The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1463-7154.htm
BPMJ
27,3
742
Received 6 February 2020
Revised 23 June 2020
22 September 2020
Accepted 26 January 2021
Business Process Management
Journal
Vol. 27 No. 3, 2021
pp. 742-778
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2020-0055
The strategic alignment between
supply chain process management
maturity model and
competitive strategy
In^ez Manuele dos Santos, Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota and
Luciana Hazin Alencar
Development and Project Management Research Group,
Management Engineering Department, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco,
Recife, Brazil
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to propose a conceptual framework to integrate a maturity model to the supply
chain (SC) strategy, in order to understand how a maturity model can be useful in diagnosing and developing
the capabilities of SC business processes (BPs) to meet SC’s strategy.
Design/methodology/approach – The proposed framework was based on an SC strategy framework, in
which a maturity model was added in order to diagnose and identify SC process capabilities that need to be
developed, per maturity level, according to the type of SC strategy and the competitive strategy. A grid was
proposed to analyze the relationship between them. An exploratory case study (multiple cases) was applied to
verify the applicability of the model.
Findings – Findings indicate that a maturity model can delimit and align, as far as the company needs to
reach, the SC strategic interests with the company’s competitive objectives. However, some barriers and
facilitating factors implicit can impact on this alignment. It is also noted that the maximum level of SC
management (SCM) maturity may not be in the strategic interest of the company.
Originality/value – Due to the few empirical studies on the value of maturity models, this research contributes
to the understanding of the usefulness of an SC process maturity model for the SC strategy. Moreover, the
framework can show how a maturity model can serve as a parameter and guide to develop the capabilities
of processes, resources and activities to meet the SC strategy and the reach of the competitive strategy.
Keywords Business strategy, Supply chain strategy, Business process maturity, Competitive strategy
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In recent years, researchers and practitioners have been discussing the importance of
maturity models being able to develop organizational processes, starting from the stages at
which they need to be improved. Novak and Janes (2019) assert that the concept of process
maturity stems from the fact that processes have a life cycle or development stages, which
can be explicitly defined, measured and managed over time. The result of assessing process
maturity shows how far an organization has progressed toward continuously improving its
process capability in a specific area in order to deliver higher performance over time (Novak
and Janes, 2019).
In supply chain management (SCM), maturity occurs as a company develops skills in its
process capabilities based on best SCM practices with regard to planning, sourcing,
manufacturing, delivery or return logistics (Lockamy and McCormack, 2004). Achieving each
level of maturity establishes that an organization has reached a higher level of process
capability. According to Daozhi et al. (2006), higher levels of business process (BP) maturity
This paper is part of a research study funded by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPq) and by
Coordenaç~ao de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nıvel Superior – Brasil (CAPES) – Finance Code 001.
provide better control of results and lead to improvements in setting and monitoring goals Supply chain
and costs and forecasting performance. Furthermore, Lahti et al. (2009) reported that studies process,
in the field have demonstrated increasing evidence that, by developing a mature supply chain
(SC), companies are better positioned vis-a-vis their competitors, thus enabling them to better
maturity and
respond to the setbacks and changes typical of their competitive markets. strategy
According to Yazdanparast et al. (2010), logistics capabilities can bring not only major
contributions to overall corporate strategy and performance but can also add to a company’s
competitive competence by creating differentiated customer value. However, there must be 743
an alignment between the logistics capabilities and the company-oriented strategy.
Stavrulaki and Davis (2010) also point out that the main SC process models do not make
clear how they seek to have an impact on a company’s SC strategy. This extends to the lack of
association with the company’s competitive strategy (Nakano, 2015). Using appropriate tools
to support improving SCM’s BPs is necessary not only to achieve SCM’s strategic objectives
but also to reach the strategic objectives of the business (Lambert et al., 2008; Stavrulaki and
Davis, 2010; Nakano, 2015). In this vein, an SCM maturity model needs to take all of the
following into account: the SCM BPs, the business context and the results expected by the
organization.
Over the years, the academic literature shows there has been an evolution in the purpose of
SCM maturity models, namely, the first models sought only to diagnose the company’s ability
to conduct its SCM processes (SCMPs) at a given maturity level (PMG, 2007). Next, models
were proposed to provide a road map for improving SCM practices and processes (Lockamy
and McCormack, 2004; Handfield and Straight, 2004; Daozhi et al., 2006; Lahti M. et al., 2009;
Reyes and Giachetti, 2010; Oliveira et al., 2011; Mendes et al., 2016). In recent years, several
models have emerged which set out to analyze a specific dimension, such as the sustainability
of SCM (Reefke et al., 2010; Kurnia, 2014; Yatskovskaya et al., 2018), the agility, flexibility and
responsiveness of SCMPs (Hameri et al., 2013; Fisher et al., 2016; Ho et al., 2016), the quality
management of the SC (Fernandes et al., 2017). There are also models to assess the maturity of
SCM in the construction sector (Vaidyanathan and Howell, 2007; Meng et al., 2011; Broft et al.,
2016), small and medium-sized enterprises (S€oderberg and Bengston, 2010; Tontini et al.,
2016) and the delivery process in SCs as developed from an Industry 4.0 maturity model
(Asdecker and Felch, 2018).
When analyzing what maturity models in SCM propose, it is observed that most models
are focused on increasing the performance of the SCMP and, consequently, the
competitiveness of the company’s SC. In other words, the structure of current maturity
models seeks to develop the organizational capability of the SCPM. For the most part, the
proposed models aim to provide organizations with a path to reach the desired level of
maturity and thus to guide investments in SCM training, practices, systems, teams, tools and
techniques (Adamides, 2015). However, a gap in maturity models has been noted, namely,
how to improve SCM practices and how to align these with a competitive business strategy
since efforts to improve BP should contribute to achieving a company’s strategic objectives
and the SC. According to Tarhan et al. (2016), a BP needs to incorporate an organizational
focus since it does not create value for a business unless this is aligned with the organization’s
business strategy.
Although a substantial number of maturity models have been applied to several
domains (Novak and Janes, 2019), Tarhan et al. (2016) state that few studies have explored
the use of and the benefits achieved by maturity models. Tarhan et al. (2016) also assert that
there is a lack of empirical studies on the validity and usefulness of maturity models, and
similarly such studies have only to limited extent investigated why some prescriptive
models impede their effective application. As few studies have explored the contribution of
maturity models to SC strategy, this study seeks to respond to the following research
question (RQ):
BPMJ RQ. How can a maturity model support a company’s SC strategy?
27,3 This study aims to propose a conceptual framework to integrate a maturity model to the SC
strategy framework based on supply chain process management maturity model (SCPM3)
since studies of this nature have not been identified in the literature. This model has been
selected because it takes a generic and prescriptive approach toward by evaluating the
capacity of SCMP and provides a more explicit identification of essential areas of SCMPs at
744 each maturity level. The conceptual framework has been applied in three companies in order
to analyze and demonstrate the link between the development of SC BPs and the strategy
of SC.
This paper contributes to SCM and SCPM3 strategy research as it presents an empirical
analysis of the importance, adequacy and effectiveness of a maturity model for the
development of SCMPs and their contribution to an organization’s SCM strategy. Moreover, a
theoretical contribution is presented by deepening knowledge about the use and benefits of a
maturity model for the development of SCM BPs.
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents a brief background on maturity
model in BP management (BPM), SCM processes, SCM maturity models and SCM strategy, so
as to understand their relationship with each other and the competitive strategy. Section 2
also presents the methodology of the maturity model used in the study (SCPM3). Section 3
presents the conceptual framework used to add an SC maturity model into the SC strategy
framework. Section 4 describes the methodology used for the study. Section 5 presents the
case studies applied to explore and discuss the results of the study. Finally, Section 6 draws
some conclusions and suggests some future lines of research.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Maturity model in business process management
A maturity model is an approach created to improve a company’s processes and BPM
capabilities (R€oglinger et al., 2012). Maturity models can be used in three primary situations:
to assess strengths and weaknesses; to develop a road map for improvement and to evaluate a
company, compared to the standards and practices of other organizations (Rosemann and De
Bruin, 2005).
According to Looy et al. (2013), BPM maturity models are essential because they provide
support to progress and excellence BPs, that is, they serve as a tool for assessing and
improving capabilities, thus enabling the achievement of the excellence of processes.
Achieving a higher maturity level in some BPs is desirable for three main reasons: greater
control over results; greater predictability in relation to cost and performance objectives and
greater effectiveness in relation to achieving defined goals and management’s ability to
propose new and higher performance targets (McCormack et al., 2008). Thus, in the BPM field,
an organization’s current maturity level represents its capabilities with regard to applying
processes modeled on the management of their business functions.
Tarhan et al. (2016) and R€oglinger et al. (2012) carried out extensive research on the
literature, in which they found a wide range of maturity models related to processes, which
can be classified into three types: BP maturity models, BPM maturity models and BP
orientation maturity models. The first models report on the condition of the processes in
general or the different types of processes, while the latter discusses a company’s BPM/BP
outsourcing (BPO) capabilities. All identified models describe the development from
immature and initial to highly developed BPM practices and superior process conditions.
In general, maturity models consist of descriptors, objectives, capability areas (dimensions),
activities for each capability area and a description of each maturity level. Descriptions of
maturity levels serve as a good indicator to analyze the condition of BPM practices, the
condition of processes or both (Rosemann and De Bruin, 2005; R€oglinger et al., 2012). In practice,
the BPM approach aims to describe how organizations operate and, consequently, impact on Supply chain
the performance of these organizations (Looy et al., 2013), in which improvement is process,
continuously sought in a feedback cycle, in order to ensure the achievement of expected
objectives.
maturity and
strategy
2.2 Supply chain management process and maturity models
According to Stavrulaki and Davis (2010), the SCMP is becoming more strategic rather than
transactional and thus requires managers to understand more clearly the links with 745
processes that cross organizational boundaries in order to produce and offer products. Sarkis
(2012) states that an SC is composed and spans many boundaries, by which these boundaries
can be presented at multiples levels, ranging from individual (submicro) to global cross-
industry SC (supra-macro) boundaries.
According to Caputo et al. (2019), the ability of the company to properly negotiate within
and beyond its boundaries must be used as an important strategic driver in achieving and
sustaining a competitive advantage. For these authors, “the management of boundaries is
designed to create value by focusing on business processes and activities that occur at firm
boundaries.” In this approach, BPs should be designed and managed based on a broader
perspective in order to identify new integration and coordination opportunities among firms’
value chains and those of external “partners” (Caputo et al., 2019). This is obtained by
“linking” and “bearing” strategies for managing relationships with suppliers and customers.
The “linking strategies” aim to internalize the resources and partners’ skills, while the
pursuing information sharing and the alignment of internal and external BPs should allow
the innovative redesign of the entire SC in order to satisfy customers more effectively (Caputo
et al., 2019). The factors for the management of boundaries, such as technological, cultural
and relational, should be confronted with multiple actors inside, outside and on firm
boundaries (Sarkis, 2012; Caputo et al., 2019). They also emphasize that this approach has
been ignored in strategic terms in which ways to address this issue should be identified.
Simon et al. (2014) identified six SCM conceptual models in the literature that address the
need to integrate BPs, in which each model presents a set of key BPs, which a company should
manage and then the model integrates them within first-tier key customers and first-tier key
suppliers. These models include the supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model and the
global supply chain forum (GSCF) model, in which these two process frameworks clearly
describe the key SC processes (Lambert et al., 2008; Stavrulaki and Davis, 2010;
Nakano, 2015).
The key SC processes proposed by the GSCF are broader than those proposed by SCOR,
and this emphasizes that the SCM in a company should be conducted using eight processes:
customer relationship management; customer service management; demand management;
order fulfillment; management of the manufacturing flow, supplier relationship management;
product development and commercialization and management of returns, which involve
various organizational functions (Croxton et al., 2001). On the other hand, the SCOR model
emphasizes five operations-based processes (plan, source, make, deliver and return)
(Stavrulaki and Davis, 2010). Lambert et al. (2008) assert that the SCOR model is focused
primarily on operational (rather than SC) strategy.
Maturity models related to SC processes have been used to evaluate the current situation
of companies based on their main competitive characteristics, thereby establishing the
objectives related to the factors that need to be implemented and that are the most critical for
achieving improvements and allocating resources appropriately (Lahti et al., 2009).
According to Hoole (2005), process-based maturity models provide a means to evaluate
and compare SC evolution levels and have the advantage of identifying and prioritizing
immature processes that are the best candidates for simplification. Meng et al. (2011) argue
that models based on the capability maturity approach are described in terms of significant
BPMJ components, including assessment criteria, maturity levels, a framework matrix and
27,3 assessment procedures. Table 1 presents some of the models for evaluating SCM BPs that are
most cited in the literature.
As seen in Table 1, the SCM process practices evolved in accordance with a process
management approach, based on SCOR’s key processes. Models are prescriptive and have
four or five maturity levels. Early models defined maturity stages within a business-oriented
view, while later ones have focused on BPM. From the models presented in Table 1, SCPM3
746 was selected for this study as it presents a generic approach for assessing the capability of
key SCM processes of the most recent SCM practices. This model also has a methodology for
classifying maturity levels, based on the key transition point, more clearly and quantitatively
than other models. The following section introduces this model in detail.
2.2.1 Supply chain process management maturity model (SCPM3). The SCPM3, proposed
by Oliveira et al. (2011), evolved from the supply chain management process maturity model
(SCMPMM) proposed by Lockamy and McCormack (2004), which was based on the premises
of the BP orientation maturity model with the business analytics approach and capability
indicators of the SCOR processes. The SCMPMM enables companies to identify their position
within a maturity framework quantitatively and provides a road map for improving process
practices by focusing on four SCOR key processes (Trkman et al., 2007). Although it is based
on a well-accepted conceptual framework, the SCMPMM uses subjective metrics to classify
firms by different maturity levels (Souza et al., 2015). In order to reduce the level of
subjectivity, Oliveira et al. (2011) developed a new maturity model to manage SC processes
called the SCPM3.
SCPM3 is a maturity model for SCM, based on the capability indicators of SCM processes.
According to Radosavljevic et al. (2016), this model consists of 90 capability indicators of the
SC process, grouped into 13 BPs (Figure 1) and serve as a basis for defining predator
relationships between the SCM processes. SCPM skills evaluated by the model describe SCM
competencies that represent best practices according to the SCOR (Souza et al., 2015).
In total, five maturity levels were defined in the SCPM3 (foundation, structure, vision,
integration and dynamics) (Oliveira et al., 2011). These authors emphasize that the purpose of
the maturity grid is to demonstrate aspects of the BP that need to be applied or improved,
thereby providing a guide for management decision-making on continuous improvement of
SCM processes.
The main features of SCPM at each maturity level of the SCPM3, according to Oliveira
et al. (2011), are presented below:
(1) Level 1: foundation: companies at this level seek to create a foundation for processes,
thus stabilizing processes and documenting flows, in addition to identifying critical
partners and implementing order management practices.
(2) Level 2: structure: firms at this level start to structure the internal process so that they
can be integrated. Production planning and scheduling processes and distribution
network management are implemented and forecasting and demand management
processes are used.
(3) Level 3: vision: processes are driven by strategic teams that seek to align logistics
processes with business interests and build the foundation for an SC vision.
(4) Level 4: integration: a company at this stage seeks to build collaborative relationships
with the business partners in its SC, thereby integrating its organizational processes
with the processes of the direct partners in the chain.
(5) Level 5: dynamic: this stage is characterized by the systemic and strategic integration
of the SC, in which the company has a dynamic behavior that allows it to be
Model SCMPMM SCCMM SCMM SCPM3
Supply chain
process,
Authorship Lockamy and Handfield and Lahti et al. (2009) Oliveira et al. (2011) maturity and
McCormack (2004) Straight (2004)
Technical Prescriptive Prescriptive Prescriptive Prescriptive strategy
approach
Purpose Facilitate enhanced Evaluation Evaluation the current Identify which
supply chain performance of position in SCM particular areas are 747
performance current sourcing maturity important in the quest
processes and define for achieving greater
the requirements for maturity at which level
future outsourcing of
business processes
Stages Five stages Five stages Four stages Five stages
Ad hoc, defined, linked, Ad hoc, defined, Functional focus, Foundation, structure,
integrated and linked, integrated and internal integration, vision, integration and
extended extended external integration dynamic
and cross-enterprise
collaboration
Supply key Plan, source, make and Design, source, make, Plan, source, make, Plan, source, make,
processes deliver sell/market, deliver deliver and overall deliver and return
and service
Supply Organizational Product mix Planning strategy, Forecasting and
practices structure, development, demand planning, demand management,
formalization and supplier relationship demand/supply team strategic
structuring of and strategy, balancing and planning, strategic
processes, strategic outsourcing, decision-making, behavior, sourcing
focus, organizational production strategy, source processes, team, supplier network
boundary, functional capacity and supplier management, management,
integration, SCM costs, procurement, market sourcing organization production planning
objectives, systems strategy, market and infrastructure, and scheduling,
and performance analysis and manufacturing distribution network
measurement, relationship, strategy, productizing management, order
customer satisfaction, distribution channels, scheduling, management, process
customer focus, logistics and manufacturing governance, foundation
partnership and outsourcing process, order construction,
external collaboration, partnerships, management, responsiveness,
continuous facilities and warehouse collaborative and
improvement, systems customer relationship management and integrated practices
and technology delivery, invoicing, and integration with the
information, SCM team overall value chain customer
metrics, overall value
chain development
Table 1.
and overall value chain
Overview of the
results maturity model sample

responsive in the chain. There is continuous process improvement based on key

performance indicators.
The model sought to define key turning points (KTPs) in order to generate a clear
demarcation for the change from one level to another on a maturity scale. KTPs are used to
define a change in a maturity level for each group (Oliveira et al., 2011). A KTP represents a
BP maturity component that stabilizes an organization and leads to establishing and
expanding other factors that direct the organization to the next level of maturity (McCormack
et al., 2009). According to Gajsek and Sternad (2020), SCPM3 is the first SCMP model to use
BPMJ
27,3 Collaboratively
Level 5 integrated Responsiveness
Dynamic practices

354

Level 4 Costumer Supply network Strategic

748 Integration
n integration management behavior

303
Strategic
Level 3 Procurement Processes
planning
Vision team governance
team

257
Distribution Demand Production
Level 2 network management planning and
e
Structure management and Forecasting schedule

203

Level 1 Foundation Order

Foundation Building management

Figure 1. Turning
Supply chain process points
management maturity
model – SCPM3
Source(s): Oliveira et al. (2011)

statistical analysis to define a company’s position at maturity levels. The KTPs between the
maturity levels were established by using a two-step cluster analysis that was performed
based on the database from the survey carried out by Oliveira et al. (2011). Each cluster was
considered as a distinct maturity level, and the centroid values were calculated for each
cluster. Having done so, the transition points for each level were established, considering the
minimum score value for level 1 and the mean value between two centroids (Oliveira et al.,
2011). Thus, companies with maturity scores of between 90 points and 202 points are
classified in level 1 of maturity; between 203 and 256 points, at level 2; between 257 and 302, at
level 3; between 303 and 353, at level 4 and with 354 points or more, at level 5. Adopting the
same methodology, KTPs were also established for each construct and each SCOR level
individually by using K-means clusters analysis (Oliveira et al., 2011). The KTPs was defined
based on centroid values.
Figure 1 shows the interactions of SCPM3 BPs by maturity levels and turning points.
The 13 BPs shown in Figure 1 are assessed by using SC capability indicators distributed
across four key areas of the SCOR model as shown in Table A1.
As can be seen, SCPM3 aims to identify more clearly which process capabilities need to be
met in order to move toward higher levels of maturity. This allows how SCM drivers
contribute to the company’s SC strategy and competitiveness to be evaluated.

2.3 Supply chain strategy and competitive strategy

According to Porter (1985), a competitive strategy aims to establish a favorable and profitable
position for a company while market forces determine who its competitors are. Defining a
competitive strategy requires an organization to know its customers and what unmet needs Supply chain
they have and to offer products and services more efficiently and innovatively than its process,
competitors (Pisano and Hitt, 2012).
Porter (1985) argues that a firm can obtain a differential over its rivals by focusing its
maturity and
business strategy on one of the following competitive advantages: achieving the lowest strategy
production cost or offering the lowest price on products/services (cost leadership strategy),
offering products or services that customers perceive as being different in ways that are
important to them (differentiation strategy) or, more broadly, focusing on serving a specific 749
segment more effectively and efficiently than its competitors (focus strategy). In the latter
perspective, competitive strategies will be “focused differentiation” or “focused cost
leadership.” To maximize the benefits of cost and differentiation strategies, a careful
analysis of the entire value chain is necessary in order to obtain important and necessary
subsidies for the correct choice of the strategy to be adopted (Porter, 1985). Based on Porter’s
approach, Shank and Govindarajan (1993) developed a conceptual framework, which they
refer to as strategic cost management (SCM). In their model, three elements are considered in
SCM’s strategic management: value chain analysis, strategic positioning analysis and cost
driver analysis, in which each element is suggested to produce strategy-relevant cost data. It
is important to emphasize that competitive advantage is not the result of market positioning.
It also depends on a firm’s ability to develop strategies and to combine various types of
resources and capabilities (manufacturing and process) to achieve results (Pisano and
Hitt, 2012).
Holweg and Helo (2014) observed that in practice, there is no interaction between the value
chain view and operational SC view for a strategic trigger. For these authors, a strategy
guided by the value chain allows the company to improve its competitive position as it allows
mapping the value flow of BPs and considers the internal and external relationships between
them, in order to maximize the value creation for a firm.
In a contemporary view, SCM has become a source of competitive advantage since
efficient management of the SC leads to cost savings, and collaboration between the members
of the SC leads to greater profitability for these companies (Christopher, 2011). In a global and
competitive environment, SC relationships and processes must be continuously integrated
and aligned with strategy. Chopra and Meindl (2013) emphasize that a company must ensure
that all SCM functions have strategies that underpin its competitive strategy. For these
authors, SC operations require management processes that cross functional areas within each
company and connect suppliers, business partners and customers across organizational
boundaries. However, it is not clear how the development of operational capabilities can
support a competitive strategy.
Birhanu et al. (2014) conducted an extensive literature review to classify different SC
strategies. They identified four types of SC strategy: efficient and responsive; lean, agile and
leagile (hybrid); efficient, responsive, risk-hedging and agile; pull and push. SC strategic
approaches are compared in terms of the characteristics of products (functional or innovative
products) and of the uncertainty of demand. To Fisher (1997), the characteristics of products
differ in terms of the predictability of the demand for them, the length of the life cycle, the
variety of products, service, lead times and specific market requirements.
Minnich and Maier (2007) assert that the concept of a responsive SC focuses on the SC’s
ability to react purposefully and within an appropriate timescale to customer demand or
changes in the marketplace, while the concept of an efficient SC emphasizes reducing costs
and combating the waste of resources on nonvalue-added activities. Christopher (2011) states
that responsive capabilities focus on increasing the scope of the quantity required, reducing
lead time, increasing product variety, increasing product innovation and increasing the level
of service required, whereas an efficient SC reduces costs by eliminating some of the
responsive capabilities. Birhanu et al. (2014) assert that companies that feature functional
BPMJ products are more focused on the efficiency of an SC, while companies with innovative
27,3 products are more focused on the responsiveness of an SC.
Many firms have designed their SC strategy as a lean or agile strategy. A lean strategy is
appropriate when demand is relatively stable and predictable, product variety is low and
product volume is high. Instead, when demand is unstable and unpredictable, a large variety
of products is offered and product volume is low, an agile strategy is required (Christopher,
2000; Agarwal et al., 2006). There will be situations where the combination of the capabilities
750 of the two approaches may be appropriate at a decoupling point for an optimal SCM, i.e. a
leagile strategy (Agarwal et al., 2006). Lee (2002) has classified the SC strategy into four types:
efficient, responsive, risk-edging and agile. This classification is based on supply and demand
uncertainties and the characteristics of products (functional and innovative products). These
strategies are compared in terms of market demand, customer drivers, purchasing policy,
quality, cost, lead time and service level (Birhanu et al., 2014). Other authors have classified
the SC as requiring a pull and push strategy. Push and pull SC strategies are related to order
fulfillment and based on actual end customer demand or demand forecasting (Chopra and
Meindl, 2013). For these authors, in pull processes, execution is initiated in response to a
customer order, whereas in push processes, execution is initiated in anticipation of customer
orders based on a forecast.
As can be observed, all these strategies aim to respond to consumer needs by seeking to
strengthen the company’s business capabilities in an environment of uncertainty and
according to the type of product offered. Thus, note that there is a similarity of views between
the approaches of responsive, agile and pull strategies, as well as between those of efficient,
lean and push strategies. In this study, we will use efficient and responsive strategic
approaches to make it clearer what the link is between them and the types of competitive
strategies proposed by Porter (1985).
2.3.1 Supply chain strategy alignment. According to Chopra and Meindl (2013), a company
needs to ensure that its SC skills are being used to support its ability to satisfy customers and
thus support achieving strategic alignment. Thus, strategic alignment should be considered
in the design of the SC strategy. To achieve strategic alignment, the company needs to follow
three simple steps, namely, to identify the needs of its customers, such as quantity, lead time,
variety, service level, price and innovation; to identify the role of the company in its SC in
terms of responsiveness (quantity, lead times, variety, innovation and service level) and
efficiency (cost and delivery); to carry out strategic alignment, i.e. to ensure that everything
that is done well in the SC is consistent with customers’ needs (Christopher, 2011; Chopra and
Meindl, 2013).
To show how strategic alignment can take place, Morash (2001) proposed a framework to
explain the relationship between business strategy and SC strategy, capabilities and,
consequently, performance. For this author, SC capabilities are the foundation for SC strategy
and a source of competitive advantage that leads to company success. The performance of the
SC is the “bottom line” for SC strategy and execution capabilities (Morash, 2001). SC strategy
focuses on logistics capabilities (demand-side capabilities or supply-side capabilities) that are
needed for chain success. These capabilities refer to customer service, quality, information
systems support, the flexibility of distribution, keeping the costs of logistics low, productivity
and the speed of delivery (Morash, 2001). The first two categories are strongly related to a
responsive chain, while the others are more related to an efficient chain. In other words,
capabilities distinguish a particular SC strategy. However, there should be consistency in
evaluating between competitive strategy and SC strategy, capabilities and performance.
Chopra and Meindl (2013) also proposed a framework to present the relation between
business strategy, SC strategy and capability indicators, as shown in Figure 2.
Chopra and Meindl (2013) argue that the success of the strategic fit is derived from
ensuring that the responsiveness of the SC is consistent with customers’ needs, supply
capabilities and the resulting implied uncertainty and by ensuring, the desired level of Supply chain
responsiveness is obtained at the lowest possible cost. process,
As can be seen, the models proposed in the literature have only presented relationship
structures for the design of strategic supply. However, there has been little discussion of the
maturity and
relationships between SC strategy types and competitive strategies, so that there can be an strategy
understanding of how SCM operational elements contribute to effective strategic alignment.
751
3. A framework to analyze the alignment between SCPM maturity and
competitive strategy
For an SCM maturity model to provide value to the business strategy, it must diagnose levels
of process capability that are adequate, sufficient and aligned with the company’s SC strategy
and competitive strategy. However, it can be seen from the strategic SC models presented in
this study that there is no clear discussion about how SCMP capabilities can be improved to
enable the company to achieve a competitive strategy, that is, each type of competitive
strategy requires some types of mature SCMPs to ensure the desired market position. In turn,
the capability of these processes must be developed according to the type of SCM strategy, as
well as this must be aligned with the competitive position defined by the organization. Based
on this perspective, we propose to add a maturity model to the SCM’s strategic framework,
which will indicate the process capabilities that need to be met to align SC strategy and
competitive strategy, thus indicating the degree of maturity the company can pursue.
Based on proposals of Porter (1985), Morash (2001), Lee (2002), Oliveira et al. (2011) and
Chopra and Meindl (2013), Figure 3 presents the proposed conceptual framework for
integrating an SCMPMM into the SC strategic structure, in order to identify the SC BPs that
are adequate and sufficient for the effectiveness of the SC strategy. In this study, SCPM3 was
used because it focuses on SCM key decision areas and process capability indicators, in which
both were validated by highly experienced managers in order to monitor the evolution of
SCM practices. The difference of this proposal in relation to the other approaches is that we

Competitive strategy

Supply Chain strategy

Efficiency Responsiveness

Facilities Inventory Transportation

Logistical
drivers

Cross-functional Information Sourcing Pricing

drivers Figure 2.
Supply chain decision-
making framework
Source(s): Adapted from Chopra and Meindl (2013)
BPMJ added a maturity model to guide the development of the SC BPs so that these are adequate
27,3 and sufficient to meet the SC strategy and the reach of the competitive strategy.
The steps of the proposed conceptual framework are detailed below:
(1) Step 1: competitive strategy: in this step, the SC planning team needs to identify the
company’s competitive strategy (continuous between cost and differentiation), which
defines the desired market position.
752 (2) Step 2: SC strategy: in this step, it is necessary define the type of SC strategy
(continuous between efficient or responsive). The SC strategy should be defined as
most appropriate for the competitive strategy identified.
(3) Step 3: SC decision areas: for SC strategy’s contribution to the competitive strategy, it
is necessary to develop the capability of processes, activities and resources in four SC
business areas (plan, source, make and deliver). From the view of these fundamental
SC processes, it is possible to create a continuous chain of activities that cross
organizational boundaries and is repeated between suppliers, company and
customers. Thus, these processes are related to SC strategy scope.
(4) Step 4: SCM capability processes: in this step, it is necessary to know which SC BPs
need to be developed to meet the SC strategy. For this, it is necessary to know the
current maturity of the SC BPs and assess whether these processes already have the

Competitive strategy

Supply chain strategy

Efficiency Responsiveness

Supply chain decision areas

Plan Source Make Deliver

SCPM Maturity Supply chain management capability

processes
Dynamic • Responsiveness
• Collaboratively integrated practices
• Strategic behavior
• Supply network management
• Costumer integration
• Strategic planning team
• Process governance
• Procurement team
• Production planning and schedule
• Demand management and forecasting
Figure 3.
• Distribution network management
Framework to
• Order management
integrate SCPM3 into Foundation • Foundation building
the strategic SC
framework
Supply chain performance indicators
 necessary maturity to support the desired SC strategy. Based on SCPM3, SC BPs that Supply chain
will generate value for SC strategy are identified (there are 13 in total) and its process,
performance indicators (there are 90 in total). Through SCPM3’s maturity level
assessment methodology, it will be possible to identify which processes and
maturity and
indicators need to be developed to meet SC strategy and achieve the firm’s strategy
competitive strategy.
(5) Step 5: SC performance indicators: in this step, it is necessary to establish the 753
company’s SC key performance metrics, by which overall performance of the SCM
process capabilities and practices will be assessed.
Based on the researched literature, it is possible to make an association between the types of
SC strategy, the competitive strategies and the maturity levels of SCPM3. It was observed
that organizations focused on efficient SC strategy seek a competitive position in cost in the
market, while companies focused on responsive SC strategy seek a competitive position in
differentiation. Thus, companies focused on efficiency are more focused on SC’s internal BPs.
As companies seek to be responsive in their SC, they seek the external integration of their
BPs. In this way, an SCPM3 could guide the gradual improvement of a company’s SC BPs as
they move from a strategy focused on efficiency to a strategy aimed at high responsiveness.
With the SCPM3 model, as shown in Figure 1, it is possible to identify the boundaries of the
SC BPs to be developed at each level of maturity up to a level of integration strategy in SC.
According to Caputo et al. (2019), boundaries must be conducted as a continuum, which
constitutes a “boundary zone,” for hybrid governance in network dynamics, digital
innovations and shared economy perspectives, where boundary management involves
making decisions about “how” to define the activities that integrate and interface a company
with the external environment. Figure 4 presents a grid to demonstrate the observed
relationship.
As can be seen in Figure 4, adjustment refers to the consistency between customers’
priorities that the competitive strategy wishes to achieve and the SCM capabilities that the SC
strategy needs to build. If there is no adjustment between SC design and SC strategy,
customers’ priorities will not be met and the company will not achieve the expected success.
Thus, the company must ensure that SC capabilities support its ability to satisfy target
customer segments with its products.
It is noteworthy that reaching the highest point of maturity may not be a company’s
competitive objective. This shows that a company does not have to seek full integration and
external collaboration in the chain to achieve the desired success, as made explicit in Figure 4.
Having defined the category of the products and the SC priorities, a matrix for the ideal SC
strategy can be formulated (Fisher, 1997; Lee, 2002). Thus, the SC strategy will be built
assuming that the company intends to act competitively, and the maturity model will enable
the company to achieve this strategic alignment.
The proposed grid makes it easier to understand and visualize the relationship between
the type of SC strategy, the level of maturity of the BPs and the competitive strategy, in which
other models do not approach this perspective together and in an aligned manner. For
instance, the higher the maturity level, the more responsive the SC strategy is, i.e. the
company’s SCMPs will be more integrated and the company will collaborate more with
customers and partners in the SC, which will give it a more sustainable competitive
advantage. However, it is essential to know if this is a strategic interest of the company. Thus,
a maturity model can be useful to the manager and guide the steps that are necessary to reach
the competitive objectives.
For an SCM maturity model to provide value to the business strategy, it must diagnose
levels of process capability that are adequate, sufficient and aligned with the company’s SC
BPMJ
27,3
Differentiation 5

4
754
Competitive strategy

3
Differentiation
Spectrum

Cost
High efficiency
Low Reasonable and low Reasonable High
efficiency efficiency responsiveness responsiveness responsiveness
Figure 4.
Grid to relate the
maturity level, supply Responsiveness
chain strategy and spectrum
competitive strategy
Supply Chain Strategy

strategy and competitive strategy. Table 2 shows the relationship between competitive
strategy, SC strategy and SC process capabilities that need to be developed per maturity level.
A company that is not on an efficient frontier line can improve both its costs and its
responsiveness by moving toward the efficient frontier. But, if a firm is already on the
efficient frontier line, it can improve its responsiveness only by increasing costs and
becoming less efficient. The company can increase efficiency by reducing costs incurred on
responsiveness.

4. Research methodology
This is an exploratory research, in which we seek to explore the value that a maturity model
offers for the effectiveness of SC’s strategy, demonstrating how a maturity model can be
useful in diagnosing and developing the capability of SCMPs to meet SC’s strategy and
competitive strategy, highlighting the barriers and contributing factors of this. For this,
through an SCPM3, we seek to identify a set of BPs that need to have their SCM capabilities,
processes and resources developed to meet each type of SC strategy and competitive strategy.
Based on this, a conceptual framework was proposed to guide the maturity of the SCMPs
within an SC strategy structure. In this proposal, we used the SCPM3 since it is a prescriptive
model and allows a clear analysis and identification of the capabilities of SCM BPs that need
to be reached at different levels of maturity.
The proposed research was based on a literature review on SCM BP, SC maturity, SC
strategy and competitive strategy in order to integrate the existing knowledge between
these areas.
The research was approached qualitatively and it included a multi-case study. According
to Ellram (1996) and Yin (2014), the qualitative approach and the case study are suitable
Maturity level SCM process capabilities
Supply chain
process,
Level 1: At this level, the competiveness of the company is low in cost and differentiation. The maturity and
foundation supply chain strategy is inefficient and unresponsive. The company deals with functional
products and more stable demand and processes. SCM processes are being designed, strategy
structured and documented. SCM process capabilities are focused on purchase order and
delivery order management, involving the order process system, inventory breakdown
management and order fulfillment. There is poor integration with consumers and 755
suppliers. SCMPs stabilized at this level are foundation building and order management
Level 2: structure At this level, the company has fragile cost and differential competitiveness. Supply chain
strategy is moderately efficient and unresponsive. The company deals with functional
products for which there is a more stable demand and processes. SCM processes are
focused only on logistics processes (supply, production and distribution) and their
internal integration. Process capabilities are focused on demand forecasting to assist
decision makers in planning and logistics operations and sharing internal information
with the support of information systems. After stabilizing the SCM processes at level 1,
the company will seek to stabilize the distribution network management, demand
management and forecasting and production planning and schedule processes
Level 3: vision At this level, the company has high cost competitiveness and low differentiation. The
company deals with functional products for which there is a more stable demand and
processes. Supply chain strategy is focused on efficiency. It is already seeking the
strategic alignment of logistics processes with its supply chain strategy. Process-oriented
management is already seen at this level, which has been established by using a
governance process. Process capabilities are focused on procurement, strategic team
management and integrated internal planning involving all processes in SCM’s value
chain. After stabilizing the SCM processes at level 2, the company will seek to stabilize the
procurement team, processes governance and strategic planning team processes
Level 4: At this level, the company has moderate cost competitiveness and seeks to have greater
integration differentials in the market. It is suitable for companies, which have some products for
which demand is a little uncertain and whose processes are less stable. The supply chain
strategy is agile and involves functional and innovative products. The processes of SCM’s
value chain are integrated within and across organizations. Process capabilities are
focused on building collaborative relationships in the supply chain. The company seeks
information sharing and integration capabilities with suppliers and consumers in order to
meet product and customer service requirements. After stabilizing the SCM processes at
level 3, the company will seek to stabilize the customer integration, supply network
management and strategic behavior processes
Level 5: dynamic At this level, the company competes for differentiation in its market, focusing on
customized products, and this leads to increased costs due to the flexibility required. The
company commonly deals with uncertain and unstable processes. Supply chain strategy
is responsive, and thus, systematic and strategic integration with members of the supply
chain is sought. Process capabilities are focused on partnership and a collaboration Table 2.
strategy and management based on key performance indicators. After stabilizing the Competitive
SCM processes at level 4, the company will seek to stabilize the collaboratively integrated characteristics of
practices and responsiveness processes supply chain design

strategies for studying little explored phenomena in their real context and where there is little
knowledge about them, such as SCM and the specific subject of this research. The authors
emphasize that methodological rigor, depth and accurate representation of empirical data are
necessary to carry out a case study. Qualitative research allows analyzing a phenomenon in
depth, being closer to the context explored and having a better understanding of the
phenomenon in various organizational contexts (Yin, 2016). Thus, a case study analysis was
essential to understand the usefulness and support of a maturity model for competitive and
SC strategy, in which the proposed conceptual framework guided and helped in
understanding this relationship. In this study, the multi-case study was used because it
BPMJ allows understanding differences and similarities between cases (Baxter and Jack, 2008).
27,3 Moreover, it allows us to observe the data within and between different situations (Yin, 2014),
providing the literature with important evidence of these differences and similarities. In this
way, multiple cases allow for a broader exploration of research questions and theoretical
evolution (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). These authors also emphasize that multi-case
studies provide more generalizable results than a single case study. Besides that, Baxter and
Jack (2008) also claim that a multiple case study allows that strong and reliable evidence to be
756 obtained.
To check the applicability of the proposed conceptual framework and the correspondence
between the maturity of the SC processes and the competitive and SC strategies, three case
studies were conducted in Brazilian companies. Nonprobability sampling was used to choose
these companies. In total, three criteria were used to select these companies: the
characteristics of their products (functional and innovative products) and predictability of
the demand for them, as proposed by Fisher (1997), according to the SC strategies used in this
study; having an organizational area for SCM; having declared SCM BPs. The companies
were called 1 (manufacture), 2 (manufacture) and 3 (service). Company 1 is characterized by
innovative products and with greater uncertainty in demand, while companies 2 and 3 are
characterized by functional products and with more predictable demand. This classification
allows us to understand the study’s context in different operational situations, as well as it
facilitates the analysis of the adequacy of the maturity level and the corresponding
development of BPs for the effectiveness of the SC strategy. These case studies were relevant
for providing insights to understand how a maturity model can be useful for the SC strategy
and to deepen the empirical analysis of the data in a real context of SC BPs. From the strategic
perspective of these cases, it is possible to observe whether SC’s strategic expectations are
consistent with the company’s competitive strategy and how its SCM BPs are contributing to
the achievement of both strategies, by assessing the BP maturity level.
Data were collected through of the SCPM3 questionnaire and a semi-structured interview.
Initially, SCPM3 was applied to identify the SCM practices that need improvement and the
level of maturity of BPs, SCOR areas and overall maturity. For this, a questionnaire,
comprising the 90 process capability indicators of SCPM3 (distributed across 13 process
constructs), was applied by interviewing one key logistics manager of each company,
according to the key informant’s approach. These managers were chosen by the companies
as a key SC representative as they are involved in the governance process of key SC and value
chain BPs. At the end of each section, a question was added to assess whether, overall, the
corresponding decision-making area achieves excellent results. This information was later
compared to the results obtained from applying the SCPM3. The performance constructs
were evaluated based on the logistics manager’s perception. Once the results of the
questionnaire were obtained, we sought to explore the maturity of the organizations, in order
to compare the performance achieved, using SCPM3, and the managers’ overall perception of
the current performance by each SCOR area. This was important to know how managers
perceive the development of their SCMPs to meet the SC strategy and what is presented by
SCPM3. The identification of the maturity level indicates whether the developed
SCM practices are sufficient to meet the established SC strategy and what needs to be
improved.
In addition to the questionnaire, six discursive issues were addressed in the interview in
order to identify the company’s competitive strategies and SCM strategies. This makes it
possible to assess the level of adjustment between them, as shown in Figure 4. The lack of
adjustment makes it difficult to achieve success in the SC strategy. Managers were also asked
about SCM practices that need to be improved in the face of established strategies, in order to
assess whether they would really be necessary and adequate to meet the SCM strategy, from
the level of maturity required. All information was transcribed into a table, immediately
after the interview with each manager. This interview was important in order to analyze Supply chain
whether the model would bring some value to the company, i.e. whether the model would process,
serve as an improvement guide for these companies in line with the business interests or
would only provide an analysis of the capability processes.
maturity and
To verify whether the current strategies (competitive and SC) were aligned as well as strategy
whether the SC processes had the necessary maturity level to implement these strategies, a
systematic structure was proposed to analyze the case studies, as shown in Figure 5. These
steps were defined to make this analysis in more detail, in order to generate reliable and valid 757
results within and between the case studies. The proposals presented in Figures 3 and
Figures 4 served as a guide for the construction of the procedures for this analysis.
Comparisons between the current situations and the situations proposed by the study were
made throughout this analysis, based on the perception of the managers interviewed in this
study. With that, the proposed framework was being applied.
On obtaining the data, an empirical analysis can be made of the strategic performance of
the SCM process concerning the expectations of the companies. This analysis was made by
SCOR areas to obtain more detail of the areas that mostly contribute to the reach of the SC
strategy. This enabled critical BPs to be identified that need to be improved with respect to
competitive objectives.
At the end, an integrated view was presented of the analyses carried out between the
process capabilities, maturity levels, SC strategies and competitive strategies in order to
position and demonstrate the possible strategic direction, based on the capabilities of process,
as well as the market positioning expected by customers.
The results of this study are characterized as of analytical generalization, in which,
according to Yin (2010), the results of the case studies are compared to a previously developed
theoretical proposal, from implicit situations in which similar events can occur, in order to
expand and generalize theories, according to the contribution of this study.
Figure 5 presents the steps used to analyze the integration of a maturity model into the
SCM strategic framework.

5. Case studies
The purpose of the case studies was to verify the applicability of integrating a maturity
model to the strategic structure of SC and its characterization in three companies with a
focus on functional and innovative products and the predictability of demand on them, as
well as understanding the barriers and factors that contribute to that integration. Therefore,
the conceptual framework followed a bottom-up approach in the interviews with SC
managers. In the end, it was possible to relate the position of the maturity level to the
companies’ competitive and SCM strategies based on SCPM3 and in relation to the
managers’ expectations. Table 3 presents an overview of the companies participating in
this study.

5.1 Analysis of process capability indicators and SCPM maturity

Initially, the data collected were analyzed by the SCOR area, based on the process constructs
corresponding to each area. In this analysis, some weaknesses of the companies were
described concerning the process groups of the model. By doing so, the area(s) in which the
companies have most weaknesses could be seen as could the practices that are the most
difficult to implement. Thus, current capabilities and logistics practices will be assessed by
using SCPM3, as detailed in 2.2.1. This assessment takes place in three stages: evaluating the
process capability indicators and their improvements; assessing maturity by BPs, by SCOR
areas; by making a global assessment.
 27,3

758
BPMJ

Figure 5.

framework
SCM strategy
integration of a
Steps to analyze the

maturity model to the

Analysis of the overall perception of SCOR areas by
Identification of the capabilities supply chain business processes by SCPM3 logistics managers

STEP 3
• By interview • By SCPM3

By SCOR areas
Identification of the objeticves and expectations of
Plan Source Make Deliver improvement of SCM processes and practices
• Demand management • Production planning • Distribution network
• Procurement team • Competitive goals • SCM practices
and forecasting and schedule management

STEP 4
• Supply network • Processes
• Strategic Planning team • Order management • SCM Strategy • Expeted results
management governance

STEP 1
• Processes
• Strategic behavior • Responsiveness • Processes governance
governance
• Processes governance • Foundation building • Costumer integration • Foundation building Comparison between expected improvement
• Collaborativy integrated processes and those proposed by SCPM3

processes
• Responsiveness
STEP 5
practices
• Collaborativy
• Costumer integration

Supply chain business

integrated practices
• Costumer integration Comparison between perceived performance and
current supply chain strategy
STEP 6

• Performance analysis by the logistics manager

Assessment of maturity level • Performance analysis by SCPM3
• Performance analysis explored
Dynamic

Vision • By supply chain business processes

Proposal for adjusting of SC strategy
STEP 2

Integration • By SCOR area

Structure • By overall performance • Proposed strategic position
STEP 7

Maturity level
Foudantion • Current strategic position
Variables Company 1
Enterprise Electrical battery
manufacturer
Main products Electrical battery
Time to market 60 years
The number of Seven manufacturing units
industrial units
and distribution
centers
Main financial Private capital
capital
Size Large
Production 7.5 m batteries per year
Market Domestic market,
supplying batteries to half
the national fleet and in
foreign markets, serving
South and Central America
as well as some countries in
Asia and Europe
SCM strategic Supply chain process
organization
Key business Development, demand
processes management, sales,
finance, human resources,
IT, supply planning,
purchasing, strategic
planning production (PCP),
sales and operations
planning (S&OP), order
fulfillment, distribution,
foreign trade and service
customer
Logistics areas Purchasing, logistics
planning, interlogistics,
transportation and sales
SCM process Plan, source make and
deliver
Source(s): Interview
Company 2
Global-branded beverage
industry
Distilled beverages
39 years
There is a manufacture
Belongs to a European
group
Large
50 million liters of beverage
per year
Brazilian and South
American markets. The
group distributes products
in over 190 countries
worldwide
Supply chain process
Development, demand
management, sales,
finance, IT, purchasing,
strategic planning
production (PCP), quality
management, order
fulfillment, foreign trade,
distribution and service
customer
Purchasing, warehousing,
PSCP/MRP, transportation,
reverse logistics and
logistics services
Plan, source make, deliver
and return
Company 3
Supply chain
process,
Retailer and wholesaler maturity and
Operates in the segments strategy
of wood, hardware, tools
and accessories for
furniture 759
14 years
Four units and one
distribution center
Private capital
Small
Has a portfolio with over
5,000 items
Local market of the State
of Pernambuco,
Northeastern Brazil,
supplying products to
professionals in the area,
construction companies
and consumers in general
No SCM area
Finance, sales, demand
management, purchasing,
logistics, operation
services and distribution
Purchasing, inventory
management and control,
warehousing and
transportation Table 3.
Plan, source and deliver Overview of the
market, logistics and
SCM of the three
companies

Based on SCPM3 process constructs and capability indicators, logistics managers were able
to evaluate how SCM process practices in their company had been developed. The
performance constructs were analyzed taking into account the responses obtained for which
a five-point Likert scale was used, considering 1 for “no or never,” 2 for “almost never,” 3 for
“sometimes,” 4 for “almost always” and 5 for “yes or always.” Although logistics managers
know the tool, these managers do not use any maturity model to assess the capability of their
SCMPs. Table 4 presents the number of capability indicators and SCM BPs evaluated by each
SCOR area, as well as the frequency of the company’s answers to the questionnaire.
BPMJ As can be seen in Table 4, companies 1 and 2 showed good management practices in the
27,3 SCM decision areas analyzed, while company 3 showed considerable difficulty in the
practices relating to the areas of supplies and operations. It can be understood why
companies 1 and 2 are able to have more mature processes of SCM, while the greatest
difficulty that company 3 will have is to manage supply inventories and sales order
management.
In general, the source area presents the worst management process. Looking further into
760 the capability indicators, it was noted that there are problems specifically concerning
collaborative practices with suppliers, such as inventory management by supplier,
information sharing, collaborative planning and maintaining strategic suppliers in the
company. In addition, it was also seen that company 1 had a bit more difficulty with
distribution practices, specifically regarding the commitment of the orders and company 3
with making processes. It could be seen that the model’s capability indicators focus on critical
points in the logistics process and thus show the usefulness but not the complete utility of
SCOR as a guide to process improvement. Consequently, the model should be complemented
by other tools.
Regarding the process capabilities analyzed, Table 5 presents improvement practices that
the company identified.
In this first analysis, what could be seen was that the SCPM3 identifies the main fragilities
of the SCM key processes, although some practices need to be adjusted to better apply SCPM3
to company 3. It should be noted that due to the model being generic, it was expected that the
model did not prioritize any specific aspect according to the market segment. Note that the
model allows the nonexistence or difficulty of applying the best SCM practices to be identified
and provides ways to improve the maturity of SCMPs.
After analyzing the performance of companies, the next step was to rank their SCM
maturity level. This is a very critical step because it indicates the level at which practices have
been adopted that aim at integrating and collaborating with the company’s SC. Several
methodologies have been applied in the literature for this classification. However, finding the
transition points between one level of maturity and another by using an ordinal scale and a
set of process constructs to be triggered has been a difficult task. On using KTPs among
maturity levels, proposed by Oliveira et al. (2011), it was found that the SCMP maturity of the
companies under study could be classified.
Table 6 presents the methodology applied by SCPM3 to classify the maturity level of the
process groups and the corresponding results by the companies. Process group scores are
calculated from the sum of the scores evaluated by each process area.
As can be seen in Table 6, only 1 of the 13 capacity indicators evaluated in company 1 is
not at the maximum maturity level. Only supplier network management practices need to be
improved. Company 2 presented 11 out of 13 capacity indicators with the maximum maturity
level and needs to improve its order management and customer integration processes.
Company 3 requires to make improvements in 11 of the 13 capacity indicators, with emphasis
on the processes of supply network management, production and schedule and customer
integration. Overall, all companies present a significant difficulty in the practices related to
the external integration of the SC. Also, there is no evidence these practices would be effective
and appropriate to business and SC objectives, as we intend to show by using our framework
(Figure 3).
Based on KTP methodology to classify the maturity level by SCOR area, proposed by
Oliveira et al. (2011) and mentioned in subitem 2.2.1, it was also possible to classify the overall
maturity level of the supply chain process management of the companies studied. Table 7
presents these results.
As can be seen in Table 7, company 1 achieved a score of 395 points. According to Oliveira
et al. (2011), companies with a maturity score above 354 points are positioned at a maturity
 Company 1 Company 2 Company 3
Key Total indicators Assessment scale
areas Evaluated process constructs evaluated 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Plan Demand management and forecasting; strategic planning team; 31 0 0 0 7 24 0 0 0 6 35 2 4 6 10 9

strategic behavior; processes governance; collaboratively
integrated practices; customer integration
Source Procurement team; supply network management; processes 14 1 0 3 4 6 1 0 0 4 9 4 2 6 0 2
governance; foundation building; responsiveness; customer
integration
Make Production planning and schedule; processes governance; 15 0 0 1 9 5 0 0 0 4 11 5 3 2 4 1
customer integration
Deliver Distribution network management; order management; processes 30 0 0 2 19 9 2 1 4 9 14 3 4 3 9 11
governance; foundation building; responsiveness; collaboratively
integrated practices; customer integration
process,
strategy

761
maturity and

of the perception of
Supply chain

logistics managers by
Table 4.

SCOR areas
Frequency distribution
BPMJ SCOR
27,3 Company area Improvement practices

1 Plan Demand forecasting, decision support tools and integration of customer information
Source Purchasing management, information sharing with suppliers, collaborative supplier
management, supplier performance, information system and supply strategic
partnership
762 Make SCM process integration, scheduling periodicity, production planning and control,
information system, capacity planning, planning efficiency and effectiveness and
strategic production planning
Deliver Process structuring, information system, change management, planning methods,
SCM integration process, delivery control and performance, automatic
replenishment, performance effectiveness and metrics, reliability in deliveries, order
fulfillment, ability to react to change, security stock, order tracking and information
sharing with customers
2 Plan Demand management and forecasting, collaboration between internal processes and
integration of customer information
Source Information sharing with suppliers, collaborative supplier management, information
system and supplier performance
Make Production planning and control, integration of customer information, information
system, process structuring and strategic production planning
Deliver Process structuring, information system, change management, SCM integration
process, automatic replenishment, reliability in deliveries, order fulfillment, ability to
react to change, order tracking, information sharing with customers and request
commitment
3 Plan Demand management and forecasting, process structuring, performance metrics,
profitability analysis, partnership relation, SCM process planning and integration of
customer information
Source Most practices analyzed
Make All practices analyzed
Deliver Process structuring, management support, information system, change
management, SCM integration process, automatic replenishment, reliability in
Table 5. deliveries, order fulfillment, stock break, ability to react to change, order tracking,
SCM practices to be quantitative planning methods, information sharing with customers and
improved by company performance effectiveness and metrics

level of 5. Thus, the company is at a dynamic level and thus is pursuing collaborative
practices and responsiveness in the SC. The same is true for company 2. Company 3 is
positioned at level 3, where it has been seeking to structure and integrate its internal
processes in the SC. The data show that companies 1 and 2 are already in a stage of
integration and collaboration with the SC, while company 3 is still focused on its internal
chain processes, i.e. working to achieve efficiency in its internal processes.
Despite the effort to quantitatively attempt to define a boundary band between the levels,
it should be noted that there is a very flexible margin to consider a company in the last level of
maturity, in which companies’ supply and distribution processes are critical.

5.2 Analysis of the current performance of SCOR areas by logistics managers

After evaluating the SCM practices of the four SCOR areas, logistics managers were asked to
evaluate, using a five-point scale (1: strongly disagree to 5: strongly agree), whether the
company was achieving excellent results in each SCOR decision area. Table 8 shows the
managers’ perception per areas of analysis and those obtained using SCPM3.
For company 1, the logistics manager’s perception for all areas was 5, despite the
individual perceptions per area showing that the practices currently applied are not mostly
 N Indicators by SCOR areas Key turning points Company 1 Company 2 Company 3
indicators Minimum Maximum Level Level Level Level Level Maturity Maturity Maturity
Process group evaluated Plan Source Make Deliver score score Amplitude 1 2 3 4 5 Score level Score level Score level

Demand 12 12 – – – 12 60 48 12 23 33 41 50 54 5 56 5 47 4
management and
forecasting
Strategic 6 6 – – – 6 30 24 6 9 14 19 24 29 5 30 5 21 4
planning team
Strategic 8 8 – – – 8 40 32 8 15 21 27 33 39 5 40 5 26 3
behavior
Procurement 3 – 3 – – 3 15 12 3 5 8 11 13 14 5 15 5 9 3
team
Supply network 6 – 6 – – 6 30 24 6 10 13 17 23 19 4 24 5 10 2
management
Production 9 – – 9 – 9 45 36 9 15 22 29 36 38 5 44 5 19 2
planning and
schedule
Distribution 9 – – – 9 9 45 36 9 16 22 28 35 36 5 38 5 28 4
network
management
Order 8 – – – 8 8 40 32 8 19 25 30 34 35 5 32 4 36 5
management
Processes 6 2 1 1 2 6 30 24 6 11 16 21 26 30 5 30 5 21 4
governance
Foundation 9 – 4 – 5 9 45 36 9 19 25 30 36 37 5 37 5 33 4
building
Responsiveness 4 – – 2 2 4 20 16 4 8 12 14 17 17 5 19 5 16 4
Collaboratively 5 2 – – 3 5 25 20 5 10 13 16 20 22 5 21 5 20 5
integrated
practices
Customer 5 1 – 3 1 5 25 20 5 11 14 18 21 23 5 18 4 13 2
integration
process,
strategy

763
maturity and
Supply chain

by process group
Table 6.
Maturity classification
BPMJ satisfactory, in which the results reached may not be enough for the automobile SC. The
27,3 company’s logistics manager 2 evaluated the results obtained in the planning, supply and
operation areas as 4 and as 5 the results of the distribution, despite this latter area having
presented the lowest performance in the practices evaluated by SCPM3. Thus, this manager
recognizes that SCM practices need to be improved. The company’s logistics manager 3 sees
the results in all areas as 4, although they show weakness in the supply and delivery areas as
revealed by SCPM3.
764 Comparing these results with those obtained by SCPM3, it is observed that the results of
company 1 were the only coincident ones. Although the SCPM3 indicates that company 2 is at
level 5, and the manager evaluates the performance at level 4, this reinforces the assertion that
the company is still pursuing practices toward integration and collaboration in the SC.
Company 3 considers that its current practices and operations are at a better level of SCM
than the results identified by the model, where the SCPM3 identified an initial application of
SCM practices in these areas.
Even though companies 1 and 2 are rated at maturity level 5, the SC process practices still
need to be developed and the base has not yet been stabilized which would let the company
adopt best collaborative practices in the chain. Company 3 was classified in maturity level 3,
in which it is still seeking to integrate the internal processes that aim at SCM. In general, what
can be seen is that the model’s capability indicators focus on critical points in the logistics
process, thereby showing the effective but not complete utility of SCOR areas as a guide to
process improvement and its contribution to SC strategy.

5.3 Analysis and discussion about the integration of SCPM3 into the SCM strategy
In order to analyze if maturity improvement indicators pointed out by the SCPM3 would be
adjusted to interests and competitive objectives of the organizations, a discursive interview
was carried out with logistics managers regarding the expectations of improving the SCM
practices, their relation with the company’s competitive strategy and the results that could be
achieved by adopting these improvements. The purpose is to compare the results revealed by
the SCPM3 and those observed by the managers in order to evaluate how SCM BPs contribute
to companies’ type of SC strategy. Table 9 presents the result of the interview.

Company 1 Company 2 Company 3

SCOR area Score Level Score Level Score Level

Plan 148 5 149 5 113 4

Source 56 5 62 5 36 2
Table 7. Make 64 5 71 5 38 2
Supply chain process Deliver 127 5 122 5 111 4
management maturity Total 395 – 404 – 298 –
level of companies Maturity level 5: dynamic 5: dynamic 3: vision

Company 1 Company 2 Company 3

Decision area Interview SCPM3 Interview SCPM3 Interview SCPM3

Table 8. Plan 5 5 4 5 4 4
Perception of overall Supply 5 5 4 5 4 2
performance of Make 5 5 4 5 4 2
SCOR areas Deliver 5 5 5 5 4 4
 As can be seen in Table 9, in the first analysis, due to the product classification Supply chain
characteristics in relation to the SC strategy proposed by Fisher (1997), used to choose, process,
observe and analyze the companies in this study, the responsive SC strategy is the most
appropriate for company 1, while the efficient strategy is the most suitable for companies 2
maturity and
and 3. Based on this context, the SC strategies defined by the interviewed managers of strategy
companies 1 and 2 are correct, while the SC strategy defined for company 3 is partially
correct. Still according to this perspective, if we consider the overall maturity assessed
through SCPM3, currently, the process capabilities would allow to meet the SC strategies 765
defined by the managers of companies 1 and 3 and would be beyond what is necessary to
meet the strategy of company 2 since its maturity level was assessed as 5, while it would need
to develop the processes defined at levels 3 or 4, as presented in the model proposed in
Table 2. Regarding the competitive strategy, the strategies of companies 1 and 2 are
positioned in a continuum between cost and differentiation (effectiveness), while company 3
is competitively positioned by differential, according to the classification proposed by Porter
(1985). However, this competitive positioning does not match the companies’ SC strategies, as
the grid proposed in Figure 4. According to our proposal, the most appropriate SC strategy
for company 1 would be reasonable responsiveness, while for company 2, the most
appropriate SC strategy would be high efficiency and low responsiveness and for company 3
would be the reasonable efficiency strategy.
Another observation, as shown in Table 9, is that few logistic and cross-function drivers
are expected to develop the capabilities of SC strategies of the companies under study. The
drivers of companies 1 and 2 focus on internal processes, while those of company 3 are
focused on external integration. It is also observed that the capabilities to be improved do not
contribute effectively to the expected SC strategies. Another highlight is that not all

Issues Company 1 Company 2 Company 3

What is the company’s
competitive objective?
How company’s SCM is
prepared to compete
strategically?
What needs to be
improved on SCM today?
What practices need to be
adopted in SCM for the
organization to achieve its
organizational goal?
Are these practices
considered in the
organization’s strategy?
What improvements could
be achieved with the
adoption of these practices
in the area?
Source(s): Interview (2019)
Cost and delivery Cost and service level Cost, quality, innovation
and product variety and
quality of customer
service
Responsively Efficiently Flexibly
System and Information system; space Information system;
information utilization and handling; internal and external
technology; modes of qualified people; process integration;
transportation mechanization and support from top
optimization of internal management
movement
Best technologies; Picking list; receiving Suppliers relationship
strategic planning practice; internal
team communication
Yes No. They are believed to be Yes. Not very effective
of operational impacts
Table 9.
Decision-making; Reduction of handling time Accuracy in forecasting Logistics managers’
accuracy and speed demand; reduction of expectations and
in information stock break; improved perceptions of
exchange SCM team performance improvement of SCM
practices
BPMJ improvement practices expected by logistics managers are foreseen in the main indicators of
27,3 the SCPM3 BPs, such as specific issues related to the procedures for the mechanization or
automation of charge flow and the control and accuracy of the stocks. These issues impact on
the speed, costs, losses and accuracy of orders for supply or distribution, all of which are
essential when assessing the efficiency and responsiveness of the SCM. On the other hand,
other improvements in process capabilities were also identified through SCPM3 (see Table 5).
This evaluation allowed to know the SC processes that need to be improved, serving as a
766 guide for improving the SCMPs and the company in order to obtain a good success in its SC.
Managers were also asked what SC BPs, those listed by SCPM3, could be improved to
achieve the SC strategy and the company’s competitive objectives. Table 10 presents a
comparison between the process groups that need to be improved from the point of view of
managers’ expectations and the results obtained by using SCPM3 (see Table 6).
As shown in Table 10, note that there is a divergence of purpose for company 1. As to
company 2, note that there are more processes to be improved than expected, there being a
coincidence in relation to the order management. Company manager 3 expects to intervene in
fewer processes than those pointed out by the SCPM3. Thus, it is concluded that there is a
conflict between what the model indicates for the maturation of the SCMP and the SCMP that
managers aim to improve in their respective companies. This shows that a maturity model
needs to be completed by other methodologies to be strategically useful. These methodologies
need to create a relationship between the maturity levels of the model and the purpose to be
achieved, according to the conceptual framework proposed in this study. This analysis also
shows that, by itself, a maturity model does not ensure that developing the capabilities of SC
processes toward their dynamic integration and collaboration with members of the SC creates
competitive advantage for the enterprise. It depends on how the company positions itself in
its market and how it develops its SCM capabilities and skills (Morash, 2001; Chistopher et al.,
2011; Chopra and Meindl, 2013).
Table 11 presents the performance of the SCMP based on data obtained by using SCPM3,
the logistics manager’s perception and current performance. Current performance is a result

Company 1 Company 2 Company 3

Manager’s Manager’s Manager’s
SCPM processes expectation SCPM3 expectation SCPM3 expectation SCPM3

Responsiveness ○
Collaborative C
integrated practices
Strategic behavior ○
Supply network ○ ○
management
Customer integration C ○ ○
Strategic planning C C C ○
team
Processes governance C ○
Procurement team ○
Production planning C ○
and schedule
Demand management C C C ○
Table 10. and forecasting
Comparison between Distribution network C ○
expected improvement management
processes and those Order management C C ○
obtained by SCPM3 Foundation building ○
of the empirical analysis of the data contained in Tables 8–10, regarding the criteria to be met Supply chain
in the continuum between the efficiency and strategic responsiveness of the SC. process,
As can be seen in Table 11, the current performance reveals that the SC strategic position
of the companies is misaligned with their strategic objective. If we consider only performance
maturity and
from SCPM3, companies 1 and 3 would be closer to competitive strategic alignment, while strategy
company 2 would have another strategic focus.
It should be noted that for a company to gain a competitive advantage in its market, it
needs to ensure that it has the SC skills that support its ability to satisfy customers (Porter, 767
1985; Morash, 2001; Christopher, 2011; Chopra and Meindl, 2013). Based on this, the
framework proposed in section 3 was applied to analyze which processes need to have their
capabilities developed by using a maturity model. Figure 6 shows the strategic position of SC
in relation to the established competitive strategy, as well as the strategic position of SC in
relation to the current conditions of SCM practices. In addition, it is possible to observe the
SCMPs that need to be developed and the corresponding level of maturity, according to the
company’s strategic position, and the strategic link as shown in Figure 4.
Based on Figure 6, note that the proposed framework allowed an analysis of both
competitive and improvement needs of SC processes by using a maturity model, which serves
as a guide to the strategic positioning of SC. Based on this diagnosis, the company can
redefine its SC strategy, focusing its efforts on the processes that need or do not need to be
developed, as well as reducing efforts on the processes that are operating beyond what is
necessary and that it is not always what is necessary that has some impact on the expected
strategic results.
With this analysis, it can be observed that the maturity model can serve as a parameter
and guide to develop the capabilities of processes, resources and activities to meet SCM’s
strategic position. However, it is noted that SCM’s maximum maturity level may not be in the
company’s strategic interest. Thus, the maturity model can also delimit as far as the company
needs to reach in order to meet the SC’s strategic interests and the company’s competitive
objectives. However, the maturity model alone does not assure this direction and should be
complemented by other methodologies such as the one proposed in this study.

6. Conclusion
This paper has sought to explore how a maturity model based on SC BPs can contribute to
companies’ type of SC strategy. Therefore, we propose a conceptual framework to integrate a
maturity model to the SC strategy framework in order to guide the improvement of the BPs so
that they are adequate and sufficient to meet the SC strategy and the reach of the competitive
strategy. Thus, case studies were conducted in order to discuss how using the maturity model
would contribute to the SC strategy.
A total of three aspects were explored in this research, namely, improvement aspects and
process capability weaknesses by using SCPM3; managers’ perception of the current
performance of SCMPs; the company’s strategic perspectives on the SC and business
competitiveness. By analyzing these aspects, it was possible to observe to what extent they
converged to the same strategic interest. The results obtained showed there was a strategic
misalignment between the analysis aspects of this study. This analysis proved to be
important since management efforts did not produce the business results hoped for, i.e. this
type of analysis provides support to the decision maker on the processes that need to be
improved and to what extent they contribute to business results.
Our findings show that some factors may impact the contribution of SC BPs to the
strategic SC. These include a lack of clarity and inappropriate communication between teams;
a lack of convergence between SC objectives and competitive strategy; a lack of top
management support; a lack of an integrated planning team; a lack of understanding of
 27,3

768
BPMJ

SCOR area
Table 11.
The strategic

chain management by
performance of supply
Company 1 Company 2 Company 3
SCM strategic Plan Source Make Deliver Plan Source Make Deliver Plan Source Make Deliver

High responsiveness CΔ CΔ CΔ CΔ Δ Δ Δ CΔ
Reasonable responsiveness X X XC XC XC CΔ C C CΔ
High efficiency and low responsiveness X
Reasonable efficiency X X X Δ Δ X
Low efficiency X X
Note(s): C performance analysis by the logistics manager
Δ: performance analysis by SCPM3
X: analysis of current performance
 SCM strategy
Supply chain
SCM Business processes Low efficiency
Reasonable
High efficiency
and low
Reasonable high
Maturity level
process,
efficiency
responsiveness
respossiveness responsiveness
maturity and
Responsiveness
C1 Dynamic
strategy
Collaborativy integrated practices
Strategic behavior Company 1
Supply network management C2 Integration
Costumer integration C3
Company 2
769
Strategic Planning team
Processes governance Vision
Procurement team
Production planning and schedule
Demand management and forecasting Structure
Distribution network management
Company 3
Order management
Foundation building
Foundation Figure 6.
competition in cost competition in differentiation Integrated view of
Competitive strategy process maturity with
Proposed strategic position the SC strategy
Current strategic position

customers’ priorities; a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding about the business and SC
competitive factors; a lack of knowledge or lack of understanding about the company’s
competitive position; a lack of SC strategy; a lack of understanding of the SC strategy by
strategic planning team; a lack of knowledge or inability to know the current capabilities of
SCMPs; a lack of understanding about the SCMPs that need to be improved; a lack of
understanding about how improvements in SCMPs can add value to the business; a lack of
understanding on how SCMP practices can contribute to achieving business and SC
objectives; a lack of recognizing of SCM capabilities and processes that enable strategic
alignment; a lack of SCM practices defined in the business strategy; a lack of capacity
indicators that assess SC’s competitiveness and strategy; a lack of recognizing of the impacts
of improvements to the SCMPs on the expected results; a lack of assurance that improving
SC’s capabilities and processes will result in competitive advantage and a lack of recognizing
that an SC strategy may have been created that is in disagreement with the competitive
strategy.
On the other hand, the factors that can contribute to the integration of the SC BPs to the SC
strategy are designing the SC according to the competitive strategy; understanding and
evaluating the relationship between the competitive strategy and the SC strategy; comparing
the type of product and the uncertainty of the company’s demand with the type of SC strategy
to be applied, knowing the maturity of SC processes and activities by making sure they are
worthwhile to develop the necessary capabilities to meet a specific SC strategy; assessing
whether the maturity of some processes is not above what needs to be developed for a supply
strategy and redirecting efforts to improve others that are needed; strengthening and
improving the capabilities of logistics and cross-function drivers; having an integrated
planning team that involves all areas of the value chain; having an information system
support; having resources dedicated to alignment; sharing information with SC partners;
understanding the relationship of process type to the SC strategy; having top management
support and controlling implementations.
This study may state that a maturity model is only enabled after the maturity position of
SCM practices has been assessed and it indicates practices that need to be improved based on
a set of process indicators which a group of experts considers is essential for effective
integration and collaboration in the SC. Improvement practices also need to be geared to the
company’s growth and performance interests in the marketplace and what it wants to achieve
with results. Thus, SCM process capability indicators should be adjusted to be part of the
BPMJ company’s strategic decisions and actions, according to the framework presented in
27,3 this paper.
For a maturity model to support an SC strategy, it must incorporate capability indicators
that contribute to the SC strategy and the company’s competitive strategy. It must also allow
the company’s strategic position to be diagnosed and this also applies to the process practices
that need to mature and aggregate value to the business. A maturity model alone does not
allow this alignment to be assessed. Therefore, the maturity analysis needs to be
770 supplemented to position and guide improvement decisions to a maturity stage that
enables the strategic objectives of the SC and the company to be achieved. It should be noted
that the maximum level of maturity of SCMPs may not reflect the company’s strategic
interests. When comparing the behavior of strategic definitions between companies, it was
not possible to identify in the research that the type of operational process influences the
definition of the type of selected strategies and vice versa.
This research was limited as it used data based on the perception of a single value chain
manager, from which the evaluation of the SCMP maturity of the companies under study was
generalized and also because it was this manager who identified the strategic vision of the
company’s SC and this was used to generate the outputs of the analysis. Few companies were
investigated in the research, making it difficult to generalize the data to build new theories
more reliably.
As an opportunity for future studies, it is suggested this study be replicated using
maturity models developed for specific segments or management practices in SC BPs, such as
sustainability, in order to contribute to the literature on the role of maturity models in helping
to determine the type of SC strategy.

References
Adamides, E. (2015), “Linking operations strategy to the corporate strategy process: a practice
perspective”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 267-287.
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M. (2006), “Modelling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile
supply chain: an ANP-based approach”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 173,
pp. 211-225.
Asdecker, B. and Felch, V. (2018), “Development of an Industry 4.0 maturity model for the delivery
process in supply chains”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 840-883.
Baxter, P. and Jack, S. (2008), “Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation
for novice researchers”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 544-559.
Birhanu, D., Lanka, K. and Rao, A. (2014), “A survey of classifications in supply chain strategies”,
12th Global Congress on Manufacturing and Management, GCMM 2014.
Broft, R., Badi, S.M. and Pryke, S. (2016), “Towards supply chain maturity in construction”, Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 187-204.
Caputo, A., Fiorentino, R. and Garzella, S. (2019), “From the boundaries of management to the
management of boundaries”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 391-413.
Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2013), Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning and Operation, 5th ed.,
Pearson Education.
Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 37-44.
Christopher, M. (2011), Logistics and Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Adding Networks,
4th ed., Pearson Education, Harlow.
Croxton, K., Garcıa-Dastugue, S., Lambert, D. and Rogers, D. (2001), “The supply chain management
process”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 13-36.
Daozhi, Z., Liang, Z., Liu, X. and Jianyong, S. (2006), “A new supply chain maturity model with 3- dimension Supply chain
perspective”, Information Technology and Innovation Conference (ITIC, 2006), IET,
Hangzhou, China. process,
Eisenhardt, K. and Graebner, M. (2007), “Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges”,
maturity and
The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 25-32. strategy
Ellram, L.M. (1996), “The use of the case study method in logistics research”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 93-138.
771
Fernandes, A., Sampaio, P., Sameiro, M. and Truong, H. (2017), “Supply chain management and
quality management integration a conceptual model proposal”, International Journal of Quality
and Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 53-67.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), “What is the right supply chain for your product? A simple framework can help
you figure out the answer”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 105-16.
Fisher, J., Thome, A., Scavarda, L., Hellingrath, B. and Martins, R. (2016), “Development and
application of a maturity measurement framework for supply chain flexibility”, Procedia CIRP,
Vol. 41, pp. 514-519.
Gajsek, B. and Sternad (2020), “Information flow in the context of the green concept, industry 4.0, and
supply chain integration”, in Lolinski, A., Dujak, D. and Golinska-Dawson (Eds), Integration of
Information Flow for Greening Supply Chain Management, Chapter 16, Springer, Switzerland,
AG, p. 302.
Hameri, A., McKay, K. and Wiers, V. (2013), “A maturity model for industrial supply chains”, Supply
Chain Forum: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 2-15, Taylor & Francis.
Handfield, R. and Straight, S. (2004), “How mature is your supply chain? The SCRD capability
maturity model”, Proceedings ISM’s in 89th Annual International Supply Management
Conference, Philadelphia, pp. 512-515.
Ho, D., Kumar, A. and Shiwakoti, N. (2016), “Maturity model for supply chain collaboration: CMMI
approach”, Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) - 2016 IEEE
International Conference on, Bali, Indonesia.
Holweg, M. and Helo, P. (2014), “Defining value chain architectures: linking strategic value creation to
operational supply chain design”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147,
pp. 230-238.
Hoole, R. (2005), “Five ways to simplify your supply chain”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-6.
Kurnia, S., Rahim, M.M., Samson, D. and Singh, P. (2014), “Sustainable supply chain management
capability maturity: framework development and initial evaluation”, Proceedings of the 22nd
European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS, Tel Aviv, Israel, pp. 1-10, 9–11 June 2014.
Lahti, M., Shamsuzzoha, A. and Helo, P. (2009), “Developing a maturity model for supply chain
management”, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 654-678.
Lambert, D., Garcıa-Dastugue, S. and Croxton, K. (2008), “The role of logistics managers in the cross-
functional implementation of supply chain management”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 113-132.
Lee, H.L. (2002), “Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties”, California
Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 105-19.
Lockamy, A. III and McCormack, K. (2004), “The development of a supply chain management process
maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation”, Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 272-278.
Looy, A., De Backer, M., Poels, G. and Snoeck, M. (2013), “Choosing the right business process
maturity model”, Information and Management, Vol. 50 No. 7, pp. 466-488.
McCormack, K., Ladeira, M. and Oliveira, M. (2008), “Supply chain maturity and performance in
Brazil”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 272-282.
BPMJ McCormack, K., Willems, J., Van den Bergh, J., Deschoolmeester, D., Willaert, P., Stemberger, M.I.,
Skrinjar, R., Trkman, P., Ladeira, M.B., Oliveira, M., Vuksic, V. and Vlahovic, N. (2009),
27,3 “A global investigation of key turning points in business process maturity”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 792-815.
Mendes, P., Leal, J. and Thome, A. (2016), “A maturity model for demand-driven supply chains in the
consumer product goods industry”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 179,
pp. 153-165.
772 Meng, X., Sun, M. and Jones, M. (2011), “Maturity model for supply chain relationships in
construction”, Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 97-105.
Minnich, D. and Maier, H. (2007), “Responsiveness and efficiency of pull-based and push-based
planning systems in the high-tech electronics industry”, International Conference of the System
Dynamics Society.
Morash, E.A. (2001), “Supply chain strategies, capabilities, and performance”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 37-57.
Nakano, M. (2015), “Exploratory analysis on the relationship between strategy and structure/
processes in supply chains: using the strategy-structure-processes-performance paradigm”, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 381-400.
Novak, R. and Janes, A. (2019), “Business process orientation in the Slovenian power supply”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 780-798.
Oliveira, M.P.V., Ladeira, M.B. and McCormack, K. (2011), “The supply chain process management
maturity model-SCPM3”, Supply Chain Management-Pathways for Research and Practice, Dilek
Onkal, IntechOpen, pp. 201-218.
Performance Measurement Group (PMG) (2007), Competitive Advantage of Best in Class Supply Chains,
PMG, Pennsylvania, available at: http://www.pmgbenchmarking.com/public/survey/
dvantagesofbic.pdf (accessed 19 October 2018).
Pisano, V. and Hitt, M. (2012), “What is competitive strategy? origins and developments of a relevant
research area in strategic management”, in Dagnino, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Competitive Strategic, Chapter 2, Edgar Elgar, Northampton, MA.
Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Strategy: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free
Press, NY.
Radosavljevic, M., Barac, N., Jankovic-Milic, V. and Andjelkovic, A. (2016), “Supply chain management
maturity assessment: challenges of the enterprises in Serbia”, Journal of Business Economics
and Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 848-864.
Reefke, H., Sundaram, D. and Ahmed, M. (2010), “Maturity progression model for sustainable supply
chains”, LNBIP, Vol. 46, pp. 308-319.
Reyes, H. and Giachetti, R. (2010), “Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity model in
Mexico”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 415-424.
R€oglinger, M., P€oppelbuß, J. and Becker, J. (2012), “Maturity models in business process management”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 328-346.
Rosemann, M. and De Bruin, T. (2005), “Towards a business process management maturity model”,
European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Regensburg.
Sarkis, J. (2012), “A boundaries and flows perspective of green supply chain management”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 202-216.
Shank, J. and Govindarajan, V. (1993), Strategic Cost Management: The New Tool for Competitive
Advantage, Free Press, New York, Chapter 14.
Simon, A., SatoloScheidl, E.H. and Di Serio, L. (2014), “Business process in supply chain integration in
sugar and ethanol industry”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 272-289.
S€oderberg, L. and Bengtsson, L. (2010), “Supply chain management maturity and performance in
SMEs”, Operations Management Research, Vol. 3 Nos 1-2, pp. 90-97.
Souza, R., Guerreiro, R. and Oliveira, M. (2015), “Relationship between the maturity of supply chain Supply chain
process management and the organizational life cycle”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 466-481. process,
Stavrulaki, E. and Davis, M. (2010), “Aligning products with supply chain processes and strategy”,
maturity and
The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 127-151. strategy
Tarhan, A., Turetken, O. and Reijers, H. (2016), “Business process maturity models: a systematic
literature review”, Information and Software Technology, Vol. 75, pp. 122-134.
773
Tontini, G., Carvalho, L., Schlindwein, N. and Tomarevki, V. (2016), “Maturity model of procurement
and supply management in small and medium-size enterprises: a benchmarking of hospitals
and metal-mechanic companies”, International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, Vol. 8
No. 3, 2016, pp. 315-333.

Trkman, P., Stemberger, M., Jaklic, J. and Groznik, A. (2007), “Process approach to supply chain
integration”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 116-128.
Vaidyanathan, K. and Howell, G. (2007), “Construction supply chain maturity model - conceptual
framework”, 15th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction,
pp. 170-180, (July).
Yatskovskaya, E., Srai, J.S. and Kumar, M. (2018), “Integrated supply network maturity model: water
scarcity perspective”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 3, p. 896.
Yazdanparast, A., Manuj, I. and Swartz, S. (2010), “Co-creating logistics value: a service-dominant
logic perspective”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 375-403.
Yin, R. (2010), “Analytic generalization”, in Mills, A.J., Durepos, G. and Wiebe, E. (Eds), Encyclopedia of
Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yin, R. (2014), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yin, R. (2016), Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, The Guilford Press, New York.

Corresponding author
In^ez Manuele dos Santos can be contacted at: inez.manuele@gmail.com
 27,3

774
BPMJ

Table A1.

assessed by SCPM3
Capability indicators
The number of
capability
indicators Indicators evaluated by plan Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by
Appendix

Process constructs assessed process source process make process deliver process

Demand 12 12 indicators information – – –

management and system support, demand
forecasting variability study, process
documentation, data
quality, use of quantitative
models, forecast regularity
and updating, detailed
product predictions,
customer-based forecasts,
forecast reliability, decision-
making based on forecasts,
the accuracy of the forecasts
Strategic planning 6 Six indicators planning – – –
team team, team composition,
meetings, process
documentation, strategy
and structuring adjustments
and scenario simulation
Strategic behavior 8 Eight indicators customer – – –
and product priority setting,
supply chain performance
measures, impact of
strategy on performance,
selection of supply chain
management members,
profitability by customer
and product, planning team
relationship with customers
and suppliers

(continued )
 The number of
capability
indicators Indicators evaluated by plan Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by
Process constructs assessed process source process make process deliver process

Procurement team 3 – Three indicators existence – –

of purchasing team,
regularity of meetings and
integration of the team with
other areas
Supply network 6 – Six indicators sharing – –
management inventory and purchasing
information with suppliers,
electronic information
exchange structure, on-site
suppliers, collaborative
planning with suppliers and
supplier performance
evaluating
Production 9 – – Nine indicators production –
planning and planning and scheduling
schedule process documentation,
functional integration with
other divisions, planning
frequency, constraint-based
planning, integration
between customer order and
production scheduling,
information system support,
plan and production
matching, plan effectiveness
and level of disaggregation
of production plans

(continued )
process,
strategy

775
maturity and
Supply chain

Table A1.
 27,3

776
BPMJ

Table A1.
The number of
capability
indicators Indicators evaluated by plan Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by
Process constructs assessed process source process make process deliver process

Distribution 9 – – – 9 indicators the support of

network information systems in
management distribution management,
the documentation and role
of distribution network
relationships, the use of
quantitative models, the
integration with other value
chain processes, the sharing
of inventory information
with customers, the use of
automatic replenishment,
the use of performance
metrics in distribution
management
Order 8 – – – 8 indicators delivery
management performance, order
fulfillment capacity and
commitment, order
management information
system support, inventory
breakdown management,
and rescheduling and
change capability

(continued )
 The number of
capability
indicators Indicators evaluated by plan Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by
Process constructs assessed process source process make process deliver process

Processes 6 Two indicators top One indicator top One indicator top Two indicators top
governance management support in the management support in the management support in the management support in the
supply chain planning procurement process production planning and order commitment and
process and demand scheduling process production management
management process.
Foundation 9 – Four indicators – Five indicators order
building procurement process fulfillment and distribution
documentation, information management
system support, documentation, order
understanding and fulfillment flexibility, ability
documentation of supplier to handle delivery changes,
relationships, strategic on-time delivery
suppliers
Responsiveness 4 – Two indicators use of – Two indicators order
supply lead times in delivery performance and
production planning, and short-term inventory
performance of supplier lead fulfillment
times
Collaboratively 5 Two indicators integration – – Three indicators automatic
integrated of demand management replenishment,
practices processes and production collaboration of value chain
planning processes and areas in the order
collaboration of value chain commitment process and
processes in forecasting information system support
development in the order commitment
process

(continued )
process,
strategy

777
maturity and
Supply chain

Table A1.
 27,3

778
BPMJ

Table A1.
The number of
capability
indicators Indicators evaluated by plan Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by Indicators evaluated by
Process constructs assessed process source process make process deliver process

Customer 5 One indicator forecasting – Three indicators One indicator production

integration development by customer collaboration of value chain according to order
areas in the production
planning and control
process, use of customer
information in planning and
scheduling and
formalization of planning
and scheduling changes
Total number of 90 31 14 15 30
indicators
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.