See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236852659

The Art of Supply Change Management

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS
9 694

3 authors, including:

Stanley E. Fawcett Gregory M Magnan

Weber State University Seattle University
195 PUBLICATIONS   11,869 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   4,813 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Supply Chain Collaobration View project

Supply Chain Collaboration View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stanley E. Fawcett on 04 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CONTINUUM ADAPTIVE TECHNIQUE RESPONSE ADVANTAGE

The Art of Supply

Managing the scope and pace of change in an organization has never been easy. But
just because it’s tough does not mean that it can’t be done. To change successfully,
though, certain elements need to be in place. Leadership tops the list. Then there
are certain structural and cultural enablers that can greatly facilitate the process.
This article helps you pull together the success factors.

By Stanley E. Fawcett, Joseph C. Andraski,
Amydee M. Fawcett and Gregory M. Magnan
Stanley E. Fawcett (sfawcett@grifflink.com) is
Professor of Business at the Marriott School,
Brigham Young University. Joseph Andraski
(jandraski@vics.org) is President and CEO of
VICS. Amydee M. Fawcett is with Lateral Line
Analytics (laterallineanalytics@gmail.com).
Gregory M. Magnan is an Associate Professor
at the Albers School of Business, Seattle
University. He can be reached at gmagnan@
seattleu.edu.
H
ow would you respond to the question, “What are
the greatest threats to your company’s survival?”
Common answers might include disruptive tech-
nologies, rising customer expectations, globaliza-
tion, or the emergence of a tough new rival. Few
supply chain managers would say, “My company’s
success.” The reality, though, is that more often
than not, this is a correct answer. How could this be? Sustaining success
demands adaptability—the ability to change to meet the demands of a
dynamic world. Blinded by success, managers miss the meaning behind
Jack Welch’s warning, “When the rate of external change exceeds the rate
of internal change, the end of your business is in sight.”
The Perils of Success
The one constant in today’s modern world is change. That helps explain why it’s
so difficult to sustain success over time—beyond 20 years or more—even for
the best companies. Do you remember Bethlehem Steel, Compaq Computer,
or Digital Equipment Corporation? Each was

18 Supply Chain Management Review · November 2009 www.scmr.com

Change Management
once an industry leader. Each has also disap-
EXHIBIT 1
peared from the competitive landscape. What
other once-proud nameplates are destined to The Four-Stage Lifecycle
be among the forgotten? Circuit City certainly,
Maturity
Chrysler most likely.
Great companies have always endured
a four-stage life cycle: emergence, growth,
Demise
maturity, and demise (see Exhibit 1).
At every stage, external threats appear.
Disruptive
Unfortunately, success breeds complacen- Growth Technology
cy and bureaucracy, reducing a company’s
Globalization
ability to recognize and respond to emerg-
ing threats. As companies grow, the mental Changing Customer
models that led to success become barriers Expectations
Emergence
Tough New Rival
to innovative thinking. Cultural and struc-
tural inertia prevent business models from Time
evolving to meet the emerging rules of a Background: Anderson, C.R. & Zeithami, C.P. (1984) Stage of the Product Life Cycle,
changing competitive game. Business Strategy and Business Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 5-24.
Even more insidious, many compa-
nies, especially the bigger ones, pos- Honda. Although discounting slowed GM’s market
sess the scale and resources that can keep them share slide, it did little to solve the automaker’s
from confronting the brutal facts. For example, in real problem—the need to efficiently design and
the early 2000s, General Motors resorted to mas- build cars that customers wanted. Eventually, GM
sive discounting to sell cars and combat ran out of money and bankruptcy was the result of
competition from Toyota and the failed business model. GM’s inability

www.scmr.com  Supply Chain Management Review · N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 9 19

Change

to invest in renewal led to its downfall. companies seem to be stuck on a treadmill, running into
Other once and present corporate titans including the same challenges and obtaining the same results. After
A&P, IBM, PanAm, and Sony have been vulnerable to a performing a rigorous content analysis of all of the inter-
changing marketplace. Among these, only IBM emerged views, what did we learn? Although the vast majority of
from its malaise and regained its position as a strong companies and their workers are averse to meaningful
competitor. IBM’s solution was to induce radical change change, a few leaders are using their ability to embrace
change as a strategic weapon in certain situa-
tions. Put another way, we discovered pockets
Great companies have always of change excellence. Some managers simply
endured a four-stage life cycle: emergence, refuse to settle for the status quo and push
relentlessly for collaborative change. And
growth, maturity, and demise. importantly, they are reaping the benefits of
this collaborative spirit. Looking closely at
and reinvent itself as a technology service provider, effec- their stories, we discerned an emerging pattern that we
tively adopting a whole new business model. Such radi- call the Cycle of Change.
cal repositioning is rare; yet, why would any smart com-
pany not try to promote proactive change and upgrade its The Cycle of Change
business model before demise is imminent? In the mid 1990s, Boston Consulting Group’s Harold
This article articulates the mandate for change—change Sirkin observed, “As the economy changes, as compe-
that is supply chain enabled and based on a collaborative tition becomes more global, it’s no longer company vs.
business model. We draw on the results of a long-term company but supply chain vs. supply chain.” To suc-
study of supply chain professionals who related both their ceed in this supply-chain-vs.-supply-chain world, Sirkin
frustrations and successes with the change management noted, companies must embrace a collaboration-based
process. We then examine the essential stepping stones in business-model. Yet, over a decade later, we see that truly
the Cycle of Change and present the key enablers to make cohesive and collaborative supply chain teams (such as
successful supply chain change happen. that exemplified by Honda, for example) are still very
rare. What is the biggest stumbling block en route to real
Little Progress Made on Change collaboration? Managers do not understand and proac-
Change management’s vital role in business model design tively manage the change process.
was strikingly evident in a longitudinal study on supply The managers we spoke with in our research say that
chain collaboration in which two of the authors partici- they want to collaborate. In fact, collaboration is widely
pated. The original research began almost a decade ago viewed as a star on the strategic supply chain stage and a
(Period 1) with interviews of managers at 51 companies high corporate priority. But as our research shows, orga-
across four supply chain positions—retailers, finished nizational structures that propagate turf protection are
goods assemblers, suppliers, and service providers. At firmly entrenched, impeding collaboration. The business-
most companies, multiple managers responsible for supply as-usual mindset is so ingrained in the corporate psyche
chain initiatives participated in the interviews. For exam- that it seems impervious to penetration. Managers that
ple, logisticians, purchasers, IT managers, manufacturers, have endured pain on those occasions when they stepped
and marketers all shared their experiences
EXHIBIT 2
with collaborative supply chain decision-mak-
ing. In 2007, six years after the initial study Top Five Barriers to Collaborative Business Model
(Period 2), we returned to the field to replicate
Turf-Promoting 75%
the study and determine how much progress Organization Structure 73%
companies had made in adopting truly collab-
58%
orative practices. This time we interviewed 61 Resistance to Change
53%
companies from across the same four supply
55%
chain positions. Fifteen companies participat- Conflicting Measures
73%
ed in both of the time periods.
Lack of Trust 42%
The surprise finding: despite the rhetoric, (Power Assembly) 47%
collaborative business models were no more Period 2
42%
a reality today than they were at the turn of Lack Managerial Support Period 1
29%
this century. Perhaps most dispiriting, most

20 Supply Chain Management Review · November 2009 www.scmr.com

out of their silos or proposed a change lose their desire EXHIBIT 3
to collaborate. Unable to shake off the effects of their
negative experiences, they fall into an inertia that locks Cycle of Change
them into inaction. This scenario was described over and
over throughout the interviews. Structural barriers mag- Leadership
nified by resistance to change, conflicting measures, lack
Learning Change
of trust, and weak managerial support can stop a busi- Loops Events
ness-model renewal dead in its tracks. Exhibit 2 shows Change
that the five top barriers to collaboration have remained
in force for at least the past decade. Structural Credibility
Enablers Drivers
The interviews revealed another important pattern: before
the counterproductive structural silos can be breached, the
culture of resistance must be challenged. A manager in the Without such leadership in place, Collins says, compa-
recent round of interviews aptly described this pattern, say- nies just don’t make the leap to greatness. Our interviews
ing, “Supply chain collaboration is a two-step process. You provide compelling support for the role of leadership in
have to change mindsets. Then you can change the structure. transformative initiatives. Only a company’s senior leader-
We have spent the last couple of years on changing mindsets. ship can commit the resources and provide the emotional
Changing the structure still lies in the future.” safe harbor needed to unleash collaborative change. One
We call the five stepping stones that comprise this manager underscored the need for persuasive leadership,
two-step path the Cycle of Change (see Exhibit 3). saying, “You need to remember that you cannot dictate or
Change happens when a leader takes advantage of a command change.”
“change event” and initiates a period of explo-
ration and evaluation. During this activity,
the leadership uses credibility drivers to cap- Some managers simply refuse to
ture the organization’s imagination and justify
real change. As momentum emerges for the
settle for the status quo and push
change initiative, managers translate it into relentlessly for collaborative change. And
structural enablers through specific invest-
ments. With the infrastructure emerging and
importantly, they are reaping the benefits of
permission granted to proceed, people begin this collaborative spirit.
to feel safe to collaborate. Finally, to ensure
that collaboration continues, learning loops
are built into the fabric of the organization. With all five The power to persuade derives from a combination of
stepping-stones in place, an organization can establish a position and passion. The probability for change increas-
path to a culture of collaborative change. es with the stature of the manager asking for change. In
Before embarking on the journey, however, manag- most of the success stories the call for collaboration
ers should read the warning sign that stands came directly from the CEO. In one
at the head of the trail: Productive instance, the top executive’s intense
change happens neither easily nor focus on the customer redirected
quickly. Change takes vision, effort, the firm’s energy away from turf
and investment. Proceed only when protection toward customer value.
ready! We discuss in more detail below He relentlessly asked, “What does
the stepping-stones that comprise the the customer really care about?”
Cycle of Change. Repeatedly answering this question
led people to realize that higher levels
Leadership of collaboration were needed to deliver
In his business classic Good to Great, Jim the value that customers wanted. In
Collins begins his discussion of why some another setting, a determined CEO
companies make the leap to greatness while espoused the following philosophy: “No
others remain merely good by focusing on what one can be allowed to put up walls around
he calls “Level 5 Leadership”—executives the sandbox!” Everyone realized he was seri-
with the vision, will and wisdom to succeed. ous when a pair of rising stars who had built

www.scmr.com  Supply Chain Management Review · N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 9 21

Change

walls to secure their own influence and power were almost everyone.
invited to leave the company. If properly leveraged, the competitive environ-
Authentic passion, enthusiastically displayed, sends ment can represent a SEE. At one interview company,
an irresistible invitation to join in. Leaders who are pas- the industry leader for over 25 years, a serious threat
sionate about collaboration, create and communicate emerged in the form of an aggressive foreign rival. The
the vision by example. They take advantage of every interview company was consistently losing market share.
opportunity to teach collaboration, drawing on the But no matter how dire its competitive situation became,
power and persuasion of specific examples (more will be managers found a new measure that painted a rosier pic-
said about this in our discussion of credibility drivers). ture. They rationalized that the threat was only tempo-
This approach enables everyone to see and understand rary and that changes were really not needed. The day
the power of collaboration. Leaders then hold people finally came that the metrics could no longer be manipu-
lated—no matter how they were presented. It
was clear to all that the company had lost its
Only a company’s senior leadership position. Everyone realized that fol-
leadership can commit the lowing the same course would lead to ruin. Eyes
now shot wide open, and the needed changes
resources and provide the emotional started to happen. Collaboration increased. A
safe harbor needed to unleash collaborative new business model emerged that invited sup-
pliers to participate in design and assembly at
change. unprecedented levels. The result: the company
halted the market share slide and stepped out
accountable for making collaboration happen. of its rivals shadows to become the industry leader once
As they weave personal responsibility into the fabric more.
of the culture, astute leaders take steps to banish fears. At one European interview company, the entrance of
If people are punished for trying something new (like a new global rival in the company’s home market was the
accepting cost increases in their particular functional area significant trigger event capturing managements’ atten-
that would lower total costs), they become gun shy about tion. This particular company, which had long been a pro-
any future collaborations. Wherever we found a pocket tected national champion—a company promoted by the
of change excellence, there was a leader who promoted a government policy to create jobs and achieve economic
culture that “encourages” failure while demanding excel- prestige—had pretty much set the rules of the competi-
lence. In the words of one manager we spoke with, “If my tive game. But, the rival came in with aggressive pricing.
best people are not failing from time to time, they are not The new entrant’s full parking lots gave visible evidence
trying enough new things!” Ultimately, by aligning mea- that the rules had changed. Consumers could not ignore
sures with expectations, discipline and follow-through prices that were 20 percent lower—nor could the inter-
become companions to passion in the quest to build a view company. The company decided that it was better
collaborative culture. At companies where collabora- to sacrifice margins than to give away market share.
tive business models are emerging, the So it successfully launched a new line
enthusiasm is contagious. of products at a “value” price. This
aggressive pricing response slowed
Change Events the pace of the rival’s market expan-
Non-collaborative mindsets often sion. Sometimes the fear of loss truly
are so tightly closed that even the is a more profound motivator than the
most capable leaders struggle to open hope for gain.
them. The interviews showed that Collaboration leaders in our study
when leaders encounter such immov- showed that it was not always neces-
able mindsets they look for “signifi- sary to wait for an imminent external
cant emotional events” (SEE) to use threat before taking action. In effect,
as a lever. A significant emotional event they created their own SEE. At one
is one that makes it obvious that the cost company, a financial stumble that was far
of not changing is greater than the cost of from a crisis led the CEO to physically reor-
changing. SEEs catch people’s attention, ganize the organization for greater integration
bringing out the rational economist in and efficiency. More than 180 managers moved

22 Supply Chain Management Review · November 2009 www.scmr.com

offices and found themselves in a different
environment surrounded by new people with
whom they were expected to collaborate. This Before the counterproductive
physical move opened eyes to what could be
accomplished through closer integration. But
silos can be breached, the culture of
not everyone would adapt to the change. The resistance must be challenged.
CEO stood firm and 40 people ended up leav-
ing the company. This mini exodus drove the cynicism rather than change.
point home: collaborate or leave.
The interviews showed that the following can be lev- Credibility Drivers
eraged as significant emotional events: new or expanded A significant emotional event can open the door for collab-
alliances; highly demanding customer requests; intro- orative change, but few people will walk through it on blind
duction of new or modified performance measures; adop- faith. They want real evidence that there will be a return on
tion of a strategic benchmarking initiative; and training their risk. Interviewed managers emphasized strongly that
associated with the adoption of lean or Six Sigma. One they live in a “show-me-the-money” world. To gain C-suite
word of caution here: Leverage SEEs selectively; used support, especially from the CFO, they need to make the
too often, they are perceived as manipulative and drive business case for collaboration with “concrete numbers.” A
common refrain at one company was, “If you
EXHIBIT 4 don’t have the numbers it’s only your opin-
ion.” And opinions are seldom sufficient to
Structural Collaboration Enablers Used
motivate change.
Description Role Description Importantly, the need to make a compel-
ling case for change extends beyond the C-
Executive Prioritize and Senior-level managers meet periodically to
Steering promote sustained identify strategic priorities. Initiatives are suite. Everyone wants to know how change
Committee collaboration. prioritized according to their ability to help will affect them. One manager put it this
achieve strategic goals. Managers then remove
obstacles to success, allocate required resources, way: “We need to document what’s in it for
and market the initiatives. them!” How do collaboration leaders create
Collaboration Teach and learn Managers from across the supply chain come buy-in and move the change process forward
Workshops about new collabor- together for a short but concentrated time period both at the C-Level and among the wider
ative tools. to learn about new collaborative tools. Ideas are
shared, documented benefit communicated, employee population? The following state-
concerns raised, and commitment generated. ments from our interviewees suggest how it
Cross-Functional Solve problems Short-term teams solve specific problems,
can be done.
Teams and implement manage projects, or implement specific initiatives • We have to create some wins!
initiatives. (e.g., new product development, RFID, supplier
selection, supply-chain mapping). Teaming is a • We need short-term wins to establish
common structural enabler. credibility. We have already helped mainte-
nance and engineering meet their budget
Sales and Align expectations Brings the customer and supply sides of the
Operations regarding demand organization together to plan operations to goals through improved collaboration. Now
Planning and supply issues. meet customer demand. S&OP process forces
managers to discuss strategies, confront realities,
the maintenance V.P. is helping spread the
resolve discrepancies, and remove constraints. word to other units that SCM can really
help.
Supply Chain Promote collabor- Advisory boards consist of key customers or
Advisory Boards ation among SC suppliers who evaluate potential collaborative • Doing and proving is more important
members. initiatives, act as sounding boards, share best than talking. Talking always results in cyn-
practices, remove implementation barriers,
and participate in pilot projects. ics. We need results to drive the discipline
to follow through.
Co-Located Liaison to promote Locating employees on site at SC partners
Managers intense, long-term provides inside view into a partner’s culture • As a cost center, everything has to
collaboration. and decision-making process. Often used in be justified based on cost savings even
conjunction with new product development or
planning, forecasting, and ordering activities. when many of the benefits will come from
improved revenue generation that accom-
“C”-Suite Executive-level Because marketing, logistics, production,
SC Executive integrator of ideas sourcing, and engineering all report to the same panies improved service levels.
and resolver of executive, this enabler mitigates blame game and • Everything comes down to credibil-
conflicts. identifies opportunities to work together to build
better processes and deliver more value. ity. We need a plan that others can buy into.
Then we can motivate others to implement

www.scmr.com  Supply Chain Management Review · N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 9 23

Change
the plan with their own creativity and energy.
Perhaps the most effective tool for creating credibil-
ity and developing a widely accepted plan is the strategic
use of pilot projects, according to the interview compa-
nies. Carefully selected, meticulously executed pilot proj-
ects prove the viability of collaborative initiatives. Just as
important, they provide the numbers that can be “market-
ed” through well-crafted success stories. Effective SCM
champions (another credibility driver) do everything they
can to identify good pilot projects and assure their suc-
cess. By carefully documenting baseline performance and
the implementation process itself, leaders transform pilot
programs into valuable learning laboratories.
An instructive example of this comes from one inter-
view company that was evaluating adoption of a CPFR
(collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment)
program. The project champion felt that CPFR held
great potential, but had no evidence that it would work
at his company. Therefore, he turned to a customer with
whom he had previously tested innovative ideas success-
fully. The close working relationship built up over the
years had laid a solid foundation of trust and reduced
the number of variables that might have derailed the
project. The pilot test was successful, yielding outstand-
ing results. Notably, sales increased by 50 percent with
a 30-percent reduction of inventory. These outstanding
results were used to promote CPFR both internally as
well as to other customers.
Pilot projects show “how” to make collaboration real
while identifying likely pitfalls that should be avoided in
the future. In effect, they can turn the stepping-stones
of the cycle of change into a well-paved pathway.
Structural Enablers
Structural enablers are needed to transform early
collaboration successes into an enduring col-
laborative business model. One
manager provided a useful
guideline for knowing when
to proceed from pilot proj-
ect to structural investment.
“When something goes well,”
he said wryly, “there are always
a lot of people in line ready to
take credit.” When the line forms,
the building of enablers can safely
begin.
The importance of structural
enablers should not be underesti-
mated. Up to this point in the change
journey, momentum for change has
been building steadily. Yet long-term
24 Supply Chain Management Review · November 2009
changes in behavior have yet to be solidified. People
still worry that the “new” program will prove to be a fad
and the old way of doing business will return. One man-
ager warned, “To expect a change in behavior without a
change in structure is the definition of insanity.”
The real question (in another manager’s words) is,
“What is the best structure for tomorrow’s competitive envi-
ronment?” Our interviews suggest that no single answer
exists. We saw a variety of structural enablers that yielded
effective long-term changes in collaborative behavior. For
example, a manager at one European company described
an earlier meeting designed to help formulate their collabo-
ration strategy: “We brought all of the key players together,
decided on core objectives, wrote out the strategy and the
plan and then literally got them to sign off on what we were
going to do. Everyone has a copy of the strategy and plan
with all of the signatures on it. We also made up a very
large—wall-sized—version of the strategy and displayed it
in the cafeteria for everyone to see.”
The initiative was then undertaken with full buy-in
from all involved. Periodic meetings followed in which
progress-to-milestones could be evaluated and adjust-
ments made as necessary.
Exhibit 4 highlights some of the other structural
enablers we observed. Two success ingredients are
implicit in these enablers. First, structural changes must
be made to bring people together—and not just once. It
takes time to build the trust needed to commit to col-
laboration. Second, measures must be modified to make
collaboration safe. No matter how often senior manage-
ment talks about change or collaboration, regardless of
how many meetings you have on the subject, if the mea-
sures continue to support the old business model, the
old behaviors will persist. Measures create and define
the emotional safe harbor. Change managers must rec-
ognize this reality.
Learning Loops
With structural enablers in place, the
goal of the journey changes from learning
how to collaborate effectively to effective
collaborative learning. Learning loops—
activities that drive learning, document its
benefits, and can be replicated in multiple
parts of the organization—fill this role. Sadly,
companies have made little progress here.
But some models of learning loops exist. For
instance, pilot projects promote inquisitive
thinking and build learning skills. Best-practice
benchmarking and process mapping identify new
ideas and the path to their implementation. In addi-
tion, teaching Deming’s Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle
www.scmr.com
can drive continuous improvement. All of these prac- • “Your argument makes sense, but…”
tices promote learning best when they are pursued in an • “We’re different.”
iterative manner. • “Let me tell you why that won’t work here.”
The study team also observed seldom-pursued paths The mindset reflected in such comments threatens
of experimentation. One company, for instance, sent the viability of any company and can easily turn a promis-
its senior management team to its own stores as secret ing supply chain initiative into a passing fad. In a sense,
shoppers. As they visited the stores, they became aware the anti-change sentiments might as well be placed on the
that customers were enduring horrible customer ser- sides of a six-sided dice. Whenever change is suggested,
vice. Before any changes were made, the managers were managers roll the dice and respond with the words that
assigned to work in the stores for two full days so they are face up. In all cases, the result is the same: Change is
could experience first hand “what our front-line employ- neither wanted nor accepted.
ees go through every day.” This combination of experi- This was a common theme heard at one of the inter-
ences taught the executives new listening
skills and opened their eyes to a world of
possibilities for making improvements. Seeking innovation and renewal,
Four elements are common to the learn-
ing loops we observed:
the leaders are charging into the
1. Leaders communicate that continuous Cycle of Change and discovering that
learning is expected. supply change management delivers not just
2. They provide training in basic learning
skills. the goods but also customer satisfaction and
3. They put their people in a position to profits.
successfully use these skills.
4. They measure and reward learning
behavior and results. view companies. Every time this organization acquired a
In short, the collaboration leaders understand that new company, it attempted to integrate that company’s
learning loops are needed to prevent today’s success supply chain systems. The reaction was always the same:
from becoming tomorrow’s enemy. “We are too different. Integration is impossible.” However,
Don’t Roll the “No-Change” Dice a careful mapping of business requirements to the new
Business-model renewal, like all significant change, is a parent’s system invariably showed that 90 percent of the
daunting, often overwhelming task. Few companies can requirements could be accommodated. Were the acquired
pull it off successfully. Those that can’t are not remembered companies different? Yes, but not too different to change.
long—except maybe in articles about failed change-man- Astute managers are setting the “No-Change” dice
agement initiatives. One manager described the magnitude aside. They recognize that continuing to roll it will lead
of the challenge as follows: “You have to understand what to the company’s demise in the long term. Seeking inno-
you are up against. You need to understand all the different vation and renewal, they are charging into the Cycle of
things that can kill you!” Looking back on the research, we Change and discovering that supply change manage-
see that few companies have mastered the transition to a ment delivers not just the goods but also customer sat-
supply-chain enabled, collaborative business model. isfaction and profits. Responding to Jack Welch’s warn-
Ironically, past successes can stall or even derail a solid ing, they are creating the adaptable supply chain. And
change-management initiative. The prevailing attitude as they master the art of change management, they are
often is, “Leave me alone. What we’ve done in the past has raising the competitive bar, forcing their rivals to adapt
worked, hasn’t it? Why should we change now?” The desire or die. jjj
to avoid tough change is, indeed, reflected in many voices:
• “We’ve never done it that way.” Authors’ note: The authors would like to thank CAPS
• “We’ve always done it this way.” Research for its generous support of this research.

www.scmr.com  Supply Chain Management Review · M o n t h 2 0 0 9 25

View publication stats