Development of the classification framework

As content analysis requires the application of analytical categories in the coding process, a conceptual theoretical framework of major aspects of SCM was deductively developed from the existing body of SCM research, which is in line with disseminating and advancing SCM theory. This follows Mayring’s (2010) recommendation to increase validity of the categories by linking the analytical pattern with existing constructs. The presented framework development approach is motivated by research from Choi and Wacker (2011), calling for integration of multiple perspectives of SCM in order to advance the existing body of literature. This builds upon Stock and Boyer’s (2009) work, who state that as SCM is a rather young management discipline disagreement regarding “to what SCM is and what functions

and/or processes to include exists” (p. 708). In consequence, and as theorizing

involves imagination disciplined by the process of artificial selection and rejection of existing constructs steered by the researcher (Weick, 1989), the research is based on other researcher’s work, condensing major core SCM models and frameworks into one umbrella framework of SCM. As SCM builds upon the logistics and production framework (Harrison and van Hoek, 2008), selected SCM, logistics, production management, and operations management journals (Table 4.1, p. 34) were considered to include appropriate and acknowledged SCM models and theoretical frameworks. Operations research journals were not considered in the framework as the focus was on aspects of SCM as related to empirical research.

:ŽƵƌŶĂů ƌƚŝĐůĞ ůĞŵĞŶƚƐƵƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨ>ŽŐŝƐƚŝĐƐ DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ŽŽƉĞƌĞƚĂů͘;ϭϵϵϳͿ ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶƐŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶ^D /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐΘ WƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ĞĂŵŽŶ;ϭϵϵϵͿ ^ƵƉƉůLJĐŚĂŝŶƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨWŚLJƐŝĐĂů ŝƐƚƌŝďƵƚŝŽŶΘ>ŽŐŝƐƚŝĐƐDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ^ƚĞǀĞŶƐ;ϭϵϴϵͿ ^ƵƉƉůLJĐŚĂŝŶŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶůĞǀĞůƐ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨWƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐ ĞĂŵŽŶ;ϭϵϵϴͿ ^ƵƉƉůLJĐŚĂŝŶĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ EĂLJůŽƌĞƚĂů͘;ϭϵϵϵͿ ^ƵƉƉůLJĐŚĂŝŶƐƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĞƐ :ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨƵƐŝŶĞƐƐ>ŽŐŝƐƚŝĐƐ DĞŶƚnjĞƌĞƚĂů͘;ϮϬϬϭͿ ^DĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐ :ŽƵƌŶĂůŽĨKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ ŚĞŶĂŶĚWĂƵůƌĂũ;ϮϬϬϰͿ ZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚĨƌĂŵĞǁŽƌŬŽĨ^D &ƌŽŚůŝĐŚĂŶĚtĞƐƚďƌŽŽŬ;ϮϬϬϭͿ ͞ƌĐƐŽĨŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ͟ŵŽĚĞů ^ƵƉƉůLJŚĂŝŶDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚ͗Ŷ /ŶƚĞƌŶĂƚŝŽŶĂů:ŽƵƌŶĂů ĂƌƌĂƚ;ϮϬϬϰͿ ^ƵƉƉůLJĐŚĂŝŶĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ

Table 4.1: Selected journals and articles for framework development (Source: Author)

The journals were chosen as they are highly ranked and have been repeatedly used by other researchers in SCM and logistics (e.g. Babbar and Prasad, 1998a; Hazen and Byrd, 2012). To ensure only well-known and generally accepted models or frameworks of SCM have been selected for this framework, the journals were analyzed with Harzing’s Publish or Perish software1, which is using data from Google Scholar. Enhancing validity of the selected papers, the most appropriate and highly cited conceptual SCM or logistics paper in each journal was selected, the exception being the Journal of Operations Management where two papers were equally high- ranked and accordingly selected. The rationale for the applied selection approach being that the citation score presumably is an indicator of the paper’s scientific value or at minimum that the paper’s content is accepted among other researchers. A highly ranked, often cited paper could be considered fundamental and thus offers a good foundation for the framework (Fabbe-Costes and Jahre, 2008).

Each article was read in detail, and the containing models or frameworks were thoroughly extracted. The frameworks identified in the papers were mapped out in a tree structure. The branches of the individual frameworks were analyzed according to similarities between frameworks, re-integrated according to best fit, and placed into one conceptual framework of major SCM aspects (Table 4.3, p. 37). Adding to theory building, as called for by Sutton and Staw (1995), this framework was further

1

http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm, last accessed November 18th , 2014

35 enhanced and supplemented with additional theoretical papers, identified as relevant through discussions with researchers (for example Burgess et al., 2006; Stewart, 1997). Other established SCM models (e.g. SCOR 9.0) were added, where appropriate, to complete the picture and ensure inclusion of major models important to SCM. Finally, the framework was discussed through iterative review cycles with other researchers and fine-tuned where appropriate.

Granting scientific validity, utmost care was taken to ensure that the framework taxonomy was internally consistent and did not mix different levels of abstraction. This was achieved through clustering, identifying similarities within the individual frameworks, and grouping similar aspects within the frameworks under the same heading. Through this clustering approach, following other authors’ recommendations (Green et al., 1967; Nairn and Bottomley, 2003), all aspects of the new framework can be regarded as mutually exclusive while being collaboratively exhaustive. The result is a holistic “framework map” of major aspects of SCM, thoroughly linked to previous published and acknowledged scholarly SCM research, centered around the following six core dimensions: “Level of SCM analysis,” “Orientation of SCM,” “Functional scope of SCM: Collaboration/Integration,” “Functional scope of SCM: Risk/Performance,” “Functional scope of SCM: Strategy,” and “Theoretical foundation”.

Promoting a more in-depth analysis of the distinctive core categories, the six dimensions, resembling the first level of the framework, were further broken down into 26 categories in the framework development process as outlined above. Resembling the second level of the framework, each category represents certain special items of the governing first level core dimension.

Further developing the framework, the categories, where found appropriate, were broken down into various items, which detailed the governing category. The 70 identified items will be labelled level three sub-categories. It needs to be mentioned that some sub-categories could be further split into even more granular items, which represent level four or five of the framework. The cascading level hierarchy of the framework in regard to dimensions, categories, sub-categories as well as even more granular items is displayed in Table 4.2 (p.36).

>ĞǀĞůŚŝĞƌĂƌĐŚLJ ĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶůĂďĞů

>ĞǀĞůϭ ŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶ

>ĞǀĞůϮ ĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ

>ĞǀĞůϯ ^ƵďͲĐĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ >ĞǀĞůϰͬ>ĞǀĞůϱ &ƵƌƚŚĞƌŝƚĞŵƐ;ŝĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞͿ

Table 4.2: Level hierarchy as applied in the framework (Source: Author)

The breakdown of the items into lower level categories, sub-categories and granular items was conducted based on the respective theory, as will be further elaborated in the course of this dissertation.

Following the thinking of Weick (1989), the framework allows the extraction of “interesting” connections between categories based on a comparison of past experience –manifested through literature reviews– as means to develop theory. The beauty of the concept is that although some of the constructs seem to be obvious to the reader, this should not hinder an open-minded analysis as a means to generate a new understanding in line with the thinking of Homans (1964) where constructs “often

go unnoticed and unstated because they seem simple and obvious” (Weick, 1989, p.

526). Accordingly, a major rationale for this work is to expose links between categories by shedding light on presumably obvious aspects, thereby enabling a differentiated, more complete view towards SCM.

Table 4.3 (p. 37) lists the items in detail, presenting dimensions and categories, but omitting sub-categories and further levels of detail for reasons of clarity.

37 ŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶ ĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ   ŝŵĞŶƐŝŽŶĂƚĞŐŽƌLJ  ϭ>ĞǀĞůŽĨ^DĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐ  ϱ&ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐĐŽƉĞŽĨ^D͗^ƚƌĂƚĞŐLJ ϭ͘ϭ^DǀŝĞǁŽĨůŝƚĞƌĂƚƵƌĞ   ϱ͘ϭ^ƵƉƉůLJĐŚĂŝŶƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ  ϭ͘ϮŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůĨƌĂŵŝŶŐŽĨ^D   ϱ͘Ϯ/ŶŶŽǀĂƚŝŽŶ  ϭ͘ϯƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĨƵŶĐƚŝŽŶƐŝŶǀŽůǀĞĚŝŶ^D   ϱ͘ϯƵƐƚŽŵĞƌĨŽĐƵƐ  ϮKƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ^D  ϱ͘ϰdŽƉŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƐƵƉƉŽƌƚ  Ϯ͘ϭdLJƉĞƐŽĨĨůŽǁ   ϱ͘ϱŽŵƉĞƚŝƚŝǀĞĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞ  Ϯ͘ϮŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶŽĨĨůŽǁ   ϱ͘ϲ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJ  ϯ&ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐĐŽƉĞŽĨ^D͗ŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶͬ/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ  ϱ͘ϳ>ĞĂŶĂŶĚĂŐŝůĞƐƵƉƉůLJ  ϯ͘ϭŽůůĂďŽƌĂƚŝŽŶ   ϱ͘ϴ^ƵƐƚĂŝŶĂďŝůŝƚLJ  ϯ͘Ϯ/ŶƚĞŐƌĂƚŝŽŶ   ϱ͘ϵKƵƚƐŽƵƌĐŝŶŐ  ϯ͘ϯ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶͲƐŚĂƌŝŶŐ   ϲdŚĞŽƌĞƚŝĐĂůĨŽƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶ  ϯ͘ϰWƌŽĐĞƐƐŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ   ϲ͘ϭĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƐƚŚĞŽƌLJ  ϯ͘ϱ>ĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ   ϲ͘Ϯ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐŝĐŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĞŽƌLJ  ϰ&ƵŶĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐĐŽƉĞŽĨ^D͗ZŝƐŬͬWĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ  ϲ͘ϯKƉĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐŵĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚƚŚĞŽƌLJ  ϰ͘ϭ^ƵƉƉůLJĐŚĂŝŶƌŝƐŬ   ϲ͘ϰWƐLJĐŚŽůŽŐŝĐĂůͬƐŽĐŝŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƚŚĞŽƌLJ ϰ͘ϮZĞǁĂƌĚƐͲƐŚĂƌŝŶŐ;ďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐͿ    ϰ͘ϯ^ƵƉƉůLJĐŚĂŝŶƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ   

Table 4.3: A holistic “framework map” of major aspects of SCM (Source: Author)

In the next section, the composition of the categories will be explained, embedding them in respective theory as a means to justify the selection.

For structural reasons the detailed tabular overview along each category’s individual hierarchical level structure, also including the levels 4 and 5, is outlined with the content analysis findings (chapter 6), most notably Table 6.2 to Table 6.18.