~.'~..

EUROPEAN OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH

ELSEVIER

European Journal of Operational Research 101 (1997)419-429

Invited Review

Supply::chain partnerships: Opportunities for operations research

Michael J. Maloni, W.C. Benton
* Department of Management Sciences, Max 31. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State Ut,it'ersity, 302 Hagerty ttall, 1775 College Road, Columbus, 0tt 43210, USA

Received 1 August 1996; revised l February 1997

Abstract

A maturing stream of recent conceptual literature has focused upon supply chain partnerships. Theoretically within a supply chain partnership, traditional competitive barriers between supply chain members are mitigated to create mutually beneficial relationships, thus leading to increased information flows, reduced uncertainty, and a more profitable supply chain. Despite extensive conceptual based supply chain literature, very few researchers have attempted a more rigorous analytical approach to supply chain issues. This paper seeks to provide a review of supply chain research from both the qualitative conceptual and analytical operations research perspectives. The expanding importance of supply chain integration presents a challenge to operations researchers to focus more attention on supply chain modeling, and there are numerous opportunities for operations researchers to provide support for the current conceptual based supply chain research. 9 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.
Ke)~rords: Purchasing; Supply chain management; Partnerships; Logistics systems; Logistics modeling; Environmental issues; Operations

research

1. Introduction Over the past 20 years, American and European manufacturing firms have faced intensified global competition driven by a sophisticated and more demanding consumer. Once internationally, unparalleled in manufacturing capability, American and European firms have succumbed to lower cost, higher quality competition primarily from the Pacific Rim firms that have introduced new modem production philosophies to achieve a tighter control and smoother flow of manufacturing. Behind their paradigm-like

~ Fax: + 1-614-292-1272;e-mail: benton.l@osu.edu.

changes, the Pacific Rim firms have been able to improve product quality and production efficiency while cutting lead times and costs (Ansari, 1986), forcing their American and European counterparts to rethink and redesign their production processes. Recent studies have shown that American and European firms will be challenged ever more intensely in the next 20 years to come, and subsequently, a great deal of literature has attempted to apply Pacific Rim developed manufacturing concepts to American and European processes. Modem manufacturing philosophies have forced an evolution of the relationships between buyers and suppliers. Once traditionally driven by pure competition, the supply chain for many successful Asian firms has matured from an adversarial relationship to

0377-2217/97/S17.00 9 1997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII S0377-2217(97)00118-5

420

3I.,I. Maloni, W.C. Benton/European Journal of Operational Research 101 (1997) 419-429

one of supply chain partnerships. Also termed a strategic alliance, a supply chain partnership is a relationship formed between two independent entities in supply channels to achieve specific objectives and benefits. The relationship is usually created to increase the financial and operational performance of each channel member through reductions in total costs, reductions in inventories throughout the supply chain, and increased levels of shared information. Rather than concerning themselves only with price, manufacturers are looking to suppliers to work cooperatively in providing improved service, technological innovation, and product design. As an example of such an evolution in the United States, the Chrysler Corporation has emerged as a leader in developing partnering relationships with its suppliers. When Chrysler's team designed the new LH line (Dodge Intrepid, Eagle Vision, Chrysler Concorde) and new compact sedans (Neon), Chrysler outsourced more than 70% of its parts from a limited amount of suppliers. In order to achieve this supply chain partnership arrangement, Chrysler invited several key suppliers into the early stages of the development process and actually presourced 95% of the component parts for its new sedan by choosing suppliers prior to the design stage (Kamath and Liken, 1994). In doing so, they eliminated the competitive bidding process. Several of Chrysler's supply chain partners, like their Pacific Rim competitors, have full responsibility in developing the components themselves and coordinating with other sub-contractors to carry out the component development process. In the end, the LH line was developed from scratch in 39 months versus the usual five to six years, and the Neon was developed in only 31 months. (Raia, 1993; Carbone, 1993). Product development costs were also significantly below industry norms for these new lines as well (Dyer, 1996). There has been a steady stream of conceptual literature that promotes supply chain partnerships (Ellram, 1991; Landeros et al., 1995; Ellram and Hendrick, 1995; Stuart, 1993; Graham et al., 1994), and such research has been extremely optimistic about the promise and effectiveness of such partnerships. Much of this conceptual literature focuses upon shifts to relational supplier alliances (Matthyssens and Van den Bulte, 1994; Manoochehri, 1984) as well as critical qualitative implementation factors

for successful partnerships (Ellram, 1991; Dwyer et al., 1987; Landeros et al., 1995). The expected result is a mutually beneficial, win-win partnership that creates a synergistic supply chain in which the entire chain is more effective than the some of its individual parts. The end customer will hopefully receive a higher quality, cost effective value package in a shorter amount of time. As industry continues to implement supply chain partnerships, a wealth of research opportunities concerning the design, implementation, and control of the supply chain are created. This paper serves to both review the conceptual logistics literature in establishing both the evolution and importance of supply chain partnerships and to reveal the deficit of coverage of the topic in operations research. In doing so, it offers a challenge to operations researchers to test and enrich the current base of supply chain research. Operations research modeling will hopefully enhance the design, implementation, and generalization of supply chain partnerships across all industries.

2. Traditional sourcing Firms have taken bold steps to break down both intra and inter firm barriers to smooth uncertainty and enhance control of supply and distribution channels. The evolution of intra-firm functional integration has occurred for most firms over the last few decades, and the current push is toward external integration with both suppliers and customers (Fig. 1). Supply chain partnerships bridge the barrier between buyer and supplier, leading manufacturers to ally with a reduced supplier base. Historically, American and European manufacturers have formulated supply strategy around the transparent benefits of a large competitive supplier base. An abundant collection of suppliers encourages competition which the manufacturer can exploit to negotiate lower costs, higher quality, reasonable delivery times, and special exigencies. Such a strategy enhances ultimate manufacturer bargaining power as well as shelters against interruptions in supply due to strikes and other unforeseen problems. To the contrary, many Asian, American, and European firms have recognized the benefits of the contrarian con-

MJ. Maloni, W.C. Benton~EuropeanJot~rnalof Operational Research 101 (1997)419-429

Functional B

421

Independence
a a a a B

r s

Functional 8
r

Integration a
t

e
r

[
9

~
.s

"
9

Ie
r =

Internal

Integration
13 B

Materials

f i =

External Integration

Inman (1993) found that the two primary factors in emulation of Asian production techniques are reduced vendor lot sizes and single sourcing. Other researchers proclaim that single sourcing is not as widespread in Japan as believed and that many Pacific Rim manufacturers actually exercise a single/dual hybrid approach (Hines, 1995). Likewise, Newman (1989) also promotes dual over single sourcing to reduce the potential for power influence. The major issue remains that a closer relationship with suppliers sanctions a reduced number of suppliers (Graham et al., 1994). Emshwiller (1991) found an increased tendency toward a smaller supplier base in the United States, and as an example of such, Chrysler developed their LH line with approximately 200 suppliers versus the typical 600 to 700 (Raia, 1993). The objective of a drastically reduced supplier base precludes supplier alliances as a firm must accept dependence upon fewer suppliers before they can internalize legitimate supplier partnerships.

Supply Ch=;n

Pa~nershlps

Fig. l. Stages in intra and inter firm integration. Source: Stevens (1989).

3. Supplier partnerships By reducing their supplier bases, manufacturers will be able to take advantage of partnerships with their suppliers. A Harvard Business School study concluded that a key driver in the decline of U.S. competitiveness in the international marketplace has originated from investing less in intangible benefits such as supplier relations (MacBeth and Ferguson, 1994). Traditionally, U.S. firms have based their drive for success on autonomy and have viewed competition as a Darwinistic keeper of American and

cept of reducing the supplier base which leads to an abatement of adversarial attitudes, lower switching costs, and decreased shipping errors. The association with a reduced supplier base can also lead to quantity and relationship based discounts as well as a decreased cost of quality. (Treleven, 1987; Bartholomew, 1984) Some researchers argue that implementation of many new manufacturing techniques necessitates a reduction in the number of suppliers. Brown and

Table 1 Discrete versus relational business strategies Contractural Discrete orientation Duration Communication Transferability (switch parties Management Support Attitude Visibility Planning and Goals Benefits and Risks Problem Solving One time Very little, just enough for the transaction Completely transferable Low Soley profit-focus Low Individual, short-term Individual Power driven

Relational orientation Long-term Complex, two-way sharing Extremely difficult to transfer Extensive, sincere Open, trusting, cooperative ttigh Joint, long-term Shared, mutual Mutual, judicious

422

M.I. Maloni, W.C. Benton/European Journal of Operational Research 101 (1997)419-429

European superiority. Long-run U.S. firm planning has been independent, and considerable efforts are taken to ensure privacy of corporate information. Over recent decades however, numerous American and European firms have begun to realize the advantages enjoyed from sharing of technology, i nformation, and planning with other firms. Business researchers have also shown that not only is a more open and relational attitude advantageous but it is also essential in maintaining a firm's competitive advantage. The conceptual supply chain literature focuses almost exclusively on the maximization of customer satisfaction. Because the vertical relationships involve long-term, interdependent planning and operations, the concept of supply chain partnerships has transformed entire industries. According to MacNeil (1980, p. 60), it is impossible to operate as a discrete entity, but while virtually no firm engages in completely discrete engagements, conventional Westem business practices engage in discrete rather than relational business strategies. As shown in Table 1, the idea of relationalism between firms seeks to move away from the concept of discrete transactions, breaking down traditional interfirm barriers. Firms unite to share information, technology, and planning efforts, thus, reducing uncertainty as well as increasing control. In the end, the partners reap the benefits of a joint effort. Niederkofler (1991), Ring and Van de Ven (1992, 1994), and Bergquist et al. (1995) provide basic overviews for strategic partnering.
3.1. Supply chain partnerships

ships as a fundamental driver for the success of the Pacific Rim supply chain processes, the American and European firms have begun to emulate these supplier alliances. While Asian finns are not completely responsible for the move to supplier partnerships, Farmer (1976) proposes that many supplier alliances were imminent due to raw materials shortages, oil crises, government price control, and general changes in supplier attitudes), the primary root of the success of the concept lies with the Pacific Rim. Contemporary manufacturing improvements require the tighter control generated by the supply chain partnership, and there is growing evidence that Western firms have begun to implement such relational strategies (O'Neal, 1989; Spekman, 1988). Initial efforts to involve suppliers began with the inclusion of suppliers in cross-functional sourcing teams. Trent and Monczka (1994) suggest that the establishment of such teams will improve supply chain effectiveness. Supply alliances, however, extend well beyond this notion to an even more relational level of exchange in which partners create an intensive, interdependent relationship from which both can mutually benefit. Supply partnerships emphasize a direct, long term association, encouraging mutual planning and problem solving efforts. Table 2 displays the critical elements of a supply partnership in comparison to traditional thinking.
3.2. Benefits o f supplier partnerships

Recognizing the strategic buyer-supplier partner-

While many firms have sought vertical integration through acquisition to harness supplier expertise (Dwyer, 1993), MacBeth and Ferguson (1994) argue that partnerships can provide similar benefits without

Table 2 Traditional versus partnership supply strategies Traditional supplyrelationships 9 Price emphasis for supplier selection . Short-termcontracts for suppliers 9 Bid evaluation 9 Largesupplier base 9 Proprietaryinformation 9 Powerdriven problem solving improvement success sharing

Supply chain partnerships 9 Multiple criteria for supplierselection 9 Long-termalliances with suppliers 9 Intensiveevaluationof suppliervalue-added 9 Few suppliers 9 Shared information 9 Mutual problem soloing improvement success sharing

M.J. Maloni, W.C. Benton/European Journal of Operational Research 101 (1997) 419-429

423

necessity of ownership and arduous exit barriers. Suppliers can gain from higher.quality, and transaction costs may be reduced through economies of scale, decreased administrative and switching efforts, process integration, coordination of processes, and quantity discounts (Treleven, 1987; Newman, 1988; Wilson et al., 1990). Furthermore, the relationship will be enhanced by stability of market demand on the supplier side and of supply on the buyer side. Scott and Westbrook (1991) propose several additional benefits specific to manufacturing process including set-up time reduction, improved process-oriented layout, better product design, and enhanced data capture. In less tangible benefits, both firms can benefit from increased communication and goal congruence, leading to enhanced conflict resolution, less probability of opportunism, and decreased risk from externalities. Ellram (1991) presents a list of possible advantages of supply chain relationships composed from several sources. Moreover, Landeros and Monczka (1989) propose benefits of supplier-buyer partnerships under different manufacturing strategies including cost leadership, product differentiation, and market-segment focusing. Finally, Stuart and Mueller (1994) offer a longitudinal look at continuous quality improvement recognized through supplier partnerships. The suggested benefits of supplier partnerships are summarized in Table 3. Few researchers have rigorously tested the suggested benefits given below in Table 3. Graham et Table 3 Potential benefitsof supplierpartnerships Benefitsof supplierpartnerships
Uncertaintyfor buyers
9 COSt

al. (1994) found that supplier partnerships sometimes lead to improved quality of supplier operations, improved quality of parts, decreased supplier costs, and improved reaction to buyer changes to delivery date. According to Graham et al., such improvements tend not to be recognizable until after at least a three years alliance. Kalwani and Narayandas (1995) found that partnering suppliers achieve higher profitability than their non-partnering competitors.
3.3. Risks o f supplier partnerships

With its many benefits, supply chain partnerships retain several inherent risks that can be potentially damaging to participants. First and foremost, heavy reliance on one partner can be disastrous if the partner does not meet expectations (MacBeth and Ferguson, 1994). Also, firms risk decreased competitiveness due to loss of partnership control, complacency (Kalwani and Narayandas, 1995), and over specialization with an affirmed partner. Furthermore, Leavy (1994) cautions that firms may overestimate partnership benefits while ignoring potential shortcomings and suggest a need for more research examining direct comparisons of the conventional and partnership strategies. Subsequently, Leavy offers a bridge between the two schools of thought, suggesting that there are benefits from both the conventional and partnership perspectives. Finally, Newman (1989) notes that partnerships may actually open the

Cost savings

9 quantitydiscounts 9 high quality 9 improvedtiming

Uncertaintyfor suppliers

9 market 9 understandingof customerneeds

Uncertaintyfor both

9 economiesof scale ordering production transportation 9 administrative 9 switching 9 processintegration technicalor physicalintegration improvedasset utilization
Joint products and process development lmpro~'edcommunication Shared risk and rewards

9 convergentexpectationand goals 9 reducedeffectsfromexternalities 9 reducedopportunism

Adapted from Ellram (1991), MacBethand Ferguson(1994), Kalwaniand Narayandas(1995).

424

M.J. Maloni, W.C. Benton/European Journal of Operational Research 101 (1997) 419-429

Table 4 Supplier partnership implementation steps 1. 2. 3. 4. Establish strategic need for partnership Develop partner criteria, evaluate suppliers, and select partner Formally establish partnership Maintain and refine partnership (possible reduction or dissolvement)

weaker party up to influence potential and suggests that competition may in some cases abate power.
3.4. Partnership implementation and critical success factors

Before a firm can enjoy the benefits of a b u y e r supplier partnership, they must first endure the complicated and intricate partnership implementation process. A supplier partnership involves a significant attitudinal as well as structural change so the allying firms must be meticulous selected in order to ensure a true win-win partnership. Dwyer et al. (1987); Frazier et al. (1988), Lyons et al. (1990); and Landeros et al. (1995) offer guidelines to the implementation process, which are summarized in Table 4. Heide and John (1990); Helper (1991); and Salmond and Spekman (1992) examine relationship determinants between manufacturers and suppliers. The first step in the supplier partnership implementation process includes the strategic verification of the need for a supplier partnership. The finn must first evaluate the potential risks and benefits of a partnership in comparison to traditional processes. Next, criteria for potential partners are developed, and potential candidates are assessed. Once a partner is selected, the establishment of the actual relationship provides the next critical step in which the partners must create a complete sense of awareness about the needs and participation of all involved parties. The final step in the partnering process includes the maintenance of the relationship to either enhance its development or bring about its dissolvement. According to Ellram (1991), MacBeth et al. (1994) and Landeros et al. (1995), the entire partnership implementation process holds many elements critical to the success of the relationship (see Table 5). One rudiment that must be established immediately is top

management advocacy (Stuart, 1993). This requires overcoming traditional social and attitudinal barriers as well as managerial, procedural, and structural obstacles associated with corporate change (MacBeth and Ferguson, 1994). In practice, overcoming the social and attitudinal barriers and managerial practices may prove to be extremely difficult if not impossible. In the supplier selection/evaluation step, Leavy (1994) warns that the chance of choosing the wrong supplier presents a severe problem in partnering. Ellram (1991) Offers a list of additional selection criteria for supply chain partners including such elements as cultural compatibility, long term strategic planning, financial stability, technology/design capability, management compatibility, and location. Table 5 Supplier partnership critical success factors Supplier partnership critical success factors in the phases of implementation
Throughout 9 top management support 9 communication 9 central coordination Initial strategic analysis phase 9 social and attitudinal barriers 9 procedural and structural barriers Supplier eL'aluation and selection phase 9 total cost and profit benefit 9 cultural compatibility 9 financial stability 9 partner capabilities 9 management compatibility 9 location Partnership establishment phase 9 perception and needs analysis 9 intense interaction 9 documentation Maintenance phase 9 trust
9 goodwill

9 9 . 9 9

flexibility conflict management skills social exchange boundary personnel performance measurement

Adapted from Ellram (1991); MacBeth and Ferguson (1994); Landeros et al. (1995).

MJ. Maloni, W.C. Benton~European Journal of Operational Research 101 (1997)419-429

425

Overall, Niederkofler (1991) suggests that the most important attitudinal factors involve cooperation, trust, and goodwill as well as the ability to both be flexible and handle conflicts. Furthermore, attitude and shared goals are described as success factors. Much of the conceptual literature also emphasizes the communication aspects of the relationships as well (Landeros et al., 1995; Ellram and Hendrick, 1995). In a related sense, Landeros et al. (1995, p. 4) report that "product information and social exchange among partners lead to both cooperation and adaptation." Katner (1989) examines partnership imbalances with resources, information, and benefits. According to Katner (1989) other critical success factors include effective performance measurement as well as proper establishment of boundary personnel and procedures. Ultimate dissolution of the partnership may be necessary if the firms are unable to successfully work through the critical steps of partnership formation or synergies can not be recognized. Graham et al. (1994) found, however, that partnership benefits tend not to be realized until three years after formation, so firms must be patient in their approach. Also, Ellram (1991a) reports that abandonment of partners may lead to suspicion, making future partners difficult to attract. Dwyer et al. (1987, p. 20) report that "little is known about disengagement," so dissolution may offer a pessimistic yet rich source of research. As can be seen from the above discussion, there has been very little rigorous operations research based quantitative measurement of supply chain partnership interaction. The application of operations research in supply chain management partnerships will be addressed in the remaining sections of this paper.

nerships. Subsequently, a review of the operations research literature reveals how sparse and myopic the research has been. As will be shown, this limited research base does not effectively provide the evidence that is necessary for positioning the supply chain as a profit-driver. Hansmann (1959) provides an early attempt at a coordinated analysis of supply chain management, but the model is not feasible for realistic supply and distribution channel systems (Cohen and Lee, 1988). Other origins of supply chain management in operations research exist with integrated inventory models that primarily examine the mutual benefit to buyer and supplier of price-quantity discounts. Goyal and Gupta (1989) provide a review of price-quantity discount approaches, dividing such works into four distinct categories:

1. Joint economic lot size (e.g. Lee and Rosenblatt, 1986; Banerjee, 1986; Chakravarty and Martin, 1988); 2. Simultaneous determination of buyer and seller order quantity (e.g. Monahan, 1984; Banerjee, 1986; Rosenblatt and Lee, 1985); 3. Integrated problems without simultaneous determination of order quantities (e.g. Lal and Staelin, 1984; Dada and Srikanth, 1987) 4. buyer-vendor coordination due to marketing characteristics (e.g. Jeuland and Shugan, 1983).

4. Application of operations research to supply chain partnerships The previous review of the conceptual literature has provided an extensive conceptual background of supply chain partnerships and revealed some of the expected benefits of supply chain partnership implementation. Despite this wealth of conceptual literature, operations researchers have struggled to effectively apply analytical models to supply chain part-

A basic problematic issue of these integrated buyer-vendor inventory models lies with their failure to pattern comprehensive supply chain systems. Tlae models simplify the purchasing/production system to one product and one machine thus not offering applicability to true supply chain partnership research. Furthermore, many of the proposed integrated inventory models rely on stable demand as necessitated by the theoretical JIT system (Karmarkar, 1989), but a situation of dynamic demand is more realistic within the supply chain (Goyal and Gupta, 1989). Metters (1996) and Blanchard (1983) propose that the nature of the supply chain leads to greater demand variance upstream due to time delays, order batching, and forward buying practices. Thus, sup-

426

M.J. MalonL W.C. Benton~European Jo,trnal of Operational Research 101 (1997)419-429

pliers and manufacturers can experience the so-called 'bullwhip effect' of amplified'uncertainty which leads to higher costs. Utilizing dynamic programming as his research vehicle, Metters (1996) found a 10 to 30% increase in product profitability through elimination of the bullwhip effect, hinting that coordination throughout the supply chain will benefit both the individual firms and the value package delivered to the customer. This finding although myopic provides encouragement for further analytical study of supply chain integration. Bhatnangar et al. (1993) provide a review of coordination models by exploring integrated planning across pairs of finn processes. They examine supply-production coordination (such as the aforementioned works as reviewed by Goyal and Gupta, 1989), production-distribution coordination (e.g. Williams, 1981; Cohen and Lee, 1988, 1989; Chandra and Fisher, 1994), and inventory-distribution coordination (e.g. Dror and Ball, 1987; Chandra, 1993). Thomas and Griffin (1996) provide another review of coordinated planning models for the supply chain. Like Bhatnangar et al. (1993), their review examines coordination across two functions and categorizes operational models into buyer-vendor co-

ordination, production-distribution coordination, inventory-distribution coordination but overlook coordinated models between purchasing-production and distribution-customer. These reviews reveal
how operations research supply chain models have been limited to coordination of just some of the many supply chain functions. While such models and reviews may induce some synergies within the supply chain, they do not support the entire chain. Supply chain partnerships span multiple processes across the supplier and buyer, thus necessitating synchronization of planning over a more expansive range than offered by the literature. A significant challenge to operations research thus lies with attempts to augment the range and scope of coordination processes research. Along such lines, Slats et al. (1995, p. 1) recognize that "Operations Research (OR) models and techniques are well suited to analyze the local performance of logistic sub-chains and processes," but suggest that such OR models must be coordinated to effectively model the entire conceptual system. They provide an overview of the application of operations

research tools throughout the supply chain, proposing a conceptual laboratory as the integration of optimization, heuristic, and simulation methods to model the conceptual chain. Such laboratories would allow for the coordinated modeling of multiple echelons of the supply chain for testing the effects of developments in technology and management processes (Slats et al., 1995). The authors describe two such laboratories they established. Effective management of the supply chain holds implications for two other aspects addressed by operations research: environmental and perishability concerns. With increasing regulation and corporate self consciousness revolving around reuse, recycling, and waste disposal, firms are facing more pressure to include environmental issues within supply chain management, especially in European communities. Readers can reference Bloemhof-Ruwaard et al. (1995, 1996) for insight into this topic. Perishability concerns products with limited lifetimes, necessitating a quick and efficient supply chain. Numerous works by Nahmias (1977, 1978, 1982) discuss operations research applications for perishable products. With supply chain partnerships working to support inter-finn coordination, they hold direct positive implications for facilitating both environment and perishability concerns. Operations research, however, has yet to effectively integrate these issues into coordinated supply chain modeling. This review of the operations research literature with regard to supply chain partnerships has revealed that the application of operations research tools to the supply chain has not necessarily met the requirements of the expansive coordination needs of supply chain management. Supply chain modeling offers a potentially vast and fruitful direction for operations research, and operations researchers should be able to make an impressive contribution to the supply chain literature. Some of the conceptual issues addressed earlier can be confirmed or refuted with operations research methods.

5. Conclusion Conceptual-based supply chain literature has been extremely optimistic about the promise of win-win

M..1. Maloni, IV.C. Benton/European Journal of Operational Research 101 (1997) 419-429

427

supply chain partnerships, however, there has been very little rigorous testing of these assertions. Likewise, application o f supply chain integration within industry has not been as effective as promised by the literature. For example, much of the literature infers equality and cooperation, but such a state often proves difficult to attain due to increased chance for opportunism by power holders (Pilling and Zhang, 1992). In Pacific Rim supply chain management, a manufacturer usually controls a flock of small, dependent suppliers and subcontractors, creating an opportunity for manipulation and exploitation by the powerful manufacturer. Although the Asian business environment works to neutralize the influential use of power, Ramsay (1990) cautions that " i t can hardly be described as egalitarian" and further forecasts that " i n the West, this kind of situation typically leads to the exploitation of the weaker party by the strong." Furthermore, other sceptics have challenged that American and European implementation of Pacific Rim developed production processes have simply resulted in pushing inventory and uncertainty to supply chain members that wield less authority (Oliver, 1990) as suppliers hold superfluous inventory to meet delivery schedules (Chapman, 1989; Freeland, 1991; Hill and Vollmann, 1986). In reviewing conceptual-based, qualitative and sparse analytical-based, quantitative supply chain literature, this paper has served to shed some light on the need for rigorous operations research building blocks for supply chain research. Supply chain partnerships necessitate a significant shift from the conventional adversarial nature of firms to one of openness and trust which is not easily achieved in most firms. Subsequently, the operations research discipline has both the competence and capacity to help pave the way for this attitudinal shift through effective supply chain modeling in the form o f simulation, heuristics, game theory, and optimization. Such operations research modeling will hopefully help firms understand the true benefits of effective supply chain integration and enhance the design and implementability of supply chain research. Thus, this paper challenges operations researcher to provide realistic and effective modeling for supply chain partnerships and accept a larger role in measuring the effects o f supply chain partnerships.

References Ansari, A., 1986. Strategies for the implementation of JIT purchasing. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management 16 (7), 5-12. Banerjee, A., 1986. A joint economic lot size model for purchaser and vendor. Decision Sciences 17 (3), 292-311. Bartholomew, D., 1984. Vendor-customer relationships today. Production and Inventory Management Review 25 (2), 203204. Bergquist, W.H., Betwee, J., Meuel, D., 1995. Building Strategic Relationships: How to Extend Your Organization's Reach through Partnerships, Alliances, and Joint Ventures. JosseyBass Publishers, San Francisco. Bhatnangar, R., Chandra, P., Goyal, S.K., 1993. Models for multi-plant coordination. European Journal of Operational Research 67 (2), 141-160. Blanchard, O.J., 1983. The production and inventory behavior of the American and European automobile industry. Journal of Political Economy 91 (3), 365-400. Bloemhof-Ruwaard,J.M., van Beck, P., Hordijk, L., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 1995. Interactions between operational research and environmental management. European Journal of Operational Research 85 (2), 229-243. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J.M., Salomon, M., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 1996. The capacitated distribution and waste disposal problem. European Joumal of Operational Research 88 (3), 490-503. Brown, K.L., Inman, R.A., 1993. Relationship with vendors: A critical factor in JIT implementation. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 8 (1), 5-13. Carbone, J., 1993. Chrysler tries the partnering route. Electronic Business Buyer 19 (11), 97-99. Chandra, P., 1993. A dynamic distribution model with warehouse and customer replenishment requirements. Journal of the Operational Research Society 44 (7), 681-692. Chandra, P., Fisher, M.L., 1994. Coordination of production and distribution planning. European Journal of Operational Research 72 (3), 503-517. Chapman, S.N., 1989. Just-in-time supplier inventory: An empirical implementation model. InternationalJournal of Production Research 27, 1993-2007. Chakravarty, A.K., Martin, G.E., 1988. An optimal buyer-seller discount pricing model. Computers and Operations Research 15 (3), 271-281. Cohen, M.A., Lee, H.L., 1988. Strategic analysis of integrated production-distribution systems: Models and methods. Operations Research 36 (2), 216-228. Cohen, M.A., Lee, H.L., 1989. Resource deployment analysis of global manufacturing and distribution networks. Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management 2, 81-104. Dada, M., Srikanth, K.N., 1987. Pricing policies for quantity discounts. Management Science 33 (10), 1247-1252. Dror, M., Ball, M., 1987. Inventory/routing: Reduction from an annual to a short period. Naval Research Conceptual Quarterly 34, 891-905. Dwyer, F.R., 1993. Soft and hard features of interfirm relation-

428

31.J. 3Ialoni, IV.C. Benton / European Journal of Operational Research 101 (1997) 419-429

ships: An empirical study of bilateral governance in industrial distribution. Report 6-1993. Institute for the Study of Business Markets, University Park, PA. Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.tt., Oh, S., 1987. Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing 51 (2), 11-27. Dyer, J.ti., 1996. tlow Chrysler created an American and European Keiretsu. llarvard Business Review 74 (4), 42-56. Ellram, L.M., 1991. A managerial guideline for the development and implementation of purchasing partnerships. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 27 (3), 2-8. Ellram, L.M., tlendrick, T.E., 1995. Partnering characteristics: A dyadic perspective. Journal of Business Logistics 16 (I), 4164. Emshwiller, J.R. 1991. Supplier struggles to improve quality as big firms slash their vendor rolls. Wall Street Journal, August 16, 1991, pp. BI-B2. Farmer, D.H., 1976. Voluntary collaboration vs. 'disloyalty' to suppliers. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 12 (4), 3-8. Frazier, G. L, Spekman, R.E., O'Neal, C.R., 1988. Just-in-time exchange relationships in industrial markets. Journal of Marketing 52 (5), 52-67. Freeland, J.R., 1991. A survey of just-in-time purchasing practices in the United States. Production and Inventory Management Journal 32 (2), 43-50. Goyal, S.K., Gupta, Y.P., 1989. Integrated inventory and models: The buyer-vendor coordination. European Journal of Operational Research 41 (3), 261-269. Graham, T.S., Daugherty, PJ., Dudley, W.N., 1994. The long-term strategic impact of purchasing partnerships. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 30 (4), 13-18. lteide, J.B., John, G., 1990. Alliances in industrial purchasing: Determinants of joint action in buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of Marketing 27 (1), 24-36. tlansmann, F., 1959. Optimal inventory location and control in production and distribution networks. Operations Research 7, 483-498. llelper, S., 1991. llow much has really changed between U.S. automakers and their suppliers?. Sloan Management Review 324, 15-28. tli11, A.V., Vollmann, T.E., 1986. Reducing vendor delivery uncertainties in a JIT environment. Journal of Operations Management 6 (4), 381-392. ttines, P., 1995. Network sourcing: A hybrid approach. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 31 (2), 18-24. Jeuland, A.P., Shugan, S.M., 1983. Managing channel profits. Marketing Science 2, 239-272. Kalwani, M., Narayandas, N., 1995. Long-term manufacturer-supplier relationships: Do they pay off for supplier firms. Journal of Marketing 59 (1), 1-16. Kamath, R.R., Liken, J.K., 1994. A second look at Japanese Product Development, Harvard Business Review, November/ December, pp. 154-168. Karmarkar, U.S., 1989. Getting control of just-in-time, llarvard Business Review 67 (5), 122-131. Katner, R.M., 1989. Becoming PALS: Pooling, allying, and link-

ing across companies. The Academy of Management Executive 3 (3), 183-193. Lal, R., Staelin, R., 1984. An approach to developing an optimal discount pricing policy. Management Science 33 (12), 15241539. Landeros, R., Monczka, R.M., 1989. Cooperative buyer/seller relationships and a firm's competitive posture. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 25 (3), 9-18. Landeros, R., Reck, R., Plank, R.E., 1995. Maintaining buyersupplier partnerships. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 31 (3), 3-11. Leavy, B., 1994. Two strategic perspectives on the buyer-supplier relationship. Production and Inventory Management Journal 35 (2), 47-51. Lee, tt.L., Rosenblatt, M.J., 1986. A g~meralized quantity discount pricing model to increase supplier's profits. Management Science 32 (9), 1177-1185. Lyons, T.F., Krachenberg, A.R., Henke, J.W. Jr., 1990. Mixed motive marriages: What's next for buyer-supplier relations?. Sloan Management Review 31 (3), 26-36. MacBeth, D.K., Ferguson, N. (1994), Partnership Sourcing: An Integrated Supply Chain Management Approach, Pitman Publishing, London. MacNeil, I.R., 1980, The New Sodial Contra~::t, An Inquiry into Modem Contractual Relations, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Manoochehri, G.tI., 1984. Suppliers and the Just-in-Time Concept. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 20 (4), 16-21. Matthyssens, P., Van den Bulte, C., 1994. Getting Closer and Nicer: Partnerships in the Supply Chain. Long Range Planning 27 (1), 72-83. Metters, R. (1997), Quantifying the Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains, Journal of Operations Management, in press. Monahan, J.P., 1984. A Quantity Discount Pricing Model to Increase Vendor Profits. Management Science 30 (6), 720-726. Nahmias, S., 1977. On Ordering Perishable Inventory When Both Demand and Lifetime Are Random. Management Science 24 (I), 82-90. Nahmias, S., 1978. The Fixed-Charge Perishable Inventory Problem. Operations Research 26 (3), 464-481. Nahmias, S., 1982. Perishable Inventory Theory: A Review. Operations Research 30 (4), 680-708. Newman, R.G., 1988. Single Source Qualification. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 24 (2), 10-17. Newman, R.G., 1989. Single Sourcing: Short-Term Savings Versus Long-Term Problems. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 25 (2), 20-25. Niederkofler, M., 1991. The Evolution of Strategic Alliances: Opportunities for Managerial Influence. Journal of Business Venturing 6 (4), 237-357. Oliver, N., 1990. JIT: Issues and Items for the Research Agenda. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management 20 (7), 3-11. O'Neal, C.R., 1989. JIT Procurement and Relationship Marketing. Industrial Marketing Management 18 (1), 55-63.

M.J. Maloni, W.C. Benton /European Journal of Operational Research 101 (1997) 419-429

429

Pilling, B.K., Zhang, L., 1992. Cooperative Exchange: Rewards and Risks. International Journal.of Purchasing and Materials Management 28 (2), 2-9. Raia, E., 1993. The Extended Enterprise. Purchasing 114 (3), 48-51. Ramsay, J., 1990. The Myth of the Cooperative Single Source. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 26 (1), 2-5. Ring, P.S., Van de Ven, A.H., 1994. Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships. Academy of Management Review 19 (1), 90-118. Ring, P.S., Van de Ven, A.H., 1992. Structuring Cooperative Relationships Between Organizations. Journal of Operations Management, in press. Rosenblatt, MJ., Lee, ILL., 1985. Improving Profitability with Quantity Discounts Under Fixed Demand. IIE Transactions 17 (4), 388-395. Salmond, D. and Spekman, R. (1992), A Working Consensus to Collaborate: A Field of Study of Manufacturer-Supplier Dyads, Report 92-134, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA. Scott, C., Westbrook, R., 1991. New Strategic Tools for Supply Chain Management. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Conceptual Management 21 (1), 13-22. Slats, P.A., Bhola, B., Evers, J.J.M., Dijkhuizen, G., 1995. Logistics Chain Modelling. European Journal of Operational Research 87 (1), 1-20.

Spekman, R.E., 1988. Strategic Supplier Selection: Understanding Long-Term Buyer Relationships. Business tlorizons 31,75-81. Stevens, G.C., 1989. Integrating the Supply Chain. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management 19 (8), 3-8. Stuart, F.I., Mueller, P. Jr., 1994. Total Quality Management and Supplier Partnerships: A Case Study. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 30 (1), 14-20. Stuart, F.I., 1993. Supplier Partnerships: Influencing Factors and Strategic Benefits. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 29 (4), 22-28. Thomas, D.J., Griffin, P.M., 1996. Coordinated Supply Chain Management. European Journal of Operational Research 94 (l), 1-15. Treleven, M., 1987. Single Sourcing: A Management Tool for the Quality Supplier. Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 23 (1), 19-24. Trent, R.J., Monczka, R.M., 1994. Effective Cross-Functional Sourcing Teams: Critical Success Factors. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 30 (4), 3-11. Williams, LF., 1981. Heuristic Techniques for Simultaneous Scheduling of Production and Distribution in Multi-Echelon Structures: Theory and Empirical Comparisons. Management Science 27 (3), 336-352. Wilson, D.T., Dam, S.P., Han, S.-L., 1990. State-of-practice in industrial buyer-supplier relationships. Report 6-1990. Institute for the Study of Business Markets, University Park, PA.