Proceedings of the 2012 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference

G. Lim and J.W. Herrmann, eds.

Lean Supply Chain Management: Practices and Performance

Measures
Everton Drohomeretski1,2, Sergio E. Gouvea da Costa1,3, Edson Pinheiro de Lima1,3 and
Heliosa Wachholtz1
1- Industrial and Systems Engineering, Pontifical Catholic University of Parana
2 - FAE University Center – Parana
3 - Federal University of Technology – Parana
Curitiba, Brazil

Abstract
Through the last years the theme lean manufacturing has shown a strong growth, especially about the deployment
methods and their results. However, as already shown in several studies, the results generated by the implementation
of lean manufacturing alone are not sufficient to ensure competitive advantage. The supply chain needs to be aligned
in the application of lean manufacturing in its two directions (upstream and downstream), leading to the Lean
Supply Chain Management (LSCM). This paper aims to identify practices and performance measures for the LSCM.
To achieve this purpose it will be carried out a survey on bibliographic LSCM, and the articles published in
scientific journals from 1996 to 2011 will be mapped. Afterwards, an extensive analysis will be conducted on the
subject. This analysis is based on three fundamental points: i) a quantitative study of publications related to LSCM,
as well as the origin, source and research procedures used in the work, ii) a theoretical synthesis of practices and key
performance measures linked to LSCM; and iii) develop a framework aligning the practices of LSCM with the
operations strategy. The main results of the paper present the researcher´s evolution, characteristics and gaps for
future studies and a framework that organizes the practices of the LSCM.

Keywords
Lean Supply Chain Management; Bibliometrics; Practices; Performance measures; Framework.

1. Introduction
The interest in lean manufacturing (LM), both in academic and business areas, has registered a continuous
increasing in recent decades. Part of this interest is justified by the significant results that lean generates in relation
to cost reduction and increase in quality standards in the organization [1].

Parallel to this, is increasing the need for strategic and operational alignment between the different links of the
supply chain (SC). This alignment aims the chain to be competitive and add value to consumers and stakeholders.
Therefore, it is necessary to apply management practices in the supply chain (Supply Chain Management - SCM).
The need occurs mainly by the change in the profile of competition in various sectors of the economy, the contest
for market share has to be between supply chains rather than between individual firms.

The need for collaboration between members of the SC, both upstream and downstream exceeds functions of
integrating the flow of information and materials. Currently it is necessary that the operations along the SC are
performed at the lowest cost; with a level of quality align with consumer expectations, with the ability to change
when necessary, being fast and having high level of reliability to meet the demands of the consumer.

The practical implementation of the LM along the SC emerges as an important alternative to increase the
competitiveness not only in single company, but in the entire supply chain. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the
successful implementation of lean is directly related to the SCM [2]. The application of LM along the SC is
commonly called LSCM.
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz
This article aims to: i) frame characteristics of scientific production related to the LSCM published in journals in
recent years, ii) identify key practices and performance measures of the LSCM, and iii) develop a framework
aligning practices LSCM with the operations strategy. To meet the proposed objective we performed the literature
on LSCM, and that were mapped in journal articles published from 1996 to 2011.

The paper is structured into six sections including this introduction. The following section presents the theoretical
framework, focusing on the concepts of LSCM. In the third section it is presented the research methodology. The
following section suggests a description and analysis of publications. Subsequently, it is proposed a framework for
LSCM. Finally, the research conclusions are reported.

2. Theoretical Background
2.1 Lean Manufacturing
Many organizations have sought to implement systems that enable the elimination of waste and thus increase the
competitiveness. A production system that meets these expectations is the LM. The LM is the result of a process of
dynamic learning practices adapted to the automotive and textile industries in response to the environment with
various contingencies that occurred in Japan in the post-war [3]. As it was systematized, was no longer considered a
package of resources but a model that helps organizations to have a clear vision for improvement, and its
implementation is necessary to adapt the techniques to the organization characteristics, customers and suppliers
[1,4]. To Staatsa et al. [5] the LM aims to reduce the human effort, inventory, delivery time and production space to
meet the market demand with the delivery of products with high quality and most economical way. The choice of
the LM as a main operations strategy makes the organization obtains cost leadership, besides obtaining an efficient
and responsive supply chain [6, 7].

2.2 Supply Chain Management

There is a growing need for strategic and operational alignment between the different links of the supply chain. This
alignment aims to be competitive and add value for consumers and stakeholders. It is necessary to apply the SCM
system which is a systemic approach with a focus on the relationship between parts of the chain [8]. To Cooper et
al. [9] SCM aims the integration of key business processes from end user to those who provide products, services
and information in order to enable the creation of value for customers and stakeholders.

The focus of SCM has changed in the last two decades, especially with the competitive changing in organizations,
which changed from competition between companies to competition between supply chains. It is necessary that each
links in the chain obtain different skills, requiring that each link to increase its flexibility, since the consumer market
is going even more uncertain [10].

To Chandra and Kumar [11] the successful implementation of SCM system is dependent on the actions of
developing some specific skills:
• Development of organizational flexibility;
• To develop a strong relationship with suppliers;
• To seek full coordination in the supply chain;
• Increase the quality of information to reduce uncertainty and inventory levels;
• Outsource the activities that are not distinctive competencies;
• Implement on-demand production system, reduce inventory and reduce costs.

2.3 Lean Supply Chain Management

It appears that the actions of the SCM have strong links with the practices of the LM [2]. For many organizations, a
key element for the lean manufacturing system development is the practice of SCM. To Shadur and Bamber [12] the
alignment between LM and SCM aims to: improve the delivery of value to customers, dependence on a system of
just-in-time, eliminating the various sources of waste in the supply chain; get the involvement of all chain
participants in the process of value creation, developing a close collaboration with customers and suppliers, reducing
the number of suppliers and develop efficient suppliers.

Gowen and Tallon [13] found that organizations that effectively apply SCM practices have great emphasis on
developing its human resources through training and retraining its employees. This includes the development of four
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz
specific skills among employees: problem-solving skills, leadership ability, skill building and professional skills.
Shadur and Bamber [12] add that effective SCM practice also depends on teamwork and continuous improvement.
In this case, teamwork allows employees to share knowledge in order to identify problems and opportunities for
improvement with greater speed. Lean manufacturing has characteristics of an integrated set of socio-technical
practices aimed at eliminating waste throughout the value chain [3,4].

From the perspective of knowledge transfer, a strategy used in the SCM to improve the performance of suppliers is
the implementation of programs that aim to transmit knowledge gained from the application of the LM practices in
its supply base [14-16]. An example of the gain from the application of lean practices in the supply chain is that it
allows organizations to achieve greater reliability, the sharp reduction in inventories [17, 18].

In lean, monthly inventory turnover of focal company can reach 20 times, while a company that applies the
traditional production system is usually 3 to 5 times per month [19]. To Wu [20] the deployment of lean practices to
suppliers has five variables, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Variables lean suppliers. Source: adapted from [20]

Although many studies devote efforts to demonstrate the gains from the application of the LM practices with their
suppliers, the practices are implemented in a global context, in the upstream and downstream supply chain. As
shown above, the global concept of lean supply chain is named the Lean Supply Chain Management (LSCM). In
this context the chain should identify the costs of operations and reduce them continuously for improvements to the
final consumer, all members of the chain must continually improve processes to increase value to the consumer [21].
The LSCM focuses on cost reduction and increased flexibility in providing products, employs a process of
continuous improvement to eliminate waste and activities that do not add value throughout the supply chain [22-24].
Besides the integration of operational processes upstream and downstream supply chain, there is a need to operate
with a smaller number of suppliers, thus creating greater collaboration for the lean practices being applied not only
by the focal company, but also by their suppliers [25].

To Averill [26] the key to understanding LSCM is based on three factors: i) the value is set by the consumer; ii) the
SC and the value chain have continuous flow, iii) the entire organization must focus on eliminating waste and carry
out activities that add value. Regarding the continuous flow, Manning et al. [27] found that in some organizations
lean distribution shows great efficiency in the supply chain.

With regard to the practices of LSCM, Lamming [21] notes that:

• Transparency of costs - the cost structure should be transparent between firms in the chain;
• Assessment of the relationship with customers and suppliers - constant measuring the efficiency of the
relationship between the two perspectives of the supply chain;
• Do not blame another link- when something goes wrong one should not blame the vendor but to apply
quality tools and apply them together to solve problems.
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz
A case study realized in a company that produces equipments Nellore et al. [28] sought to identify the application of
LSCM in the supply chain. The authors based on a classic LSCM study conducted by Lamming [29] have nine
practices about LSCM:
• Global operations (suppliers are close to their consumers in their various locations);
• Contribution of suppliers in product development;
• Provision of a range of benefits: price, quality, lead time, performance and innovation;
• Resourcing: hiring new providers only after they exhaust the possibilities with current suppliers;
• Integrated development: the development of new technologies must be integrated and aligned with the
needs of consumers;
• Integrated systems: suppliers take on more roles in operations in order to participate more effectively in the
process;
• Early Involvement: suppliers are involved in the development of new projects;
• Transparency of costs: costs and profit margins are transparent;
• High pressure for suppliers and buyers: the pressure for cost reduction must be shared and balanced
between suppliers and buyers.

To reach control and evolution of the practices of LSCM, it is necessary to measure the performance generated by
the deployment of joint practices. To Neely [30] the performance measures must extend beyond the control of
internal activities, measuring the results in the supply chain. Perez et al. [31] separate the LSCM in seven
dimensions including performance measures: demand management; value specification, standardization of process
and product; efficiency in the value chain, key indicators for the process, alliances, and cultural change in the supply
chain.

In a study that proposed a performance measurement system (PMS) for the SCM, Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz [32]
argue that to measure performance effectively in SC, it must be taken into account the environmental and strategic
context in which the SC is inserted. In addition, the authors point out that measure should be divided into content
and process, what will be measured and how the measures will be made. In addition, Ramanathan et al. [33]
proposed a framework of PMS in supply chains, they separated metrics into functional and information. Barbosa
and Musetti [34] found that the PMS can be used to support changes in logistics processes.

Applying PMS in lean supply chains, Wu [20] identified through a survey that lean supply chains can be faster, and
also operate with higher quality and reliability. Agarwal et al. [35] used the methodology ANP (Analytic Network
Process) to propose a model of PMS in lean chains and agile chains. The authors organized the PMS in four
determinants (lead time, cost, quality and service level), four dimensions of performance (market sensitivity, process
integration, information driver and flexibility) and capabilities (performance measures for lean, agile and lean agile
SCM).

3. Research Methodology
The measurement of scientific production, also known as bibliometrics, is the technique of measuring the
performance of a researcher, a collection of selected articles in a journal or an institute [36]. These results are
achieved from a number of bibliographic data in use for statistical studies, such as author, title, date, citations, and
keywords, among others. All these terms are directly related to the measure of knowledge. For Egghe [37]
bibliometrics is a quantitative instrument that minimizes the subjectivity inherent in the indexing and retrieval of
information, producing knowledge in a particular subject area.

Bibliometric analysis also contributes to decision making in the management of information and knowledge, since it
helps in the organization and systematization of scientific and technological information. There are a variety of laws
and concepts applied to bibliometrics, including: Bradford Laws, Lotka and Zipf focusing respectively on journal
productivity, the productivity of authors and the frequency of occurrence of words [37].

This study contents a bibliometric analysis, descriptive and retrospective through a literature review in papers
related to LSCM. However, this research can also be characterized as theoretical concepts, as based on content
analysis of the literature was possible to propose a framework for LSCM. The objective of this study is to
understand the main characteristics of scientific production related to LSCM between the years 1996 and 2011 and
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz
identify key practices and performance measures on LSCM. For data collection, we used 13 journals databases:
Academic Search Premier - ASP (EBSCO), Applied Science Tech Full Text (Wilson), Cambridge Journals Online,
Emerald Fulltext, Environmental Engineering Abstracts (CSA), IEEE Xplore, Oxford Journals, ScienceDirect,
SCOPUS (Elsevier), SpringerLink, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library and Taylor & Francis. The search in the
databases was conducted between October and November 2011 and used the following keywords: Lean Supply,
Lean Supply Chain Management, Lean Logistic, Supply Chain Management, Lean network, SCM. The first search
returned 1541 articles, but after an initial reading, only 162 were pre-selected because of their connection with the
LSCM and finally, in a third round, 122 were selected for the study. Of the 122 articles, 59 were identified with
direct link to the LSCM, address some lean practices in some issues or fully, and 63 indirect connections with the
LSCM (they address LSCM to other issues such as: agile, green, global sourcing and others).

Papers analysis were made in two steps: first a quantitative study based on frequency and percentage of publications
related to Lean Production and Supply Chain Management, or the LSCM, the second a theoretical synthesis of the
key points of practice and performance measures that are linked to LSCM.

4. Description and data analysis

This section aims to present the results of articles surveyed within direct and indirect relation to LSCM. This section
is divided in the analysis of the number of articles published per year, the journals in which articles were published,
most productive authors in area, research methods commonly used, the direction of the research, the most studied
areas of activity and categories of studies.

4.1 The evolution of scientific production and characteristics of LSCM research

As shown in the methodology, this study consists of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data. In this section
we performed qualitative data analysis based on bibliometric laws. According to Bradford's Law, which analyzes the
frequency of publications, from 122 articles selected for the study, until 2000, there are only 20 publications related
to LSCM. Between 2000 and 2009 were published 53 articles representing 44% of the publications of the study.
Between 2010 and 2011 there was a huge increase in publications, 18 and 31 respectively, representing
approximately 41% of all publications of the period in just two years. Figure 2 illustrates the evolution of articles
published in recent years related to LSCM.

Figure 2: Publications per year

Journals that had a large number of publications were also analyzed. Among the 61 journals consulted the Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal (thirteen publications), the International Journal of Production
Economics (eleven publications) and the International Journal of Operations & Production Management (nine
publications) are the most relevant in numbers. In total, they represent 27% of the publications among the timeline
surveyed.

Bradford's Law suggests that so far the first items on a new subject are written, they are subjected to a small
selection of appropriate journals, and if accepted, these journals attract more and more articles in the course of the
development of a certain area [36]. There are eight journals with 3 to 5 publications which sum 30 publications, nine
journals which sum 18 publications and forty-one journals with one publication representing 34% of total amount of
studied journals. These numbers are shown in Table 1.
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz

Table 1: Publications per journal

Journal Publications
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 13
International Journal of Production Economics 11
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 9
European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 5
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 5
Journal of Operations Management 5
European Journal of Operational Research 3
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 3
International Journal Of Physical Distribution 3
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics 3
International Journal of Production Research 3
Benchmarking: An International Journal 2
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 2
European Management Journal 2
Industrial Engineering 2
Industrial and Corporate Change 2
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 2
Omega - The Internacional Journal of Management Science 2
Production and Operations Management 2
The International Journal of Logistics Management 2
Others 41

Regarding the authors' analysis and the amount of its publications, discussed by Lotka's Law, the goal is the author
with the largest number of publications to become a reference in the subject. Denis R. Towill was the author with
the largest number of publications in the study with four publications. Martin Christopher and Mari Sako come next
with three publications each, and Christopher has two publications in partnership with Towill. As well as Lotka's
Law these two authors can be seen as references. Among 251 authors, 228 have only one publication (Figure 3). A
diverse range of authors in relation to the subject of studies can be noticed so far.

Figure 3: Publications per Author

Methods used in the publications were also analyzed in this study. The survey method was used in 34 publications
representing 28% of the total. The theoretical and conceptual methods, case studies and multiple cases have also
been widely used in publications of this study representing 25%, 16% and 14% of the publications. These four
methods represent 84% of the total amount used in 122 publications analyzed, as can be seen in Figure 4.
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz

Figure 4: Research methodology

At this stage of the research, it was possible to identify that the topic (LSCM) increased representative in recent
years, in major journals, it was also possible to identify that there is a dispersion relation to authors who publish on
the subject, and finally, the most widely used, highlighting the use of survey, theoretical and conceptual, and case
study.

4.2 Papers Categorization

Based on content analysis of the goals stated in each item was set a frame of the common features between the
articles leading to the categorization of each article (Table 2). It was established five categories:
• Implement Models: articles that sought to propose models for the implementation of LSCM, with the
description of practices to be implemented;
• LSCM Practices: Articles that aimed to identify the practical application of the LSCM in the supply chain;
• Performance measurement: aimed to propose models to measure performance of LSCM;
• Performance in the supply chain: studies that aimed to present results of the implementation of the LSCM;
• Information management: articles that focused resources and methods for information management and
support for LSCM.

Table 2: Distribution for categories

Category Paper (Authors, Year) Amount Representativeness (%)
Perez, et. al., 2008; So and Sun, 2010; Cudney and Elrod, 2010; Gulyani, 2001; Cox and Chicksand, 2005; Wilson and
Roy, 2009; Towill, 2005; Wickramasinghe and Wickramasinghe, 2011; Emde and Boysen, 2012; Sako, 1999; Zhang and
Gregory, 2011; Jeffers, 2010; Erridge and Murray, 1998; Pedersen and Huniche, 2011; Womack, 2007; Disney, Naim
and Towill, 1997; Dong, Carter and Dresner, 2001; Furlan, Vinelli and Pont, 2011; Hofer et. al., 2011; Li, et. al., 2012;
Michaels, 1999; Modi and Mabert, 2007; Olhager and Prajogo, 2012; Stavrulaki and Davis, 2010; Bergmiller and
Supply Chain Performance Mccright, 2011; Paulraj and Jong, 2011; Vais et. al., 2006; Christopher et. al., 2009; Lewis, 2000; Abrahamsson and 48 39,34%
Spens, 2006; Bruce, Daly and Towers, 2004; Christopher and Towill, 2000; Cagliano, Caniato and Spina, 2004; Rahman,
Laosirihongthong and Sohal, 2010; Rich and Hines, 1997; Martinez and Gitlow, 2010; Lee, Lee and Schniederjans, 2011;
Mistry, 2005; Sahoo, et. al., 2007; Das and Handfield, 1997; Kannan and Tan, 2005; Kisperska-Moron and de Haan,
2011; Manning, Baines and Chadd, 2008; Zellner, 2011; Goldsby, Griffis and Roath, 2006; New and Ramsy, 1997; Lasalle
and Visions, 2005; White and Prybutok, 2001
We and Wu, 2007; Cox, 1999; Mcivor, 2001; Lamming, 1996; Nellore, Chanaron and Sodesquist, 2001; Freytag and
Haas, 2011; Anderson, 2001; Bicheno, Holweg and Niessmann, 2001; Taylor, 2006; Papadopoulos, 2011; Liu and Lin,
2009; Vidalakis, Tookey and Sommerville, 2010; Emde and Boysen, 2012; Eriksson, 2010; Helper and Sako, 2010; Jina,
Walton and Bhattacharya, 1997; Mullaney, 2010; Fellhauer and Strożek, 2010; Guo and Xu, 2008; Eisler, Horbal and
LSCM Pratices Koch, 2007; Simpson and Power, 2005; Kleindorfer, Singhal andWassenhove, 2005; Klassen, 2000; Florida, 1996; 44 36,07%
Huehn-brown and Murray, 2010; Kotzab, Grant and Sparks, 2011; Nam, 2011; Oppenheim, et. al., 2011; Othman and
Ghani, 2008; Panizzolo, 1998; Sako, 2004; Soon and Udin, 2010; Yue, 2007; Carvalho, Duarte and Machado, 2011;
Mollenkopf, et. al., 2010; Christopher et. al., 2011; Nakamura, et. al., 2011; Weinrach, 2002; Rothenberg, Frits and
Maxwell, 2001 ; Taylor, et. al., 2011

Parry, Mills and Turner, 2010; Pérez and Sánchez, 2000; Mistry, 2005; Houshmand and Jamshidnezhad, 2006; Johnson
Deployment Model and Templar, 2011; Rubion and Corominas, 2008; Bergmiller and Mccright, 2009; Kainuma and Tawara, 2006; King and 12 9,84%
Lenox, 2004; Mefford, 2011; Anvuur, Kumaraswamy and Mahesh, 2010; Jain, Benyoucef and Deschmukh, 2008

Brewer and Speh, 2000; Gunasekaran and McGaughey, 2004; Sousa, et. al., 2011; Shah and Ward, 2007; Agarwal,
Performance Measurement Shankar and Tiwari, 2006; Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz, 2011; Petersen and Wohlin, 2010; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; 11 9,02%
Yang, Humphreys and McIvor, 2006
Stratton and Warburton, 2003 ; Bruun and Mefford, 2004; Boyle, Scherrer-Rathje and Stuart, 2011; Hong,
Information Management Dobrzykowski and Vonderembse, 2010; Kinsey, 2000; Naylor, Niam and Berry, 1999; Riezebos, Klingenberg and Hicks, 10 8,20%
2009; Xian, et. al., 2010; Mason-Jones, Naylor and Towill, 2000
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz
More than 75% of articles were meant to discuss the results of complete or partial deployment of the LSCM or
describe practical deployment of the LSCM. The analysis of the categories was an important step of this research . It
enabled us to frame a picture of LSCM scenario and also identify the main practices of LSCM and gaps for future
studies.

4.3 The direction of the supply chain

The analysis of the direction of the Supply Chain is necessary to check which direction the publications of this study
focused: downstream (customers), upstream (suppliers) or complete (whole chain). Figure 5 illustrates this
distribution.

Figure 5: Distribution for sense in the chain

From 122 papers analyzed, 53% studied the SC in its entirety, from the beginning to the end of the supply chain.
38% had the chain upstream, focusing the relationship with suppliers. Moreover, 9% of the total refers to research
focused in the downstream supply chain. It is possible to identify that most studies selected in this research deal with
both sides of the chain.

5. Framework proposal
Mapping the literature made possible to identify the key practices of LSCM and ways to measure the performance of
LSCM. Using the key processes of the SCM proposed by Cooper et al. [9] five key SCM processes that have direct
integration with the lean were identified. After that, practices and performance measures were organized (Table 3).
Practices were identified by codes related to key processes to facilitate the organization of the framework proposed
in Figure 8.
Table 3: LSCM - practices e performance measures
Code of
Key processes Practices LSCM Measure Performance
Practice

Demand EDI (Eletronic Data Interchange) DM1 Service Level

Management Productive capacity synchronized Shift in demand forecasting
DM2
in the chain Load Factor Capacity Chain
Management of Value Identification MCS1 Evaluation of the Relationship
Customer Service Consumer Responsiveness (client)
MCS2 Fidelity Index
Limited number of suppliers Evaluation of the Relationship
SUP1
(supplier)
Suppliers near SUP2 Delay in Delivery Index
Supply Defective Product Index
Transparency in costs SUP3
Deliveries Index with incorrect
amount
Resourcing Average Price
SUP4
Product Integrated development of products
PD1 Product Launch Time
Development and services
Number of Products Launched
Integrated innovation PD2
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz
Code of
Key processes Practices LSCM Measure Performance
Practice

VSM (value stream map) PFM1 Stop Time Line

Production Flow
Kaizen PFM2 Tackt Time
Management
Kanban delivery Inventory Turnover
PFM3
Cost of Transportation
Milk Run PFM4 Return to Index
Just Sequence PFM5 Emergency Deliveries Index

With the organization of practices was developed a framework that aims to align with the LSCM operations strategy
through the verification of the requirements of consumers, shares of competing chains aligned with the six
competitive priorities conceptualized by [38]. Practices were classified based on the impact generated on each
competitive priority. Some practices have an impact on more than one competitive priority. Therefore, there is the
repetition of codes of practice in some competitive priorities. The basics of implementation of the LSCM practices
include the use of integrated systems of quality using a model for problem solving and continuous improvement,
such as the PDCA linked to the use of quality tools. The other basis is the cultural change throughout the supply
chain. These two actions are fundamental to the maintenance practices of LSCM. The figure 6 shows the proposed
framework for the LSCM implementation.

Requirements of Actions of
consumers competing chains

Corporate strategy

Integrated Quality Cultural Change

Practices
LSCM

LSCM practices aligned w ith the

competitive priorities

Cost:
Quality: DM2 Reliability:
Innovation:
PD1 Flexibility:
M CS1 D MI Speed:
PD2 MCS1
PD1 DM2 SUP 2 SUP2
SUP3 MCS2
PD2 PFM 3 PFM 1 DM 2
SUP2 PD 1
SU P4 SUP 1 PFM 4 M CS1
PFM 1 PD 2
PFM 1 SUP 2 PFM 5 M CS2
PFM 2 SUP1
PFM 2 SUP 4 PFM 5
SU P1 PFM 4 PFM 4
PFM 5

Measurement of performance

Figure 6: Framework of LSCM

6. Discussion
This paper presents two main contributions to the field of operations management. The first connected to the first
objective of this research: to know the main features of the scientific production published in journals in recent
years. At this stage, it was possible to identify the significant growth of scientific production linked to the LSCM
(over 40% in recent years), as well as major authors, journals and research methods.

With the first stage of the research was also possible to identify that more than half of the studies related to the
LSCM seek to address the supply chain holistically. However, many studies have focused on practical results,
models and measures of the performance of SC upstream (38%) and downstream (9%). These data demonstrate a
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz
deficiency related to research focusing on practices and performance measures of the LSCM directed toward the
consumer.

Another gap identified in the literature was based on content analysis. The categorization allowed us to know the
main focus of each of the 122 articles surveyed. The low number of articles (9%) that aim to develop metrics that
track the performance practices of LSCM also aids as a tool for the evolution of LSCM, which shows that this
category of studies should be developed.

Regarding the second goal, the literature also made it possible to know the main practices and performance
measures of the LSCM. Thus, it was possible to propose a framework that organizes the practices of LSCM with the
six competitive priorities of operations strategy, achieving the third objective of this research.
For future work we present the following research questions:

1) How much the LSCM practices can contribute to each competitive priority and the overall performance of
the supply chain?
2) In which ways the development of performance measures can contribute to the improvement of the practices
of the LSCM in both direction of the supply chain?

Although it was performed an extensive survey of a representative sample of publications with links to the LSCM in
major journals, publications in some journals have not been explored, in addition, books and scientific events have
not been mentioned. Furthermore, another limitation is in the proposed framework. It was developed based on
literature and experience of the authors. Thus, it is suggested to test the framework by performing multiple cases as
well as survey organizations in several economic sectors.

Finally we can conclude that although it was possible to identify the growth of research studies related to the LSCM,
there is still a lot of room for future research. It is a fact that LSCM generates many positive results - for different
market segments - but it is necessary to explore in more detail how to implement practices of LSCM as well as how
to establish measures to evaluate and continuously improve the system of supply chain management.

References
1. Furlan, A., Vinelli, A. and Dal Pont, G., 2011, Complementarity and lean manufacturing bundles: an
empirical analysis. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31 (8), 835-850.
2. Cox, A., 1999, “Power, value and supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 4(4), 167-75.
3. Holweg, M., 2007, The genealogy of lean production. Journal of Operations Management , 25, 420–437.
4. Womack, L. and Jones, D., 1996, Lean Thinking, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
5. Staatsa, B. R., Brunnerb, D. J. and Upton, D. M., 2011, Lean principles, learning, and knowledge work:
Evidence from a software services provider. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 376–390.
6. Tan, K.C., Lyman, S.B. and Wisner, J.D., 2002, “Supply chain management: a strategic perspective”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(6), 614-31.
7. Cigolini, R., Cozzi, M. and Perona, M., 2004, “A new framework for supply chain management:
conceptual model and empirical test”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
24( 1), 7-41.
8. Stuart, F. I., 1997, Supply-Chain Strategy: Organizational Influence Through Supplier, British Journal of
Management, 8(3), 223-235.
9. Cooper, M.C.; Lambert, D.M.; Pagh, J.D., 1997, Supply Chain Management: more than a new name for
logistics. The International Journal of Logistics Management. 8 (1), 1-14.
10. Mentzer, J. T. et al., 2001, Defining supply chain management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22 (2), 1-25.
11. Chandra, C. and Kumar, S., 2000, “Supply chain management in theory and practice: a passing fad or a
fundamental change?”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100(3), 100-13.
12. Shadur, M.A. and Bamber, G.J., 1994, “Toward lean management? International transferability of Japanese
management strategies to Australia”, The International Executive, 36(3), 343-54.
13. Gowen, C.R. and Tallon, W.J., 2002, “Enhancing supply chain practices through human resource
management”, Journal of Management Development, 22(1), 32-44.
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz

14. MacDuffie, J.P., and Helper, S., 1997. Creating lean suppliers: diffusing lean production throughout the
supply chain. California Management Review 39(4), 118–134.
15. Lieberman, M., Asaba, S., 1997, Inventory reduction and productivity growth: a comparison of Japanese
and US automotive sectors. Managerial and Decision Economics 18, 73–85.
16. Modi, S. B., and Mabert, V. A., 2007. Supplier development: Improving supplier performance through
knowledge transfer. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1), 42-64.
17. Cagliano, R., Caniato, F., and Spina, G., 2006, The linkage between supply chain integration and
manufacturing improvement programmes. International Journal of Operations & Production Management
26(3), 282–299.
18. Schonberger, R.J., 2007, Japanese production management: an evolution—with mixed success. Journal of
Operations Management 25(2), 403–419.
19. Nakamura, M., Sakakibara, S. and Schroeder, R., 1998, “Adoption of just-in-time manufacturing methods
at US and Japanese-owned plants: some empirical evidence”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 45(3), 230-40.
20. Wu, Y. C. , 2003, Lean manufacturing : a perspective of lean suppliers. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 23(11), 1349-1376.
21. Lamming, R., 1996, Squaring lean supply with supply chain management. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, 16(2), 183-196.
22. Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D.,1999, “Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing
paradigms in the total supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, 62, 107-18.
23. Mason-jones, R., Naylor, B., and Denis, R., 2000, International Journal of Lean , agile or leagile? Matching
your supply chain to the marketplace. International Journal of Production Research, (December 2011), 37-
41.
24. Mollenkopf, D. et al., 2009, Green, lean, and global supply chains. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 40(2), 14-41.
25. New, S.; and Ramsay, J., 1997, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 3(2), 93-102.
26. Averill, D., 2011, Lean Sustainability: creating safe, enduring, and profitable operations. Taylor & Francis
Group, London.
27. Manning, L., Baines, R., and Chadd, S., 2008, Benchmarking the poultry meat supply chain.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 15(2), 148-165.
28. Nellore, R., Chanaron, J.-jacques, and Sodesquist, K. E., (2001), Lean supply and price-based global
sourcing * the interconnection. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 7, 101-110.
29. Lamming, R., 1993. Beyond Partnership, Strategies for Innovation and Lean Supply. Prentice-Hall, Hemel
Hemstead, UK.
30. Neely, A.D., 1999, “The performance measurement revolution: why now and what next?”, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19(2), 205-228.
31. Perez, C., Castro, R. D., Simons, D., and Simons, G., 2008, Case study Development of lean supply
chains : a case study of the Catalan pork sector. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
15(1), 55-68.
32. Cuthbertson, R., and Piotrowicz, W., 2011, Performance measurement systems in supply chains: A
framework for contextual analysis. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
60(6), 583-602.
33. Ramanathan, U., Gunasekaran, A., and Subramanian, N., 2004, Supply chain collaboration performance
metrics : a conceptual framework. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 18(6), 856-872.
34. Barbosa, D. H., and Musetti, M. A., (2011), The use of performance measurement system in logistics
change process Proposal of a guide. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
60(4), 339-359.
35. Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K., 2006, Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply
chain: An ANP-based approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 173(1), 211-225.
36. Nakamura, H., Suzuki, S., Hironori, T., Kajikawa, Y., & Sakata, I., 2011, Citation lag analysis in supply
chain research. Scientometrics, 87(2), 221-232.
37. Egghe, L., 1992, Bridging the gaps: Conceptual discussions on informetrics. Scientometrics, 30 (1), 35-47.
 Drohomeretski, Gouvea da Costa, Pinheiro de Lima and Wachholtz

38. Slack, N., 1991, The manufacturing advantage. London: Mercury Books.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.