanu, 1997). Since there isno well defined and unified use ofthese terms, this section describeshow they are used in this article.Figure 1 shows the three levels ofdecisions as a pyramid shapedhierarchy. The decisions on ahigher level in the pyramid will setthe conditions under which lowerlevel decisions are made.

On the strategic level long termdecisions are made. These arerelated to the supply chain designincluding modes of integration andare determined by long termdecisions like - location, productioncapacity, inventory andtransportation (Ganeshan andHarrison, 2004). Decisions made onthe strategic level are interrelatedand have a bearing on the competitiveness of theorganization. They essentially dwellon the design of the value chain.The value chain design decisionsinclude the mode, degree ofintegration among the partners andmode of functional relationshipamong the partners. Modeling andsimulation are frequently used foranalyzing these interrelations, andthe impact of making strategic levelchanges in the supply chain. On thetactical level, medium termdecisions are made, such as weeklydemand forecasts, distribution and

The mode of integration in the value chain can impact a businessorganization in multiple ways and affect the sustainability of itscompetitive advantage. Several studies on benefits of Value Chainintegration have focused on comparing the ICM ratios (i.e. the cycle timefor flow of Information, Cost and Material). Past studies havedemonstrated that integration of the members of the Value Chain resultsin the improvement in productivity and profitability of organizations.However, such integration is operational in nature and results inincremental/ differential improvement. But the fundamental success of thevalue chain would depend on the mode of relationship between themembers. The mode of relationship is fundamental to the design of thevalue chain. The objective of this article is to identify appropriate factors,which would indicate the mode of relationship between value chainpartners and develop a “Decision Support Strategy Matrix” to facilitateappropriate choice of relationship. Value chain integration takes place overa period of time and to varying degrees based on the relative size, scope,ownership, and stakeholders' interest. The value chain partnership modedecision matrix has been applied to develop the strategy of south Asia'slargest steel company. Finally, the implications for practices and scope offuture research are identified in this paper. This research article is a blendof theoretical framework and practical application for managers.

Value Chain Relationship - A Strategy Matrix

56Supply Chain Forum An International Journal Vol. 7 - N°2 - 2006 www.supplychain-forum.com

R Mohammed Ilyas, DK Banwet

and Ravi Shankar Department of Management Studies,

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,[email protected]

transport planning, productionplanning and materials requirementplanning. The operational level ofsupply chain management isconcerned with the very short termdecisions made from day to day.The border between the tacticaland operational levels is vague.

Value chain integration decisionsalso should be made according tothe value chain decision hierarchyi.e. at Strategic, Tactical andOperational levels. Integration atthe strategic level is through thedifferent modes of relationshipslike ownership, joint ventures, long-term buying etc, which areachieved by incorporation,takeovers, mergers, acquisition,etc. Tactical and operationalintegration occurs by measures likeInformation Integration (II), VendorManaged Inventory (VMI),Collaborative Planning Forecastingand Replenishment (CPFR), Co-managed materials management(CMM), Just in Time (JIT),centralized database etc. Tacticalintegration is reflected by measuresto reduce the cycle time for flow ofInformation, Material and Cost.

Tactical and operationsinterventions for value chainIntegration lead to enhancement ofefficiency and effectiveness of thevalue chain. However, the strategicdecision on the mode of theintegration/ relationship betweenthe value chain partners canstrongly influence the success ofthe Value Chain itself. Erroneousdecisions on the choice of mode ofrelationship between the partnerscould result in critical disruptionsand will rapidly erode the value of stakeholders. The aboveproposition can be illustrated bystudy of the following case study.

A case study highlighting theimportance of right selectionof mode of value chainrelationship.

Steel Authority of India Limited(SAIL) is South Asia's largest steelcompany and the 16th largest steelcompany in the world with annualcapacity of over 12 metric tons(MT) of crude steel in 2005. Itenjoys domestic market leadership

in India and has a multi-locationdiversified product profile. With aturnover of over 7 billion USD, it isone of the largest and mostprofitable companies in India. Thecompany is highly integrated andowns and operates sources of mostof its critical inputs and utilities.However, it is dependent onexternal partners for supply ofcoking coal, the key driver ofproduction costs. SAIL hadtraditionally used a blend ofindigenous and imported cokingcoal. With declining quality andavailability of indigenous coal andwith a view to improve itsproduction economics, it startedimporting low ash hard coking coalprimarily from Australia. Graduallythe imported coal in the blend grewto a level of about 70 % by 2003. Thetotal coal imports of the companywere about 9 MT in 2003.Considering its large requirementand perceived stable internationalmarkets, SAIL adopted the model oflong term contracts for supply ofcoking coal with companies/consortiums selected on the basisof a bidding mechanism.

During the down cycle of theinternational steel cycle from 1996to 2002, the system was very stableand the functioning of therelationship was ideal. SAIL hadrealized a reduction in coking coalcost in real terms during the

period. Australian coal was thepreferred input and SAIL'sproduction systems had stabilizedwith usage of Australian cokingcoal, to the extent that Australiancoking coal became the primarystandard of SAIL's coalspecification. As many times inprevious years, in 2002 also SAILentered into long-term supplycontract (bi-annual) with aconsortium of Australian miningcompanies, for supplies coveringthe period 2003-2005.

In 2002, there was revival of theglobal steel market pushing up thedemand for input materials. Theupsurge, propelled by the demandfrom China, led to the prices ofcoking coal increasing by about 300%, well beyond the price escalationclause of any long-term agreement(Sethuraman, 2004). The Australianmining companies starteddefaulting on the supplies byinvoking the force majeure clauseof supply. This resulted in a suddendisruption in supplies. Productionin SAIL plants was affectedresulting in a marginal decrease inproduction in 2003-04, against astable annual growth trend of about5 % that it had achieved year afteryear. This affected SAIL financialperformance, more so as thiscoincided with the peak of thecommodity cycle and SAIL washandicapped. Having developed


Figure1 Hierarchy of Value Chain Decisions

(Ganeshan and Harrison, 2004)


production systems based onimported coal, SAIL was unable toswitch quickly. Further, havingbased its specification on theAustralian coal the cost ofprocurement from the spot market,coal of the stringent specificationwas prohibitive. To stabilize itsproduction system inspite ofthrottling, SAIL was forced toprocure from spot markets andenter into supply contracts athigher rates with other Australianand New Zealand based coalcompanies. Having missed out onthe trough of the commodity cycle,SAIL efforts in buying/ acquiringcoal properties abroad have notmaterialized (summarized fromarticles from “Business Line” and“Economic Times”, and SAILCorporate Website)

Case analysis

The above case highlights that thechoice of value chain relationshipmode, i.e. long term contract in thiscase for a critical input, waserroneous. The case demonstratesthat stable long-term relationshipsand contracts of supply could notsurvive a phase shift in thebusiness cycle and that the degreeof integration had little bearing insustaining the supply chain itself.

Therefore there is a need todevelop a suitable decision supportsystem to facilitate choice ofappropriate mode of relationshipbetween the value chain partners.Primary to development of such astrategy matrix would beidentification of the criticalvariables which determine thechoice of mode of relationship.

The ensuing research article is anattempt to: - Identify the critical variables

which determine the mode ofrelationship between the valuechain partners

- Develop a conceptual model for decision-making on the mode ofstrategic relationship between thevalue chain partners.

- Demonstrate the practical application of the model to drawthe alliance strategy for SAIL, thecompany in study.

Literature Review

A selected review of literature onValue Chain Management (VCM)and Supply Chain Management(SCM), effectiveness of supplychain relationships and integrationof supply chain partners wascarried out to study the variousdefinitions and interventionsproposed by researchers tofacilitate improvement in valuechain relationships. The ensuingsection captures a glimpse ofresearch in the area.

Literature on value chainmanagement and supply chainmanagement

Value has been defined in manyways based on the dimension ofstudy. In this article, however, weshall restrict ourselves to thecommon definition of value inmanagement-related literature.Value is the amount buyers arewilling to pay for what a firmprovides them. Value is measuredby total revenue, a reflection of theprice a firm's product commandsand the units it can sell. A firm isprofitable if the value it commandsexceeds the costs involved increating the product (Porter, 1985).Value is any activity that increasesthe market form or function of theproduct or service; and in today'sbusiness climate, there is a need tomaximise the value of everyprocess in a business (Jacoby,2005).

The origin of the word supply chainmanagement (SCM) can be tracedto the work of Jay Forrester in the1950s. However, the term itself hasgained popularity in the last 20years representing the concept ofmanaging an organization withregard to the activities, resourcesand strategies of otherorganizations upon which it mustrely in order to develop, produceand market goods and services(Dubois et al., 2004). Supply ChainManagement (SCM) is a process-oriented approach that overseesmaterials, finances and alsoinformation as each move in aprocess, such as from supplier tomanufacturer to wholesaler to

retailer to consumer. It involvescoordinating and integrating theseflows both within and amongcompanies (Monczka et al., 1998).Supply chain managementencompasses the planning andmanagement of all activitiesinvolved in sourcing andprocurement, conversion, and alllogistics management activities.Importantly, it also includescoordination and collaborationwith channel partners, which canbe suppliers, intermediaries, thirdparty service providers, andcustomers. In essence, supplychain management integratessupply and demand managementwithin and across companies(CSCMP, 2005). The ultimate goal ofany effective supply chainmanagement system is to optimisethe deployment of assets tomaximise fulfilment of demand (orcustomer service). The objective isto balance the two (Aitken, 1999).

Supply Chain Management (SCM)has evolved over the past 20 years.SCM in its initial days had an intra-organizational focus (Faisal, 2005).In this phase business enterpriseswere 'islands of automation', whereeach department operated asthough it existed in a vertical silo. Itwas moderately efficient, but didn'toptimize the organization.Managers were grappling with asystem, which had incongruence inobjective, and could not overcomethe traditional barriers betweenfunctions and members of theChain (Industry Week's The ValueChain, 2004). Then arrived theintegrated supply chain in theboom years of the 1990s.Companies that implemented anintegrated solution achievedsignificant business improvement.The most recent phase has beenthe networked or adaptive supplychain, in which all the participantsare able to interact with each other. This allows companies tocontract out everything; includingmanufacturing, to the point wheresales and marketing are the onlycore functions within some globalbrands. The next stage of supplychain development is seen to bethe 'snap-on' supply chain, wherean infinitely expandable network of

suppliers and buyers cancollaborate with each other andstrive collectively for ever-greaterefficiencies. This is the on-demandsupply chain, where no integrationis needed. (Chen and Paulraj, 2004).SCM is recognized as acontemporary concept that leadsin achieving benefits of bothoperational and strategic nature(Al-Mudimigh, 2004). There arevarious definitions of SCM inliterature (Houlihan, 1985). It hasbecome an umbrella term, coveringa set of practices for ensuring thecost-effective flow and inventory ofmaterial and finished productsthroughout the value chain from point-of-origin to point-of-consumption. (Li et al., 2006).Effective supply chain managementcan drive clear businessimprovement in three primaryareas: cost reduction, innovationand risk management. Each ofthese areas in turn has its ownvalue creation levers. Costreduction can be achieved bycutting procurement costs ongoods and services; slashinginfrastructure costs onwarehousing and equipment; andreducing inventory, in both work-in-progress and finished goods. Theinnovation levers are pricemanagement, unit or volumeincrease and new productintroduction. The risk managementlevers are - reduction in obsoleteinventory and improvement in riskprofile through a reduction in riskexposure.

The term 'value chain' wasproposed in 1985 by MichaelPorter, and he defined a company'svalue chain as a system ofindependent activities which areconnected by linkages. Linkagesexist when the way in which oneactivity is performed affects thecost or effectiveness of otheractivities (Porter, 1985). Every firmis a collection of activities that areperformed to design, produce,market, deliver and support itsproduct. All these activities can berepresented using a value chain.The value chain displays total valueand consists of value activities andmargin. Value activities arephysically and technologicallydistinct activities a firm performs.

These are the building blocks bywhich a firm creates a productvaluable to its buyers (Porter,1985).

A modern value chain is a businesssystem that creates end-usersatisfaction and realises theobjectives of other memberstakeholders (Walters andLancaster, 2000). A value system is a connected series oforganizations, resources, andknowledge streams involved in the creation and delivery ofvalue to end customers (Handfieldand Nichols, 1999). The value chain concept can analyse and describe a company's source of competitive advantage. Horizontallyinterdependent activities produceadded value for the consumer. Thecosts of these activities and howthese activities produce the profitmargin for the company areexamined in a value chain analysis.The value chain is divided intoprimary activities that are involved in the physical creation,sale, transfer of goods and services to the customer, andsupport activities which providetechnology, personnel andpurchased inputs and whichcoordinate the primary activities.So to generate added value, thecompany has to know how to addvalue to a customer's value chainand how to control costs. Costmanagement is based on theeffectiveness of the businessprocess and on limiting thebargaining power of the suppliers(Porter, 1998). The value chainrequires a comparison of all theskills and resources the firm uses toperform each activity. It is mostuseful for comparing relative costposition (Porter, 2001). Theprimary objective of VCM isintegration of the value chainpartners leading to improvement inefficiencies and resulting in valuecreation to the stakeholders.Companies worldwide use multiplemechanisms to reap differentiatedcompetitive advantage (Ling et al,2004).

There is a temptation to use 'valuechain' and 'supply chain'interchangeably, but there really isa difference in the concepts. The

supply chain model focuses onactivities that get raw materials and sub-assemblies into amanufacturing operation smoothlyand economically. Value chainmanagement (VCM) focuses atevery step, from raw materials(including those that suppliers'suppliers use) to customers andthe eventual end user, right downto disposing of the packaging afteruse. The goal is to deliver maximumvalue to the end user at the leastpossible total cost. This makessupply chain management a subsetof the value chain analysis (Baker,2004). The value chain notion has adifferent focus, and a larger scope.VCM is much more than justoptimising each step in the supplychain. For example, say we switchto a less-expensive package. Itmight save money, but it may costthe customer or the end user moreto dispose of it and it might makethe product look 'cheap', both ofwhich would detract from theoverall value of our product.Alternatively, we may try reducing warehousing costs byconsolidating inventories. However,if that action increases deliverytime, it may force customers toinventory more items on site,increasing their costs and reducing the value of the productsto them (Pil and Holweg, 2006).Value systems integrate supplychain activities, from determinationof customer needs throughproduct/service development,production/operations anddistribution, including (asappropriate) first, second, andthird-tier suppliers. The objectiveof value systems is to positionorganizations in the supply chain toachieve the highest levels ofcustomer satisfaction and valuewhile effectively exploiting thecompetencies of all organizationsin the supply chain (Handfield andNichols, 2002). Supply chainscreate value by being reliable andresponsive in matching demandand supply. Effective supply chainleads to efficient value chain(Hendricks and Singhal, 2003). Thegoals of SCM are to reduceuncertainty and risks in supplychain,\thereby positively affectingthe inventory levels, cycle time,processes and ultimately, end-



customers service levels (Guiffridaand Nagi, 2006). This creates asustainable and competitive valuechain, delivering superior valueproposition to the consumer.

In a value chain businessarrangement, each actor in thechain must make a mental shiftfrom simply “What is best for myfirm and my firm now?” to “Whatcan I do in my firm to maximize theeconomic, environmental andcommunity benefit to all themembers of this value chain?” Asignificant change often comes inthe form of information sharing. Ina value chain members need toshare a great deal more businessinformation with one another sothat all can make better decisionsthat affect the group. (Hult et al.,2006)

There are many definitions ofsupply chains and value chains,however, from the goals andobjective perspective, both aim atthe same 'optimization'. Whilesupply chain focuses at operationalinterventions, value encompassingoptimisation of operations, goesbeyond to deliver superior valuefor the consumer and creatingsustainable value chains(Middendorp, 2005). Theassociated cross-functional andcross-company collaborationacross the chain raises customervalue and profitability of entities ofthe chain and sustainability of thechain (Lejeune and Yakova, 2005). Astructure of supply chains iscomposed from potential supplier,producers, distributors, retailers,customers etc. The units areinterconnected by material,financial, information anddecisional flows (Fiala, 2005). The focus of SCM is optimisation,focus of VCM is competitivenessand sustainability. In essenceoptimisation focus of SCM is a subset of long-termcompetitiveness of the chain,which VCM aims to achieve. Manyresearchers, however, have adifferent interpretation of SCM andVCM, and many consider SCM isthe primary focus of anorganisation.

Literature on need andeffectiveness of Supply ChainPartnership

In today's fast-changing competitiveenvironment, strategy is no longera matter of positioning a fixed set ofactivities along that old industrialmodel, the value chain. Successfulcompanies increasingly do not justadd value, they reinvent it. The keystrategic task is to reconfigure rolesand relationships among aconstellation of actors--suppliers,partners, customers--in order tomobilize the creation of value bynew combinations of players. Itbreaks down the distinctionbetween products and services andcombines them into activity-based"offerings" from which customerscan create value for themselves.But as potential offerings growmore complex, so do therelationships necessary to createthem. As a result, a company'sstrategic task becomes the ongoingreconfiguration and integration ofits competencies and customers(Normann and Ramirez, 1993).

There has been, over the lastseveral years, a profound change inunderstanding the dynamics ofcompetitive advantage. A firm'ssuccess is tied, in part, to thestrength of its weakest supplychain partner. Only through closecollaborative linkages through theentire supply chain, can one fullyachieve the benefits of costreduction and revenue enhancingbehaviors (Spekman et al, 1998).Effective supply chain management(SCM) has become a potentiallyvaluable way of securingcompetitive advantage andimproving organizational performancesince competition is no longerbetween organizations, but amongsupply chains. Higher levels of SCM practice can lead toenhanced competitive advantageand improved organizationalperformance. Competitive advantagecan have a direct, positive impacton organizational performance(Suhong et al, 2006). Integration ofbusiness partners, suppliers, andcustomers is essential in this globalcompetitive market environment(Ip et al, 2006). Many executives are

developing supply chainpartnerships in an attempt toreduce costs, improve service andgain competitive advantage. Whilepartnerships can be beneficial,they are not appropriate in allsituations (Lambert et al, 1996). Anincreased focus on operationalperformance and the reliance onfewer suppliers by industrialcustomers call for a higher qualityof buyer-seller relationships.Therefore, the focus is on economicvalue generated partnerships andsuch partnerships have distinctivequalities from ordinary customerrelationships (Ploetner and Ehret,2006). Theoretically, within asupply chain partnership,traditional competitive barriersbetween supply chain members aremitigated to create mutuallybeneficial relationships, thusleading to increased informationflows, reduced uncertainty, and amore profitable supply chain(Maloni and Benton, 1997).

In today's environment, businessesare increasingly dependent on therelationships they have with theirsuppliers and are demanding thatthey adhere to high standards. It isincreasingly important that buyershave strong relationships with theirsuppliers to stay ahead ofcompetition. The establishment,development, and maintenance ofrelationships between exchangepartners are crucial to achievingsuccess (Parsons, 2002). There aremany advantages for firms thatenter into productive relationshipswith their suppliers such as lowerrisk, access to technology, morecooperation, increased knowledge,and information sharing (Parsons,2002).

The effectiveness of the SupplyChain depends on the integration,mutual commitment and long-termcommon perception of the SupplyChain Partners. In the traditionalbusiness models, the “SupplyContract or Purchase Contract”defines the relationship betweenthe supply chain partners.However, such contracts don'tnecessarily lead to integration,generally limit the relationship tothe transaction level, and may bebased on mutual mistrust and

maximizing the individual firm'sprofit. Even in long-term contracts,research indicates that formalcontracts have importantlimitations (Taylor and Plambeck,2003). It may be difficult to foreseeall the contingencies that mightoccur and contractually specifyhow the firms should behave inevery possible contingency. Even ifit were possible to write completecontracts, enforcement may bedifficult or costly. In such cases, thevalue of formal contracts may belimited. However, long-termrelationships between firms may bevaluable in discouragingopportunistic behavior. Repeated,ongoing interaction can facilitatethe development of trust andcooperation between firms. Indeed,while the importance of long-term,cooperative relationships is widelyreported in practice, the supplychain literature has devotedcomparatively, little effort informally modeling thisphenomenon. When firms areengaged in a long-term relationship,a buyer can credibly promise topurchase, when formal contractingto do so is impossible.

Better supplier relationships helporganizations to strengthen thesupply chain by making it moreresponsive, agile, lean andcustomer focused. One potentialpath for achieving performanceimprovements while maintainingproduction quality and cost goalsat the plant level, is through long-term partnerships with suppliers(Geffen and Rothenberg, 2000).Recent evidence shows that using aknowledge-based approach tostrategic alliances with suppliers ismore effective. Companies thathave longer alliance experienceseem to enjoy higher success rates.This implies that companies shouldlearn from their past andinstitutionalize their knowledgerather than take an ad hocapproach to alliances (Parise andSasson, 2002).

Another business model forachieving inter-organizationintegration is “collaboration”. Thetraditional school of“collaboration” has advocated fivetypes of alliances (Bleek and Ernst,

1995) - collisions betweencompetitors, alliances of the weak,disguised sales, evolutions to asale, and alliances ofcomplementary equals. However,such alliances have a “Life Cycle”and eventually get phased out(Dyer et al, 2001).

Compatibility (unified strategy,alliance record, strategic vision,differences in corporate culture,structures, differences intechnology, finances, accountingsystems, policies on ethics),capability (complementary strengths,stability, capability scrutiny, visiblevs. invisible competence) andcommitment (core activity, exitcost and changes), are thecornerstones of collaborativeadvantage (Kanter, 1994).Collaboration between organizationsis highly subjective to the firmsinvolved, their culture, businesstraditions, organizational goals,integrity, individuals and, moreimportantly, the contribution of thepartners to the shared competitiveadvantage (Ohame, 1989).

Supply chain models predominantlyutilize two different groups ofperformance measures - cost and acombination of cost and customerresponsiveness, (Beamon, 1999).Key elements/ attributes, by whicha supply chain system is evaluated and classified areefficiency oriented, effectivenessoriented and response orientedmeasures (Chopra and Meindl,2003).

Literature on integration ofSupply Chain Partners

The ensuing section captures aglimpse of research literature oninterventions for effectiveness of asupply chain. Actions to improvesupply chain performance (bothproduct and process) call formultiple interventions in suppliers'performance enhancement,manufacturing flexibility andcustomer demand mapping (Leeand Billington, 1992). Companies, inspite of globally integrated ValueChains, should retain a significantlevel of advanced managementtechnology to competesuccessfully (Panchak, 2001). Each

type of supply chain integrationactivity has unique benefits and challenges. The strategicintegration depends on integrationpolicies and associated resourcedeployment by the members(Swink et al, 2007). The idealbusiness model for achieving inter-organization integration is“collaboration” (Kopczak et al,2003). Limited visibility intosupplier contracts andperformance exposes enterprisesto inflated costs, diminishednegotiation leverage, missedrebates and saving opportunities,overcharging by suppliers, lowcompliance rates; greater risk ofsupply, policy and regulatoryviolations (Enslow, 2006). Thedesired features of an idealisticSupply chain and Value Chain,which would effectively fulfill theobjectives of optimization acrossthe chain are: Ability to ManageResource Allocation, MaterialFluidity, Information Fluidity,Utilization of Cost Management,Ability to Sustain Profit Margin,Ability to Sustain Value Margin,Adaptability to External Changes,Utilization of InformationTechnology, Networking Capability,Utilization of Internet andAccessibility to Virtual CompanyStructure, (Vanharanta and Breite,2003). Effectiveness of the SupplyChain depends on the integration,mutual commitment and long-termcommon perception of the SupplyChain Partners (Taylor andPlambeck, 2003). Leveragingknowledge capabilities is criticalfor strategic outsourcing decisions.Information and communicationtechnology is the backbone of knowledge accumulation,assimilation and transfer (Quinn,1999). Using a knowledge-basedapproach to strategic alliances withsuppliers is more effective.Companies that have longeralliance experience seem to enjoyhigher success rates. Formation ofstrategic alliances is an effectivemethod for collaborative strategy(More and McGrath 2001). Bettersupplier relationships helporganizations to strengthen thesupply chain by making it moreresponsive, agile, lean andcustomer focused (Vandermerwe,2000). There is an increasing trend


for firms to use a portfolioapproach to govern their businessprocesses using multiple sourcingmechanisms involving multiplefirms and geographic sites.Managers need guidance andframeworks to select the rightsourcing mechanisms for differentbusiness processes (Ling et al,2004).

Literature on Supply Chaincollaboration

In buyer-seller relationships, thefocus has moved beyond individualfirms to value-creating networksformed by key firms in the valuechain that deliver value to the endconsumer. Value-creating networkshave three core building blocks:superior customer value, corecompetencies, and relationships.Competition in the future will shiftto the network level from the firmlevel (Kothandaraman and Wilson,2001). The strength of inter firmbuyer-seller ties is vital tounderstanding the formation ofcommitment. The buyer firm'scommitment to the selling firmdepends on three identifiedproperties of tie strength(reciprocal services, mutualconfiding and emotional intensity).The strongest relationship is foundto be between emotional intensityand commitment - an understudieddimension of buyer-sellerrelationships (Stanko et al, 2006).As global markets growincreasingly efficient, competitionno longer takes place betweenindividual businesses, but betweenentire value chains. Collaborationthrough intelligent networks willprovide the competitive edge thatenables all the participants in avalue chain to prevail and grow.Collaboration requires individualparticipants to adopt simplifiedand standardized exchange nodes(Horvath, 2001). Collaboration hasbeen recognized as a significantprocess that holds the valuecreation opportunity in supplychain management. The supply-side collaboration has the ability toimprove the supply chainperformance in terms of betterstabilizing effect and service level(Yonghui and Piplani, 2004).

A netchain is a set of networkscomprised of horizontal tiesbetween firms within a particularindustry or group, which aresequentially arranged based on vertical ties between firms in different layers. Netchainanalysis interprets supply chainand network perspectives on inter-organizational collaboration withparticular emphasis on the value creating and coordinationmechanism sources. Sources of value and coordinationmechanisms correspond toparticular and distinct types of interdependencies: pooled,sequential, and reciprocal.Recognition and accounting of these simultaneousinterdependencies is crucial for amore advanced understanding of complex inter-organizationalrelations (Lazzarini et al, 2001).

Many managers attempt to developcollaborative alliances with otherorganizations. Such strategies aredifficult to implement: they are aslikely to fail as to succeed.Implementing and managing analliance is harder than deciding tocollaborate (Boddy et al, 2000).Mutuality (a reciprocal relationbetween interdependent entities)in business network relationshipsis critical in developing inter-firm systems of workflowinterdependence that promote thecreation of value. Through theirinteraction in business networkrelationships, firms in businessmarkets organize and share an unbounded structure ofinterdependent activities, enablingthem to achieve greater value thanwould be the case if they did notengage in relationship development(Holm et al, 2005). Buyers andsellers in mature industrial marketscan turn single transactions intolong-term beneficial relationshipsby a deeper understanding of thecomplex connection between thetwo firms. A "must-do" for thesellers, in particular, is tounderstand patterns of investmentand reward, and effectively managethe process that defines thedynamics of buyer-seller evolution(Das and Kasturi, 2004).The highest-level buyer/seller

relationship is - Complementary.This level is where true integralpartnering takes place. At this levelthe visions and values of eachoverlap with one another. There is atrue alignment of values in place.Each understands the needs oftheir alliance partner and workshard to help their partner get whatthey need while likewise servingtheir own organization (Rigsbee,2006). Transaction costs in valuechains do not necessarily increasewith an increase in relation-specificinvestments. Transactors cansimultaneously achieve the twinbenefits of high asset specificityand low transaction costs as thedifferent safeguards which can beemployed to control opportunismhave different set-up costs andresult in different transaction costsover different time horizons (Dyer,1998).

As global markets growincreasingly efficient, competitionno longer takes place betweenindividual businesses, but betweenentire supply chains. Collaborationcan provide the competitive edgethat enables all the businesspartners in a supply chain toprevail and grow. The level ofinvolvement of customers andsuppliers differs across differentsupply chain processes and alsoacross different sectors. While theinvolvement of customers is high indemand management and productdevelopment, the involvement ofsuppliers is high in transportationand inventory managementprocesses (Sahay, 2003). In international Buyer-sellerrelationships, functional conflict isrelated positively to exportercultural sensitivity and assetspecificity and negatively toexporter opportunism. Moreimportantly, importers' futurepurchase intentions are associatednegatively with opportunism andpositively with asset specificity andfunctional conflict (Skarmeas,2006). The power-affected buyer-supplier relationship was found tohave a significant positive effect onboth performance and satisfaction.The paths between performanceand satisfaction, however, wereconsistently found to be non-


significant (Benton and Maloni,2005).

Recent advances in inter-enterprisesoftware and communicationtechnologies, along with a growinguse of strategic partnering andoutsourcing relationships, hasresulted in a confusing assortmentof alternative information systemsapproaches for supportingcollaborative SCM. While analyzingthe expected costs and benefits ofeach type of system, not only thetotal cost of ownership of thesystem, but also the partnershipopportunity cost - the cost of beingtied to a partner due to systeminflexibility - should be considered(McLaren et al, 2002). Electroniccommerce is radically re-shapingtraditional supply chain structuresin many industries and reducingthe costs of closely integratingbuyers and suppliers. However,electronic commerce has yet toachieve its full potential in creatinga transparent network of supplychain members. A culture change isrequired in order to establish realpartnerships between buyers andsuppliers in which information canbe exchanged on a regular basis inan environment of trust (McIvor,2003).

Conclusion from literaturereview and identification of research gap

There are four main deficiencies inmuch of the existing buyer-supplierliterature. Firstly, collaborativebuyer-supplier theories fail todiscriminate sufficiently betweenindividual and firm-level buyer-supplier decision-making. Secondly,the stage models of relationshipdevelopment are challenged.Thirdly, the interdependenciesbetween buyer-supplier relationsand other, competingorganizational priorities arehighlighted. Fourthly, themonolithic constructs oforganizational 'commitment' and'trust' underpins much existingrelationship-marketing literature.Collaborative relationshippractices are susceptible to failuredue to wider organizational andbehavioral issues (Emberson andStorey, 2006).

Research in the past has beenfocused on interventions andmodels to improve value chainintegration at tactical andoperational levels. Empiricalstudies have been carried out oneffectiveness of various models andinterventions to improve the valuechain efficiency. Though there hasbeen substantial research onrelationships between value chainpartners, this research articleproposes a decision framework onthe selection of mode ofrelationship among value chainpartners based on identifiedstrategic parameters.

Modes of strategic relationshipamong Value Chain Partners

The different modes of interactionamong the value chain partners canbe classified based on ownershipas - equity based and non-equitybased. Further there are differentmechanisms under the abovebroad classification, and some ofthem are as given below -

Acquisitions (ownership basedcollaboration) and alliances (Non-ownership based collaboration) aretwo pillars of growth strategy. Thetwo strategies differ in many ways:Acquisition deals are competitive,based on market prices, and risky;alliances are cooperative,negotiated, and not so risky. Dyer et al. (2004), has provided aframework to help organizationssystematically decide betweenacquisition and alliance byanalyzing three sets of factors: theresources and synergies theydesire, the marketplace theycompete in, and theircompetencies at collaborating.

Dyer et al's research suggests thatseveral factors must be consideredbefore companies make thedecision to ally themselves withanother company or acquire it. The broad strategic choice for anorganization is to decide whetherto form an operational alliance orgo for an equity based alliance withthe value chain partner. Alliancesand acquisitions are alternativestrategies - the decision to do oneimplies not doing the other. It is avery critical choice and can have adramatic effect on achieving andsustaining competitive advantage.When pursuing collaboration as thevalue chain integration strategy,managers must carefully analyzeseveral factors before decidingwhether to form an alliance orgoing for stake holding. Key factors,which may determine the choice ofcollaboration mode, are :I. Synergies during alliance

The type of synergy aimed forwill determine the relationshipmodel. In general when twoorganizations come togetherthere could be three types ofsynergies - (i) Modular synergyi.e. the two organization/businesses are standalone andthe business interdependency islimited. (ii). Sequential synergyi.e. the business are in sequenceand the entities are partners inthe supply/ value chain. (iii).Reciprocal synergies i.e. thebusiness are mutuallyinterdependent

II. Nature of resource benefit Whether the real value of theasset is in terms of software i.e.people related knowledgesystems or in terms of physical/financial assets processed by theentity.


III. Extent of redundant resources The degree to which certainresources of the combined entitywould be rendered surplus orredundant i.e. the resourcereleased by avoiding duplicationof efforts/ activities.

IV. Degree of market uncertainty The degree of perceived marketuncertainty of the allying entityin terms of business, product,technology, redundancy,financial and geo-political risksetc.

V. Level of competition the number of competing entitieswho would like to ally with theproposed partner.

All the above factors are to beconsidered while deciding themode of collaboration i.e. whetherto go for acquisition or alliance andthe degree of participation in thealliance. The decision of the modeof participation is dependent on acombination of the above factorsand can be summed-up as given inthe Table 1 (Dyer et al, 2004)

The model of the Five CompetitiveForces is an important tool foranalyzing an organizations industrystructure in strategic processes

(Porter, 1985). Porter's model isbased on the insight that acorporate strategy should meet theopportunities and threats in theorganizations external environment.Especially, competitive strategyshould be based on andunderstanding of industrystructures and the way theychange.

Porter (1985) has identified fivecompetitive forces that shapeevery industry and every market.These forces contribute to theintensity of competition and hencethe profitability and attractivenessof an industry. The objective ofcorporate strategy should be tomodify these competitive forces ina way that improves the position ofthe organization. Porter's modelsupports analysis of the drivingforces in an industry. Based on theinformation derived from the FiveForces Analysis, management candecide how to influence or toexploit particular characteristics of their industry. The FiveCompetitive Forces are typicallydescribed as follows:(a) Bargaining Power of Suppliers(b) Bargaining Power of Customers(c) Threat of New Entrants

(d) Threat of Substitutes(e) Competitive Rivalry between

Existing Players

After the analysis of current andpotential future states of the fivecompetitive forces, managers cansearch for options to influencethese forces in their organization'sinterest. Although industry-specificbusiness models will limit options,the own strategy can change theimpact of competitive forces on theorganization. The objective is toreduce the power of competitiveforces.

The general strategy adopted by anorganization to balance thecompetitive forces is as given inTable 2 (Porter, 1991).

Translating the above strategy intothe mode of collaboration tobalance the competitive strategy,the force balancing strategy matrixis as given in Table 3.

The factors, which indicate thechoice of mode of collaborationidentified by Dyer et al (2004) andthe strategy to balance the fivecompetitive forces proposed byPorter (1991) are complementary


Table 1Modes of Collaboration Strategy


Table 2Strategy to Balance Competitive Forces

Table 3Competitive Force Balancing Collaboration Strategy

(Adapted from Porter ME, "Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy", Strategic Management Journal 1991, vol. 12, 95-117)

and can be combined to develop astrategy matrix to select theappropriate mode of value chainrelationship by contextual analysisor classification of the product orservice that is proposed to beexchanged between the partners.The choice of integration mode thatcan be adopted by organizationfocuses on facilitating achievementof the strategic objectives of valuechain partners.

Collating the decision variables ofalliance choice identified by Dyer etal (2004) and the competitiveforces identified by Porter (1985) avalue chain relationship strategymatrix has been developed. Thematrix can facilitate thedetermination of the mode of valuechain relationship leading to morestable integration.

To evaluate the effectiveness of themodel, the value chain relationshipstrategy matrix may be applied to

two recent cases of internationalalliance. In Feb 2001, Coca-Cola andProcter & Gamble (P&G) formed ajoint venture that would manageabout 40 brands. Coca-colatransferred about 18 brands andP&G the balance primarily in theFood and Beverages segment. Thejoint Venture was to enhance valueby leveraging competencies of bothof the organizations to create valuefor the customer. The plan was toleverage P&Gs brand managementcapabilities and Coca-Colas

international distribution system.The alliance failed and wasterminated in July 2001.

Applying the value chainrelationship strategy matrix, thekey considerations for therelationship were - there wereplenty of redundant resources,reciprocal synergy for physicalinfrastructure and raw materials,there was low market uncertainty.Further, the bargaining power ofthe customer was high, the alliancewould have reduced the bargainingpower of the supplier and thecompetition was high among theplayers. Under these factors thesuggested strategy should havebeen acquisition of the business byone of the two players. IdeallyCoca-Cola should have acquiredthe business of P&G. This case hasbeen analyzed by Dyer et al (2001).(A brief write-up narrating this case available is also available on the sitehttp://www.answers.com/topic/procter-gamble).

In an Indian context, consider theacquisition of Ponds India Limitedby Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL)in 1993 and subsequent merger in1998. Ponds was primarily aproducer of processing chemicalsand certain cosmetics. It also haddiversified in to certain userindustries of its chemicals likeleather goods manufacturing. HLLwas one of the major buyers ofchemicals from Ponds. Analyzingthe factors suggested in thealliance strategy matrix, therelationship between Ponds andHLL was sequential, the marketingresource would be renderedredundant by a relationshipbetween the two and the marketuncertainty was high. Thesuggested course of action wouldbe acquisition of Ponds by HLL. Itmay be stated that HLL acquiredPonds in 1993 and merged withitself in 1998 and by the synergicgain there has been valueenhancement of both the entities.(For a brief narration of this case,refer to the write up by Kumar,2002)

Contextual application of the value chain relationshipstrategy matrix in SAIL

SAIL is India's largest steel plantand has drawn ambitious growthplan to increase its production fromabout 12 MT to about 20 MT.Critical to successful growth andcompetitiveness of SAIL would bethe enhancement of participationand integration with value chainpartners. SAIL's growth will not bepossible without synergic growthwith partners. This wouldmean to choose the appropriatemode/methodology for itsrelationship with partners forgrowing efficiently. Inappropriatedecisions on the mode ofrelationship (i.e. Joint venture,acquisitions, alliances, long termcontract, Build Own Operate) willlead to failure as has been amplydemonstrated by worldwideexperience.

The consensus view emerged bythe SAIL top management that aspart of its growth plans, the


Table 4Alliance Strategy Matrix

Note: The "Alliance Factor" and "Competition Intensity" do not have one-to-one correspondence. Rather, it is to be read in context asillustrated below -In the case when "the bargaining power of the customer is high" and "resource benefit is high by the alliance (i.e. the partner has apremium for owning the resource)" acquisition is the ideal mode.In the case when "there is high competition among players" and "there is high market uncertainty", consolidation of players i.e. acquisitionby one player is the ideal mode.In the Coca-Cola and Procter & Gamble (P&G) case, the JV was to enhance value by leveraging competencies of both of the organizations tocreate value for the customer. The plan was to leverage P&Gs brand management capabilities and Coca-Colas international distributionsystem. Applying the value chain relationship strategy matrix, the key considerations for the relationship were - there were plenty ofredundant resources, reciprocal synergy for physical infrastructure and raw materials, there was low market uncertainty. Further, thebargaining power of the customer was high, the alliance would have reduced the bargaining power of the supplier and the competition washigh among the players. Under these factors the suggested strategy should have been acquisition of the business by one of Coca-Cola andP&G for an JV, it however failed in little more than an year since its formation.

following areas require enhancedintegration with chain partners (i.e.for alliances, acquisition and JointVenture) -

• Critical inputs - Coal/ Coke or coast based coke ovenbatteries

Coking Coal is the reducing agent inproduction of steel by the BlastFurnace route of production. BlastFurnace route is the primaryproduction process and about 75%of global production is based on it.The Coking coal is converted intocoke (by anaerobic oxidation),thereby increasing the carbonpercentage and reducing thevolatile material. This process iscarried out in coke oven batteries.Coke form the biggest componentin the cost of production of steel.High quality coking coal depositsare mostly found in Australia, NewZealand, Canada, Indonesia, Brazil,Russia, etc. Most of the steelproducers in India import cokingcoal. SAIL imports about 80% of itscoal requirement from Australiaand New Zealand, as its productionsystems have stabilized on gradesof cola form these countries. Asexplained earlier in this article,sourcing of coal has becomedifficult and critical for success andprofitability of SAIL. All theintegrated steel plants of SAIL arelocated inland and have coke ovenbatteries. In the future toeconomize on logistics cost,imported coal could be convertedinto coke at the coast and then thecoke be transported to the steelplants. Therefore, acquiring cokingcoal properties or acquiring coastbased standalone coke ovens withlong-term contract or joint venturefor coal supplies is critical for thelong term profitability and growthof SAIL

• Other key resources like alloying metals/ fluxes etc

Based on the specific application,steel is alloyed with other metals toimpart specific engineering andphysical properties (e.g.manganese, vanadium, chromium,nickel, copper etc). Fluxes likeSilico manganese, Ferro silicon are

added to liquid steel to facilitatereduction of ferrous oxide, the ore.Owning or having strategic tie-upfor supplies of these metals canlead to a more effective and stablesupply chain.

• Service centers

The integrated steel plants arevolume producers; they producesteel products of standard sizes.However, the consumer may havediverse needs and may requireproducts cut or shaped to his need.But these quantities don't justifyproduction systems at the steelplants itself. Therefore, steelservice centers are set up to servethe customer with specific serviceslike, cutting, shearing, cropping,straitening, de-coiling etc. SAILwould like to form joint ventureswith companies which havespecific expertise in theseengineering processes

• Rolling mills

SAIL's major competitive advantageis in its production of low coststeel. Therefore, it makes much ofits value chain margin at the“semis” stage itself. Semis areundefined products (e.g. slabs,blooms, billets, ingots etc) whichneed to be further rolled or formedinto marketable industrial productslike coils, sheets, rods, bars etc.SAIL produces large quantities ofsemis. SAIL would like to focus itsinvestments in high volume steelmaking and high volume rollingonly. Therefore, it could tie-up withrolling mills which could use SAIL'ssemis and produce marketableproducts.

• Vertical integration of facilities

SAIL's value chain extends frommining of iron ore to producing ofsaleable steel products, both longand flats. Integration, both forward(using semis to produce specificproducts or value added productslike coating, piping, treatments etc)or backward (mining development,coal mines, alloying and flux minesetc) are highly desirable as this willreduce the value chain fluctuationsand will greatly aid integratedgrowth and profitability.

• Utilities like oxygen and power

Key utilities used for steelproduction are Power and oxygen.In the past all power and oxygensources were within SAIL. However,its rapid growth plans require hugeinvestments in these utilitiesfacilities. SAIL would like torationalize its investments in thecore areas of steel production.However, it would not like todepend on “pure buying”relationships for such criticalinputs. Therefore, joint ventureswith specialists in these utilitieswould be a win-win proposition.

• Technology tie-up especially for emerging/ sunrisetechnology

SAIL has been following aconservative technology strategy.Its plants are based on very provenand stable technologies. However,the newer steel producers havetaken to sunrise and emergingtechnologies to build their costadvantage, e.g., thin slab casting,continuous strip casting, corexprocess, finex etc. SAIL would,however, like to keep tabs on thesetechnologies, but without makinghuge investments. Therefore, itwould like to tie-up with technologypartners, mostly large equipmentsuppliers or process developers

• Consultancy activities

To leverage its vast engineeringpool and knowledge base, SAIL hasbeen providing engineering andproject consultancy through itsconsultancy arm. This facilitatesutilization of engineering skills,international exposure to varioustechnologies for its manpower andstrategic business intelligencegathering. Considering the globalgrowth and consolidation in thesteel industry, SAIL would like toexpand its consultancy activities.Considering the resource andvariety of services, it would like toform joint ventures withcomplimentary service providers,thereby providing completebouquet of services to clients. Considering the nature of the above


ventures and based on theproposed value chain relationshipstrategy matrix, the mode ofalliances for the above venturesshall be as given in Table 5.

SAIL, as part of its expansion effortsmust ally with/acquire value chainpartners, in order to ensureaccesses to critical resource -material, knowledge, technology,market etc. The model of suchalliances can be based on the valuechain relationship strategy model. One of the authors, as part of hisprofessional assignment, hasapplied the above framework fordeciding the relationship strategyto be adopted with the value chainpartner. Accordingly in case of coalor coke facilities, SAIL has beenseeking to acquire overseascompanies/ assets (refer to newsarticles from www.thehinduonline.com

and www.economictimes.indiatimes.com). In the case of alloying metals andfluxes the company is in theprocess of establishing long-termrunning contracts. In the case ofservice centers to customize theproducts for end application, SAILhas entered into a non-equity basedalliance and has appointedexclusive service center agents. Ithas been exploring the possibilityof acquiring finishing facilities inIndia and abroad and some of theseefforts are in advanced stages. Inthe case of access to technology, ithas tied up with internationaltechnology partners for projectcommissioning and continuoussupport. To enhance theirknowledge base, the firm hasexpanded into consultancy and toadd value is proposing to enter inJoint Ventures with internationalequipment suppliers.

As can be seen from the case ofapplication in SAIL, the model is aneffective qualitative decisionsupport tool.

Discussion and conclusion

The value chain relationshipstrategy matrix developed in theresearch article can be an effectivedecision support model, indeciding the modes of relationshipamong the value chain partners.The decision of the moderelationship between the valuechain partners is strategic in natureand has the primary bearing on thesuccess of the value chain,especially during business phaseshifts.

Despite the fact that the matrixdeveloped in this research is for theparameters prominently seen in the


Table 5SAIL's Alliance Mode Strategy

manufacturing sector, somegeneralization of results is stillpossible. The corporateenvironment necessitates multiplemodes of relationships for transferof material, especially on thesupply side of the value chain. Thechoice of mode of relationshipamong the value chain partners iscritical in the value chain'sefficiency and has to be focused onfor reaping strategic benefits forthe organization. The mode ofrelationship would depend on therelative position of the partnersand the balance of forces identifiedin the value chain relationshipstrategy matrix. The matrix can aidtop management in deciding thepriority so that it can proactivelyintervene.

Thus, the model proposed in thispaper for decision-making providesan important tool and can providethe decision maker a more realisticrepresentation of the problem inthe course of managing the valuechain and choice of mode ofestablishing relationships. Themajor contributions of thisresearch lies in the identification ofsome of key decision parameters inselecting the mode of relationshipbetween the value chain partners,re-emphasis on the importance ofstrategic decisions on value chaineffectiveness, especially in testingtimes like cyclic businessenvironments, and thedevelopment of the value chainrelationship strategy matrix.Further, by contextual applicationin developing the strategy of amajor Indian steel companyapplying matrix, it has beeninferred that a long-termrelationship and appropriate modeof relationship among partnersleads to a more effective and stablevalue chain.

The utility of the proposed valuechain relationship strategy matrixas a decision support system indeciding direction of thecomplexity of relationships amongelements of a system can provideconsiderable value to the decisionmakers.

At the end, we examine the scope offurther research. In this research,

the value chain relationshipstrategy matrix developed is basedon the study of factors affecting thechoice of mode of relationshipbetween organizations and hasbeen further refined in conjunctionwith Porter's five force model. Thematrix has been applied to developthe alliance strategy for SAIL. Tobroaden the base of the model, itmay be applied on past successfuland failure cases of various modesof relationship among value chainpartner in a wider gamut of sectorsand industries. Further, systematiccase analysis of the 'value chainmode decision' by organizationswould facilitate generalization andidentifying more value chainrelationship decision variables.

References

Aitken, J. M., (1999), SupplierAssociations, a MethodologicalOpportunity in Supply Chain Research.8th International Annual IPSERAConference, 1999 Belfast and Dublin, pp13-22

Al-Mudimigh, A.S., Zairi, M., Ahmad, A.M. M., (2004), Extending the concept ofsupply chains: The effectivemanagement of value chains,International Journal of ProductionEconomics, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp 309-320

Baker, L., (2004), Turn your supply chaininto value chain, assessed on 18 Feb 2005 fromhttp://www.wmep.org/valuechainmanagement.html

Beamon, B.M., (1999), Designing thegreen supply chain, Logistics InformationManagement, Vol.12, No.4, pp 332-342

Benton W.C. & Maloni M., (2005), Theinfluence of power driven buyer/sellerrelationships on supply chainsatisfaction, Journal of OperationsManagement, Volume 23, Issue 1,January, pp 1-22.

Bleek, J., & Ernst, D., (1991), The Way toWin in Cross-Border Alliances. HarvardBusiness Review, November-December:pp 127-135.

Boddy, D., Macbeth D., and Wagner B.,(2000), Implementing CollaborationBetween Organizations: An EmpiricalStudy Of Supply Chain Partnering,Journal of Management Studies, Volume37, Number 7, November, pp. 1003-1018(16)

Chen, I.J. & Paulraj, A., (2004), Towardsa theory of supply chain management:the constructs and measurements,Journal of Operations Management, Vol.22, No. 2, pp 119-150

Chopra S. & Meindl P., (2003), SupplyChain Management, Prentice Hall, NewYork, Chapter-17, pp 118-120

Das Narayandas & Kasturi Rangan V.,(2004), Building and Sustaining Buyer-Seller Relationships in Mature IndustrialMarkets, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68,No. 3, July, pp. 63-77

Dubois, A., Hulthen, K Pederson, A-C,(2004), Supply chains andinterdependence: a theoretical analysis,Journal of Purchasing and SupplyManagement, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp3-9

Dyer H. J., (1998), Effective interimcollaboration: how firms minimizetransaction costs and maximizetransaction value, Strategic ManagementJournal, Dec, Volume 18, Issue 7 , pp 535- 556

Dyer H J., Prashant K., Harbir S., (2001),How to Make Strategic Alliances Work,Sloan Management Review, pp 38 -44.

Emberson C., & Storey J., (2006), Buyer-supplier collaborative relationships:Beyond the normative accounts, Journalof Purchasing and Supply Management,Available online since 21 November2006

Enslow B., (2006), Top 5 Pitfalls to Avoidwith Supply Chain Visibility, Aberdeengroup Research Papers, Retrieved onAug 15, 2006, fromhttp://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/research_briefs/RB_VIsibility_BE_3694.asp

Faisal, M.N., (2005), Innovative supplychains lessons for Indian small andmedium enterprises, BVIMR ManagementEdge, Vol 1, No. 2, pp 48-53

Fiala, P, (2005), Information sharing insupply chains, Omega, Vol 33, No. 5, pp419-423


Ganeshan R. & Harrison T. P., (2004), An Introduction to Supply ChainManagement. Penn State University.Retrieved on June 6, 2004, from Website: URL: http:// silmaril.smeal.psu.edu/misc/ supply_chain_intro.html

Geffen, C. & Rothenberg, S. (2000),Suppliers and environmentalinnovation: The automotive paintprocess. International Journal ofOperations & Production Management,20(2), pp 166-186.

Globerman S., & Aidan R. V., (2004), TheOutsourcing Decision: A StrategicFramework, European ManagementJournal, March, pp 2-30

Guiffrida, A.L.& Nagi, R., (2006), CostCharacterization of supply chain deliverperformance, International Journal ofProduction Economics, Vol. 102, pp 22-36

Handfield R.B. & Nichols, E.L., (2002),Supply Chain Redesign, Financial TimesManagement, pp 11-12

Handfield, R.B. & Nichols, E. L., (1999),Introduction to Supply ChainManagement. Prentice-Hall, NJ.

Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R., (2005),An Empirical Analysis of the Effect ofSupply Chain Distribution on Lon-RunStock Price Performance and EquityRisk of the Firm, Production andOperations Management, Vol. 14, No. 1,pp 35-52

Holm D., Blankenburg K., Eriksson, J., J.,(2005), Creating value through mutualcommitment to business networkrelationships, Strategic ManagementJournal, Volume 20, Issue 5 , pp 467 - 486

Horvath L., (2001), Collaboration: thekey to value creation in supply chainmanagement, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Dec , Vol 6,Issue 5, pp 205 - 207

Houlihan, J., (1985), Internationalsupply chain management, InternationalJournal of Physical Distribution andMaterials Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp22-38

Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, Jr. D.J., Casvusgil,S.T. and Calantone, R.J., (2006),Knowledge as a strategic resource insupply chains, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp 458-475

Ilyas, R.M, Ravi Shankar, Banwet, D.K,(2005), Interventional Roadmap forDigital Enablement Leading to EffectiveValue-chain Management in theManufacturing Sector, Global BusinessReview, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp 207-229.

Ip W.H., Bocheng Chen, Henry C.W. Lauand Bing Liang, 2006, A FunctionalFramework for Integrating eCRM withWorkflow Management Based onCustomer Value, Tsinghua Science &Technology, Volume 11, Issue 1,February 2006, pp 65-73

Jacoby A R., (2005), Achieving HighPerformance through Capabilities: What's Required to Dominate in the Service Business, Retrieved December 8, 2005, from Web site:http://www.accenture.com/Global/Research_and_Insights/By_Subject/Supply_Chain_Mgmt/AchievingBusiness.htm

Kanter, R. M., (1994), CollaborativeAdvantage: The Art of Alliances.Harvard Business Review 72 (July-August 1994), pp 96-108.

Kopczak L. R., & Johnson M. E., (2003),The Supply Chain Management Effect,Sloan Management Review, MIT, Spring,Vol 44 No.3, Pp 27-34

Kothandaraman P. and Wilson T D.,(2001), The Future of CompetitionValue-Creating Networks, IndustrialMarketing Management, 2001, 379-389

Lambert M D., Emmelhainz A M.,Gardner T J., (1996), Developing andImplementing Supply ChainPartnerships, The International Journalof Logistics Management, Volume: 7Issue: 2 pp1 - 18

Lazzarini, S.G., Chaddad, F.R., Cook,M.L., (2001), Integrating supply chainand network analyses: the study ofnetchains, Chain and Network Science,Vol. 1 No.1, pp.7-22.

Lee, H. L.,& Billington C, (1992), SupplyChain Management: Pitfalls andOpportunities. Sloan ManagementReview, 33, Spring, 65-73

Lejeune, M.A. and Yakova, N., (2005), Oncharacterizing the 4 C's in supply chainmanagement, Journal of OperationsManagement, Vol. 23, No.1, pp 81-100

Li, S., Ragunathan, B. Ragunathan, T.S.and Rao, S.S., 2006, The impact of supplychain management practices oncompetitive advatange andorganizational performance', Omega,Vol. 34, No. 2, pp 107-124

Ling Ge, Konana P. and Tanriverdi H.,(2004), Global Sourcing and Value ChainUnbundling. California ManagementReview. 46/3 Spring, pp. 77-79

Maloni J M., & Benton W. C., (1997),Supply chain partnerships:Opportunities for operations research,European Journal of OperationalResearch Volume 101, Issue 3, 16September, Pages 419-429.

McIvor, R., Humphreys P., McCurry, L.,(2003), Electronic commerce:supporting collaboration in the supplychain?, Journal of Materials ProcessingTechnology Volume 139, Issues 1-3, 20August, pp 147-152

McLaren T., Head M., Yuan Y., (2002),Supply chain collaboration alternatives:understanding the expected costs andbenefits, Internet Research, Oct, Vol 12,Issue 4, pp 348 - 364

Middendorp, S. van, (2005) BusinessEcosystems and Value NetworksAnalysis, , ICMag, Intellectual CapitalMagazine, opening issue, Italy, Oct , pp1-13

Monczka, R., Trent, R., Handfield, R.,1998, Purchasing and Supply ChainManagement. International ThomsonPublishing. p 49

More, E. and McGrath, M., (2001),Strategic Alliances as collaborativestrategy or a method of implementingstrategy: A Case study in Australia'scommunication Sector, CommunicationResearch Forum, pp 2-18

Normann R & Ramirez R., (1993), Fromvalue chain to value constellation:designing interactive strategy, HarvardBusiness Review, Jul-Aug ; 71(4), Pp65-77

Ohame, K., (1989), The Global Logic ofStrategic Alliance, Harvard BusinessReview, Mar./Apr., pp.143-154

Panchak, P., (2001), Old rules for the neweconomy, Industry Week, March, pp 3 - 5


Pappu, M. & Mundy, R., (2002), Cansupply chain alliances create real value?The case of third party logistics serviceproviders, Proceedings of the 11thIPSERA Conference, Twente, pp.596-614.

Parise S., & Sasson L., (2002),Leveraging Knowledge ManagementAcross Strategic Alliances, Ivey BusinessJournal, Vol. 66 No.4, pp.41-7

Parsons, L A., (2002), What determinesbuyer-seller relationship quality? Aninvestigation from the buyer'sperspective, Journal of Supply ChainManagement, March, pp 18 - 24

Pil, F.K. & Holweg, M., 2006, Evolvingfrom value chain to value grid, SloanManagement Review, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp72-80

Ploetner O., & Ehret M., (2006), Fromrelationships to partnerships-new formsof cooperation between buyer andseller, Industrial Marketing Management,Volume 35, Issue 1 , January pp 4-9.

Porter, M. E., (1985), CompetitiveAdvantage. Creating and SustainingSuperior Performance. New York. P38

Porter, M. E., (1991), Toward a DynamicTheory of Strategy. StrategicManagement Journal, vol 12, pp 95-117

Porter, M. E., (1998), On Competition. A Harvard Business Review Book. P67.

Porter, M.E, (2001), Strategy and theInternet. Harvard Business Review,March, pp 18-21

Porter, M.E., & Kramer, M.R., (1999),Philanthropy's New Agenda: CreatingValue. Harvard Business ReviewNovember-December p43.Quinn J., B., (1999), StrategicOutsourcing: Leveraging KnowledgeCapabilities, Sloan Management Review,Summer pp 9-20

Rigsbee Ed, 2006, ABCs of buyer/sellerrelationships, retrieved on 10 Dec'2006,from http://www.rigsbee.com/ps4.htm.

Sahay B.S.,(2003) Supply chaincollaboration: the key to value creation,Work Study, Apr, Vol 52 Issue 2 Pp 76 - 83

Skarmeas Dionysis, 2006, The role offunctional conflict in internationalbuyer-seller relationships: Implicationsfor industrial exporters, IndustrialMarketing Management Volume 35, Issue5 , July 2006, pp 567-575

Spekman E R., Kamauff J., W.Jr, Myhr N.,(1998), An empirical investigation intosupply chain management: aperspective on partnerships, SupplyChain Management: An InternationalJournal, Jun, Vol 3, Issue- 2, pp 53 - 67

Stanko A M., Bonner A J., and CalantoneJ. R., (2006), Building commitment inbuyer-seller relationships: A tie strengthperspective, Industrial MarketingManagement Available online since 30November 2006,

Suhong Li, Bhanu Ragu-Nathan, T.S.Ragu-Nathan and S. Subba Rao, (2006),The impact of supply chain managementpractices on competitive advantage andorganizational performance, Omega,Volume 34, Issue 2, April, Pages 107-124.

Swink M., Narasimhan R., and Wang C.,(2007), Managing beyond the factorywalls: Effects of four types of strategicintegration on manufacturing plantperformance, Journal of OperationsManagement, Volume 25, Issue 1,January pp148-164

Tan, G. W., Shaw, M.J., (1998), ApplyingComponent technology to ImproveGlobal Supply Chain NetworkManagement. International Conferenceon Information Systems, December 13-16,1998. pp. 296-301

Taylor A T., &. Plambeck, E. L (2003),Research paper no. 1813, Supply ChainRelationships and Contracts: The Impactof Repeated Interaction on CapacityInvestment and Procurement- StanfordGraduate School of Business. Retrievedon Jan, 2003 fromhttp://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/divisions/dro/Taylor/SupplyChainRelationshipsAndContractsWithSupplementaryAppendix_Jan06.pdf

Teigen R., and Barbeceanu M., (1996),The Supply Chain Demonstrator.Enterprise Integration Laboratory,University of Toronto, Internal report

The Value Chain, (2004), Industry Week -A compendium of articles on Value ChainManagement, Publication date 1.1.2004.

Tuunainen, V.K., 1999, Different Modelsof Electronic Commerce - Integration ofValue Chains and Business Processes,Helsinki School of Economics andBusiness Administration, A-153. p4.

Vandermerwe, S., (2000), Howincreasing value to customers improvesbusiness results, Sloan ManagementReview, 42 (1): 27-37

Vanharanta Hannu and Breite R., (2003),A Supply and Value Chain ManagementMethodology for the InternetEnvironment, PhD thesis, IndustrialManagement Department. TampereUniversity of Technology, Pori, Finland.

Walters D., & Lancaster G., (2000),Implementing value strategy through thevalue chain, Management Decision, Apr2000 Volume: 38 Issue: 3 Page: 160 - 178

Yonghui Fu & Rajesh Piplani, (2004),Supply-side collaboration and its valuein supply chains, European Journal ofOperational Research, Vol 152, pp 281-288


Coal import bills surges for SAIL, Retrieved on May 13,2005 from www.hinduonnet.com

Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals,Definition of supply chain management, accessed on 13May 2005 from http://cscmp.org/AboutCSCMP/Definitions/Definitions.asp

Kumar Nagesh, 2002, Multinational Enterprises andM&As in India: Patterns and Implications, Economic andPolitical Weekly, EPW 35, 5 August 2000, Pp 2851-8,accessed on 25 January 2006 fromhttp://www.ris.org.in/dp05_pap.PDF

Mandal Kohinoor, (2004), SAIL and RINL may broadbaseAustralian coal supplies - Mull imports from Canada,Poland, accessed on 26 Feb 2004 fromhttp://www.blonnet.com/2004/02/26/stories/2004022602410300.htmolkata

SAIL Coal (2005), accessed on 25 February 2006 fromhttp://economictimes.indiatimes.com/cmpnewsdisp.cms?mode=item&newsid=588509&ticker=sail&exchange=n

SAIL examining Canadian coal properties, accessed onDec 22, 2006 from http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-889573,prtpage-1.cms

SAIL News Flash (2005), accessed on 30 October 2005from, http://www.sail.co.in/news.asp?total=134&l_page=6

SAIL's global expansion, accessed on Aug 15, 2006 fromhttp://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/07/29/stories/2006072902790300.htm

Sethuraman S, 2004, Global commodity boom set tocontinue, accessed on 28 December 2004 fromhttp://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/12/28/stories/2004122800220800.htm


About the authors

Prof. DK Banwet is a Professor & Group Chair, Operations Management at the Department of Management Studies at Indian Institute of Technology

Delhi, India. He is currently the Coordinator of ASRP (Applied Systems Research Programme). He has been a former of Head of the DMS and also

Coordinator of the Entrepreneurship Programme, an Interdisciplinary Research Programme of IIT, Delhi. His areas of research interest include

Operations Management, Supply Chain and Logistics Management, IT enabled DSS, Industrial Systems Engineering, TQM, Manufacturing Strategy,

Technology and Project Management, Materials Management, Facilities Planning, OR Modeling, Telecom Systems and Entrepreneurship Management.

He has undertaken prestigious research and teaching assignments at Kuwait Institute of Scientific Research, Asian Institute of Technology at Bangkok

and University of Sorbonne in the European International Management Programme at Paris. Prof Banwet has won quite a few awards, the latest being

Emerald's Literati Award of Excellence for the best paper published in International Journal for Productivity & Performance Management, 2003.

Dr. Ravi Shankar is currently Associate Professor of Operations and Information Technology management. He is Group Chair of Sectoral Management

at the Department of Management Studies at Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India. He has nearly 24 years of teaching experiences. His areas of

interest are Supply Chain Management, Knowledge Management, Flexible Manufacturing systems, TQM etc. His publications have appeared in various

journals including the European journal of Operational Research, International Journal of Production Research, Computers and Industrial Engineering,

International Journal of Production Economics, Computers and Operations Research, International Journal of Supply Chain Management, Journal of

Technological Forecasting and Social Change etc. He is the executive editor of Journal of Advances in Management Research.

R Mohammed Ilyas is currently a research scholar at Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, India. He was working

in South Asia's largest steel company and is currently the strategic planner of a global conglomerate. His areas of interest include Value Chain

Management, e-manufacturing, strategic issues of value creations, manufacturing outsourcing, Turnaround management, financial and business

restructuring.

Supply Chain Matrix

Documents

Transcript of Supply Chain Matrix