Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Faculty of Technology
Policy and Management
MSc Management of
Technology
Anastasios Chorozidis
Graduation Thesis
2009
Enriching SCOR model:
Recapturing the notions of Business Strategy and
Business Sustainability
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
I
General Information
Thesis Title: Enriching SCOR model: Recapturing the notions of Business Strategy and
Business Sustainability
Author: Anastasios Chorozidis
Student Number: 1391577
E-mail Address: TU Delft: [email protected]
Private: [email protected]
Date: October 2009
University: Delft University of Technology
Bachelor Degree: Diploma in Mechanical Engineering
Master: Management of Technology
Participating Faculty: Technology, Policy and Management
Course Code: MOT2910 (30 ECTS)
Graduation Committee:
Chairman: Prof. dr. G.P. van Wee
Transport and Logistics' Organisation (TLO)
Technology, Policy & Management (TPM)
Delft University of Technology
Committee Member: Ir. M.W. Ludema
Transport and Logistics' Organisation (TLO)
Technology, Policy & Management (TPM)
Delft University of Technology
Committee Member: Dr.ing. V.E. Scholten
Technology, Strategy & Entrepreneurship (TSE)
Technology, Policy & Management (TPM)
Delft University of Technology
External Member: Ir. M. Wolfs
Corporate manager
Supply Chain Management
DSM N.V.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
II
Preface
“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric”.
Bertrand Russell (1872 –1970)
This report comes as the outcome of my Master of Science (MSc) graduation thesis project, conducted
at Delft University of Technology. The motivation behind my decision to opt for the specific project lies
on the character and orientation of my studies, as well as on my personal interest to explore the specific
area, having the intuition that a substantial advancement can be derived in this direction.
Regarding the character and orientation of my studies, I have been an MSc student of the program
Management of Technology for the past two years, an MSc offered by the TU Delft faculty of
Technology, Policy and Management (TPM). Beyond the provision of the basic managerial guidelines,
the curriculum of the program predicts the specialization of the students under customized educational
profiles. Among them, Integrated Operations and Supply Chain Management was the one I have chosen
to follow, actually even before the beginning of my master.
The reason I have made up my mind so early on time can be found on the intersection of my educational
background and personal interest. As a Mechanical Engineer with an MSc in Material Science, I had the
opportunity to dive deep in engineering studies quite early in my life. This fact, along with my concise
professional experience, made me see how substantially complementary and vital can business
knowledge be when it comes to engineering matters. In specific, I was rather fascinated when, during a
seminar, I first confronted the engineering world through the prism of Supply Chain Management; so
fascinated that I decided it to be my next educational step.
This brings my review to the domain of Supply Chain Management and the selection of my research
topic. It was during a specialization course titled “Supply Chain Engineering & Management”, when I first
got acquainted with SCOR Model. My initial impression was ambiguous. On one hand, as an engineer, I
was excited with how systematic and overall was the approach of the model. On the other hand, having
one year of managerial studies on my back, during which I was mainly attracted by the Strategic
Management domain, I was stimulated by the superficial approach of the model on Business Strategy. In
fact, I sensed a great room for improvement of the model in this direction, room that if filled, could
result in great advancements, regarding both the model itself and its contribution to the Supply Chain
Management domain. Later on, the concept of Business Strategy was complemented with the one of
Business Sustainability, and together they constituted the directions upon which I explored how SCOR
Model can be improved.
The path from the conception of the research topic to the completion of this report has never been
paved. Apart from dedicated effort, the guidance of my supervisors was several times essential in
overcoming the arising hurdles. In this respect, I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis
coordinator, Ir. M.W. Ludema, for his continuous support and advice during the development of this
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
III
project. Additionally, I would also like to express my warm thanks to the other members of the
graduation committee, Prof. Dr. G.P. van Wee and Dr. Ing. V.E. Scholten, for their critical feedback
whenever requested. Furthermore, I would like to thank all the supply chain professionals that
contributed in the completion of this research by participating in interviews, and especially Marcel Wolfs
who also undertook the evaluation of the interview results.
Given the unfortunate fact that I was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes during the conduction of this
research, I especially thank my doctors for bringing me back in life and my family and friends for helping
me stand again on my feet.
Delft,
October 2009
Anastasios Chorozidis
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
IV
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
V
Executive Summary
Research Background
The Supply-Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model, version 9.0, a sophisticated tool developed by
the Supply Chain Council (SCC), comprises a unique, state-of-the-art approach on how to manage and
improve supply chain operations and constitutes the inspiration behind the development of the specific
proposal. Being the world’s most widely accepted analytical tool within the Supply Chain Management
domain, SCOR Model constitutes the endeavor of SCC to “capture, assess and organize supply chain
managerial issues so as to formulate a framework of supply chain analysis and improvement and a
communications platform among various actors of diverse supply chains”.
Research Problem
No matter how methodical and straightforward the implementation of SCOR Model is, it presents some
characteristic deficiencies that can be accounted to the way it captures a couple of important corporate
notions. On one hand, being a typical benchmarking application, SCOR Model fails to recognize all the
valuable input that can be derived from the Business Strategy notion and thereby leads, at best, in equal
and not superior performance. On the other hand, it deals with Business Sustainability superficially and,
as a result, it does not accomplish to substantially promote the adoption of sustainable solutions.
With respect to benchmarking practices and the pitfalls they may lead into, they are mainly related with
the tendency of implementing companies to unconstructively imitate best-in-class practices. The
repercussions of such irresponsible decisions can be disastrous. In general, the inability of established
companies to think out of the box makes them blindly rely on benchmarking practices and, thereby,
imprisons them in the role of the follower. Here is where the concept of Business Strategy emerges.
On the other hand, looking over the diffusion of the sustainability concept within the Supply Chain
Management domain, the results are not that positive, regardless of the increasingly deteriorating
environmental situation and the fact that Supply Chain Management is the business activity with the
greatest corresponding impact. Explanations can be found on the intentions of managers and
corporations, on the same definition of sustainability and on the processes through which it is
implemented. Overall, the way SCOR Model deals with sustainability should be reexamined and
enriched.
Research Objective
The objective of this research, as it is presented in the following box, is two-fold. This research does not
suffice itself on the exploration of SCOR Model and the infertile criticism of its potential weaknesses.
The idea here is to take a step further and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can
effectively incorporate the business concepts under examination.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
VI
Research Questions
Linked to its objective, the central inquiry, or else the exploration starting line, of this research is
described by the following research questions.
Prospective Clients and Research Contribution
This research refers to 1) the SCC, 2) companies and 3) consultancies making use of SCOR model, 4)
researchers from the Supply Chain Management domain and 5) governmental and (non-)governmental
organizations responsible for the promotion of sustainable solutions. The contribution of this research
to each of these prospective clients can take one of the following forms:
Research Framework
Regarding the framework that guides this research, there are two basic notions that characterize it. First
of all, the one of qualitative research, since the endeavor here is more of an explorative nature, and
secondly, the notion of triangulation, a prominent research methodology in the direction of establishing
credibility and trustworthiness on the results of a qualitative research. The research methods used
under triangulation are unstructured interview, archiving data and semi-structured interviews. The data
1. Extraction of guidelines regarding the effective utilization of SCOR Model, when it comes to
topics related to the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
2. Extraction of design solutions regarding the implementation of the derived conclusions, so
that they can either become part of the model or be used peripherally, in a customized and per-
case basis
3. Inspiration and motivation of individuals and groups of people, willing and authorized to
undertake the continuation of this endeavor on the recognized research directions, towards the
establishment of substantial conclusions and solutions
a) “How can Business Strategy practically contribute to the alleviation of benchmarking
effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”
b) “How can Business Sustainability practically contribute to the successful incorporation of
sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”
1. a) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Strategy concept to the
alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model
b) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Sustainability concept to the
successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR
Model
2. To set the design criteria and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can
effectively incorporate the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
VII
sources exploited are the opinions of a SC expert, former member of the SCC, relevant literature and
opinions of SC professionals respectively. Specifically, the unstructured interview is used on top of the
other methods and as a mean to validate the research idea and guide the application of the other two
methods. On the basis set by the unstructured interview, the archiving data method searches for
relevant articles and publications that can be used for a meta-analysis on the selected research subject.
Finally, this meta-analysis, along with the guidelines defined by the unstructured interview, set the
grounds for the conduction of four semi-structured interviews, which are meant to capture and
systemize the opinions of SC senior employers, employed by well-established companies and
consultancies, registered as SCOR Model subscribers.
Research Conclusions
There are several conclusions derived from this research, regarding both the concepts of Business
Strategy and Business Sustainability, and the way they are captured by SCOR Model. These conclusions
are organized by subject and are enlisted below:
SCOR Model Business Strategy Approach
The approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy, although systematic, straightforward and concise,
fails to capture the essence of the concept and does not elevate it in the central position it should be
when it comes to Supply Chain Management. It was found that action should be taken in this direction,
however within some constraints. In specific, there are two elements to be kept in mind when
reassessing the Business Strategy approach of SCOR Model. The first is the necessity to keep the role of
the model complementary to the professional experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners;
otherwise it may lose its flexibility, inhibit creativity and become unrealistic and useless. The second is to
keep in mind the perception of several practitioners that Supply Chain Management is mainly an
operational domain; thus, if SCOR Model contradicted this perception and exceeded the role of the
operational/ strategic translation interface, it could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners. After
all, the bidirectional transparency of the model when it comes to Business Strategy has been its basic
advantage and is not to be wasted.
SCOR Model Benchmarking Process
With regard to the benchmarking process taking place within SCOR Model, it was found that it needs to
be altered if it is to substantially contribute in the location of solutions compatible with the core
capabilities of the implementing company. In this direction, SCOR Model needs to, somehow, promote
the occurrence of benchmarking only between companies with similar capabilities. There are two
constraints framing this direction for improvement. On one hand, it should be taken into consideration
that practitioners do not need to be different in every competitive aspect. On the other hand, the
benchmarking character of the model should not be -by any means- compromised. The utilization of
standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally and externally common,
operational language in Supply Chain Management, a language that needs to be not only retained, but
also promoted.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
VIII
SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility
The concept of strategic compatibility, as it has been described in this research, needs to be taken into
account by SCOR Model, as an ideal remedy against the recorded benchmarking pitfalls. There are two
elements to keep in mind here. The first refers to the occasional denial of several practitioners to
interfere with business notions. In this respect, SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a
pattern and at a level that it does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners.
Secondly, the incorporation of strategic compatibility in SCOR Model should comply with the model’s
bidirectional transparency. That is, it should promote the interference of business people with
operational concepts, just as it happens in the opposite direction; it should not violate what has already
been effectively established.
Strategic Compatibility Indicators and Metrics
Regarding the subject of defining and measuring strategic compatibility, extra attention needs to be
placed on the selection of the corresponding indicators. There have been located many alternative
indicators and probably there could be found several more. In any case, though, the necessary and
sufficient condition for the selected indicators is that they can be efficiently defined and measured.
Additionally, it should be kept in mind that strategic compatibility is more of a subjective concept than
an objective value. Therefore, it may not be possible to end up with a set of indicators that can be
universally applied. A customizable solution is needed, since it seems to be more suitable in this case.
SCOR Model and Flexibility
Above all, when it comes to the incorporation of new features and concepts, preserving the level of
flexibility characterizing SCOR Model is a prominent prerequisite. It has already been witnessed by
several practitioners that SCOR Model gets complex and rigid, especially as the level of analysis
increases. Apparently, this perception should at least not deteriorate. Therefore, new features have to
be added horizontally and complementarily, so as to avoid rendering the function of the model rigid.
Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain
The SCC perception, presenting corporate disputes between supply chain managers and
environmentalists as the main factor inhibiting the utilization of SCOR Model’s “green” features, is
falsified. Instead, there are several alternative arguments rising to explain corporate resistance to
sustainability. The indifference of the customers, the uncoordinated spasmodic actions of the actors
involved and the fact that sustainability is still out of the corporate agenda are the main ones. Overall,
the common denominator is that the involved parties should act jointly and accordingly so as to
establish the concept of sustainability in Supply Chain Management. With regard now to who should
undertake the responsibility of coordinating the actors and promoting Business Sustainability, SCC and
SCOR Model are not even close.
Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain
Broader organizations are the ones responsible to promote sustainable over conventional solutions. The
contribution of companies in this direction is also considered bound to be limited, bound by the concept
of profitability. As long as there are no economic incentives involved, companies will never care about
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
IX
sustainability in essence. Therefore, substantial solutions in the sustainability domain can only be
expected from governmental initiatives. Governmental bodies are the only one able, and thus
responsible, to promote sustainability, either through economic incentives or by imposing regulations.
SCOR Model: Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency
The approach of the SCC on Business Sustainability and the way it is captured by SCOR Model are
considered to be more than sufficient, since there is no room for improvement in this direction and
under their authority. Indeed, the inclusion of natural and societal sustainable aspects in Supply Chain
Management is important and urgent. Furthermore, the argument that eco-efficiency is not enough to
provide a company with the “green” stamp is also accurate. However, it would be unrealistic to expect
from the SCC to undertake the promotion of natural and societal sustainable aspects within the Supply
Chain Management domain. SCOR Model is still bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint
pattern.
Research Recommendations
On the basis of these conclusions, several recommendations are extracted, specifically about the
approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy, since improvement of the approach on Business
Sustainability appears to fall out of the SCOR Model scope. These recommendations, along with several
directions for future research are presented below:
Enriching the Performance Attributes Set
Regarding the improvement of SCOR Model’s Business Strategy approach, an enrichment of the
Performance Attributes Set is considered to be a simple, yet constructive move. First of all, there are
numerous examples of such attributes, able to contribute in the described direction. To illustrate,
Innovativeness and Acuity are two of them discovered in the literature, while Strategy, Geography,
Culture, Business Size, Tax, New Product Development and Organizational Structure are the ones
already added by Highlight Consulting B.V. for the same reasons. Additionally, this proposal also
complies with the pertinent improving constraints, since it merely builds upon the already established
approach of the model. That is, it keeps the role of the model complementary to the professional
experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners, and it does not alter the operational character of
the model, an alteration that could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
X
Figure A: Enrichment of the Performance Attributes Set
Intermediate Step: Filtering Out Strategically Incompatible Companies
As far as the SCOR Model benchmarking process is concerned, the inclusion of an intermediate step,
which filters out strategically incompatible companies, is considered a substantial step in the described
direction, or else towards the promotion of
benchmarking occurrence merely between
companies with similar capabilities. This step could
intervene in the functioning approach of SCOR
Model just before the benchmarking process takes
place. The recommended solution comes also in
compliance with the constraints characterizing this
direction of improvement, since it builds upon and
does not alter dramatically the current approach of
the model. First of all, it provides practitioners with
the possibility to choose the attributes they want
to be strategically different at. Secondly, it retains
the central role of benchmarking in SCOR Model,
although in a more selective sense. After all, what
this step does is to remove strategically
incompatible companies from the benchmarking
database.
Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility
In respect of describing and defining strategic compatibility within SCOR Model, there are two main
indicators recommended, derived from the literature and supported by the interviews. These are Power
Structure Positioning (PSP) and Value Creation Compatibility (VCC), defined as:
Figure A: Intermediate Step: Filtering Out
Strategically Incompatible Companies
Intermediate Step:Define strategic compatibility on the basis of Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility. Then filter the benchmarking database so that it excludes strategically incompatible companies from the comparison.
Overall
Benchmarking
Database
Filtering
Process
Strategically
Compatible
Database
Excluded by PSP
Excluded by VCC
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
XI
Power Structure Positioning indicates the positioning of a company in the power structure of the
pertinent industry. Thus, the imitating company can weigh its strategic compatibility to a company,
simply by comparing their positions in the pertinent industry power structure.
Value Creation Compatibility indicates the way a company accumulates value for itself. That is, some
companies are obliged by competition to give out much value to their customers, while others have the
possibility to retain much of this value for themselves. As a result, the imitating company can again
determine its strategic compatibility to a company, simply by comparing their ways of creating and
capturing value.
These indicators, along with the proposed way for their introduction in the model, appear capable of
capturing and applying the concept of strategic compatibility, while remaining in compliance with the
corresponding constraints. First of all, this solution captures strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a
level that it does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners. Secondly, it does
comply with the bidirectional transparency of the model. Thirdly, it allows the customized use of the
added features and offers several degrees of freedom.
Strategic Compatibility Indicators and Metrics
Having in mind the necessary and sufficient condition that selected indicators have to be not only
defined, but also measured efficiently, this research has already provided examples of metrics that could
accompany the PSP and VCC indicators. In fact, industrial power structures and profit margins were
recommended respectively, as concepts that can be turned into scales and thereby measure their
corresponding indicators. Apparently, the proposed metrics satisfy the pertinent condition.
Recommendations for Future Research
With respect to the Business Strategy part, recommendations for future research are mainly related to
the assessment of the proposed solutions. There are two basic solutions proposed in this research, them
being the enrichment of the Performance Attributes set and the incorporation of an intermediate step
that filters out strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking database. Both these
solutions should be assessed on the basis of four steps. First of all, the assessment of their actual
contribution and the evaluation of their overall impact should be explored. Secondly, their compatibility
with the characteristics of the current SCOR Model version should be investigated. Thirdly, the located
attributes and indicators respectively should be assessed and, if possible, enriched with other
compatible concepts. Finally, corresponding metrics should be identified and evaluated in both cases. In
general, priority should be given to quantitative approaches, since the next step of performing a
qualitative research is to come up with tangible facts and practical solutions. Whether and how the
concept of innovativeness could be brought in the center of the SCOR Model approach is another topic
to be explored in the Business Strategy direction.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
XII
In regard of the Business Sustainability part, the first recommendation is to explore whether the
confrontation of sustainability as a strategic issue can boost the promotion of the concept in the Supply
Chain Management domain. Secondly, the industry factor appears to influence strongly the translation
of sustainability in supply chain terms. Therefore, a second direction for future research is the
examination of the same issue, i.e. the diffusion of sustainability in the Supply Chain Management
domain, but within the borders of a specific industry, e.g. the pharmaceutical or the electronics industry.
Last but not least, since governmental bodies appear to be the most appropriate for promoting the
concept of sustainability in the Supply Chain Management domain, research on how these bodies can be
motivated, how cooperation between them can be stimulated and how tangible and overall solutions
can be produced and diffused is strongly recommended.
Overall, it is the personal belief of the author that it is about time for SCOR Model to take the leap into
the business world. As it is indicated by the literature and as it is supported by the decision of SCC to add
a risk management section in the latest, 10.0, version of the model, the odds are in favor of this leap.
Specifically, given that the Balanced ScoreCard (BSC) is probably the most dominant analytical tool when
it comes to business affairs, linking SCOR Model to BSC seems a rather prosperous move, able to solve
several of the strategic and sustainable issues located in SCOR Model. Whether now this connection is
straightforward or how it could be implemented in real terms, this is definitely an area to be explored.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
XIII
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
XIV
Table of Contents
General Information ................................................................................................................................. I
Preface .................................................................................................................................................... II
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. V
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................ XVI
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... XVIII
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ - 1 -
1.1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. - 1 -
1.2. Research Problem ................................................................................................................ - 3 -
1.3. Research Objective .............................................................................................................. - 6 -
1.4. General Research Questions and Conceptual Framework .................................................... - 7 -
1.5. Potential Significance and Urgency ...................................................................................... - 9 -
1.6. Prospective Clients and Research Contribution .................................................................. - 11 -
1.7. Reflection on the Research Scope ...................................................................................... - 12 -
1.8. Summary ........................................................................................................................... - 15 -
2. Research Framework ................................................................................................................. - 17 -
2.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... - 17 -
2.2. Qualitative Research .......................................................................................................... - 18 -
2.3. Research Methodology ...................................................................................................... - 18 -
2.4. Research Methods ............................................................................................................. - 19 -
2.5. Sample Selection ............................................................................................................... - 21 -
2.6. Research Evaluation ........................................................................................................... - 23 -
2.7. Research Limitations .......................................................................................................... - 23 -
2.8. Summary ........................................................................................................................... - 25 -
3. SCOR Model Description, Literature Review & Interview Framework ......................................... - 26 -
3.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... - 26 -
3.2. SCOR Model Description .................................................................................................... - 27 -
3.3. Literature Review ............................................................................................................... - 39 -
3.4. Explorative Guidelines, & Interview Framework ................................................................. - 54 -
3.5. Summary ........................................................................................................................... - 65 -
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
XV
4. Interview Results ....................................................................................................................... - 68 -
4.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... - 68 -
4.2. ABC .................................................................................................................................... - 69 -
4.3. Highlight Consulting B.V. .................................................................................................... - 72 -
4.4. Atkins Electronics ............................................................................................................... - 76 -
4.5. Akron Caller ....................................................................................................................... - 80 -
4.6. Summary ........................................................................................................................... - 84 -
5. Design Principles and Conceptual Design ................................................................................... - 88 -
5.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... - 88 -
5.2. Results Accumulation and Synthesis to Design Principles ................................................... - 89 -
5.3. Extraction of Design Guidelines .......................................................................................... - 97 -
5.4. Conceptual Design ........................................................................................................... - 100 -
5.5. Design Evaluation ............................................................................................................ - 108 -
5.6. Summary ......................................................................................................................... - 110 -
6. Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................... - 113 -
6.1. Conclusions...................................................................................................................... - 114 -
6.2. Recommendations ........................................................................................................... - 116 -
7. Reflection ................................................................................................................................ - 120 -
References ...................................................................................................................................... - 129 -
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 134
Appendix A: Qualitative Research Characteristics ............................................................................ 134
Appendix B: Triangulation Method and Qualitative Research .......................................................... 136
Appendix C: Determining the Sample Size ....................................................................................... 141
Appendix D: From Literature Research Questions to Interview Questionnaire ................................. 145
Appendix E: Semi-structured Interview Questionnaire Skeleton ...................................................... 148
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
XVI
List of Tables
Table 1-1 Summarizing key elements of the chapter.......................................................................... - 16 -
Table 2-1 Explorative Research Elements .......................................................................................... - 18 -
Table 2-2 Sample Selection Criteria ................................................................................................... - 22 -
Table 2-3 Research Limitations and Corresponding Mitigators........................................................... - 24 -
Table 2-4 Summarizing key elements of the chapter.......................................................................... - 25 -
Table 3-1 Description of SCOR Model’s Five Core Management processes ........................................ - 29 -
Table 3-2 Description of SCOR Model’s Product Types ....................................................................... - 30 -
Table 3-3 Description of the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model .......................................... - 33 -
Table 3-4 Simple SCORcard Example ................................................................................................. - 33 -
Table 3-5 Calculation of the Parity Gap .............................................................................................. - 34 -
Table 3-6 Competitive Positioning Chart ............................................................................................ - 34 -
Table 3-7 Calculation of the Competitive Gap .................................................................................... - 35 -
Table 3-8 List of waste types towards pollution calculation within SCOR Model ................................ - 39 -
Table 3-9 List of sustainability-oriented capabilities ........................................................................... - 39 -
Table 3-10 Located Opportunities for Improving SCOR Model ........................................................... - 41 -
Table 3-11 Five Major Dimensions of Advantages, deriving from Capabilities-Based Competition ..... - 45 -
Table 3-12 Findings of the Literature Review on Business Strategy .................................................... - 55 -
Table 3-13 Explorative Questions on Business Strategy ..................................................................... - 59 -
Table 3-14 Findings of the Literature Review on Business Sustainability ............................................ - 59 -
Table 3-15 Explorative Questions on Business Sustainability .............................................................. - 62 -
Table 3-16 Summarizing key elements of the chapter ........................................................................ - 67 -
Table 4-1 Details about the semi-structured interviews respondents ................................................ - 69 -
Table 4-2 Key elements of this chapter: Details about the respondents ............................................. - 85 -
Table 4-3 Key elements of this chapter: Summary of the Arguments on Business Strategy derived from
the Semi-structured Interviews ............................................................................................................. 86
Table 4-4 Key elements of this chapter: Summary of the Arguments on Business Sustainability derived
from the Semi-structured Interviews ..................................................................................................... 87
Table 5-1 Arguments regarding the approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy ........................... - 90 -
Table 5-2 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Benchmarking ........................................ - 91 -
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
XVII
Table 5-3 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility ........................... - 92 -
Table 5-4 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Literature Indicators ............................... - 93 -
Table 5-5 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Flexibility ................................................ - 93 -
Table 5-6 Arguments regarding the Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply Chain
Management Domain ....................................................................................................................... - 94 -
Table 5-7 Arguments regarding the Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply Chain
Management Domain ....................................................................................................................... - 96 -
Table 5-8 Arguments regarding the Topic of Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency .................. - 97 -
Table 5-9 Design Principles ................................................................................................................ - 98 -
Table 5-10 Summarizing key elements of the chapter ...................................................................... - 112 -
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
XVIII
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Scope and Structure of SCOR Model ................................................................................... - 2 -
Figure 1-2 Structure Outline: Introduction ........................................................................................... - 3 -
Figure 1-3 CO2 Emissions by Country from 1990 to 2030 ..................................................................... - 5 -
Figure 1-4 Basic Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. - 8 -
Figure 1-5 Logical Correlations included in the Conceptual Framework ............................................. - 14 -
Figure 2-1 Structure Outline: Research Framework ........................................................................... - 17 -
Figure 2-2 Research framework ......................................................................................................... - 17 -
Figure 2-3 Triangulation Method ....................................................................................................... - 20 -
Figure 3-1 Structure Outline: Literature Review ................................................................................. - 26 -
Figure 3-2 Logical path of the Literature Review section: From the Research Problem Definition to the
Interview Framework ........................................................................................................................ - 27 -
Figure 3-3 Cross-Functional Skeleton of the Process Reference Model .............................................. - 28 -
Figure 3-4 Model Scope and Structure............................................................................................... - 30 -
Figure 3-5 Description of the three levels of the SCOR Model ............................................................ - 31 -
Figure 3-6 The Concept of “Configurability” ....................................................................................... - 36 -
Figure 3-7 Types of Models Simulating the Planning Intervention towards SC Configurability ............ - 36 -
Figure 3-8 Business Scope Diagram ................................................................................................... - 36 -
Figure 3-9 Geographic Map ............................................................................................................... - 37 -
Figure 3-10 Thread Diagram .............................................................................................................. - 37 -
Figure 3-11 Workflow or Process Model ............................................................................................ - 38 -
Figure 3-12 Lowell Framework .......................................................................................................... - 48 -
Figure 3-13 Three Dimensions of Sustainability ................................................................................. - 49 -
Figure 3-14 Three Types of Capital .................................................................................................... - 50 -
Figure 3-15 The “Business Case” of Corporate Sustainability ............................................................. - 51 -
Figure 3-16 The “Natural Case” of Corporate Sustainability ............................................................... - 52 -
Figure 3-17 The “Societal Case” of Corporate Sustainability ............................................................... - 52 -
Figure 3-18 Overview of the Six Criteria of Corporate Sustainability .................................................. - 53 -
Figure 3-19 Continuous-loop model for defining and measuring sustainability performance of
organizations .................................................................................................................................... - 54 -
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
XIX
Figure 3-20 Interview framework ...................................................................................................... - 64 -
Figure 4-1 Structure Outline: Interview Results ................................................................................. - 68 -
Figure 5-1 Structure Outline: Design Principles and Conceptual Design ............................................. - 88 -
Figure 5-2 Four Steps from Interview Results to Conceptual Design ................................................... - 89 -
Figure 5-3 SCOR Model Current Functioning Approach .................................................................... - 101 -
Figure 5-4 SCOR Model Current Decision-Making Involvement ........................................................ - 102 -
Figure 5-5 SCOR Model Updated Functioning Approach .................................................................. - 104 -
Figure 5-6 Focusing on the Intermediate Step of the SCOR Model Updated Functioning Approach .. - 105 -
Figure 5-7 SCOR Model Updated Decision-Making Involvement ...................................................... - 107 -
Figure 6-1 Structure Outline: Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................... - 113 -
Figure 6-2 Enrichment of the Performance Attributes Set ............................................................... - 117 -
Figure 6-3 Intermediate Step: Filtering Out Strategically Incompatible Companies .......................... - 118 -
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 1 -
1. Introduction
1.1. Overview
Market dynamics have changed dramatically during the 1990’s, forcing executive managers of major
corporate representatives to update and alter the way they used to confront the actual and virtual
movement of products between collaborating actors. Supply chain networks, referring to the system of,
people, technology, activities, information and resources involved in moving a product or service from
supplier to customer (Nagurney, 2006), needed to be better organized and managed so as to improve
the efficiency and effectiveness of the underlined process.
As a result of the initiation of this managerial era, Supply Chain Management came onto the scene,
putting extra attention on the way supply chains, and their connection with the related value chains,
should be managed towards optimizing operations and outcomes. Representative definitions of the
terms Supply Chain and Supply Chain Management can be found on the box to the bottom of the page.
Since then, numerous and diverse approaches have been formulated, all emphasizing on this same
purpose. Among them, Supply-Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model, a sophisticated tool
developed by the Supply Chain Council (SCC), comprises a unique, state-of-the-art approach on how to
manage and improve supply chain operations and constitutes the inspiration behind the development of
the specific proposal.
Supply Chain Definition
There have historically been several attempts to define the term Supply Chain. The approaches of Cooper and
Ellram (1993), La Londe and Masters (1994) and Lambert, Stock, and Ellram (1998) are characteristic examples.
Considered by the author as the most holistic and representative one, the definition of Mentzer et al (2001) is
going to be cited, stating that:
“A supply chain is defined as a set of three or more entities (organizations or individuals) directly involved in
the upstream and downstream flows of products, services, finances, and/or information from a source to a
customer”.
Supply Chain Management Definition
Similarly, multiple were the attempts to describe the notion of Supply Chain Management. The works of Jones
and Riley (1985), Houlihan (1988), Stevens (1989), La Londe and Masters (1994), Cooper et al (1997) and
Monczka, Trent, and Handfield (1998) are indicative in this direction. Again, the definition of Mentzer et al
(2001), as one of the latest, is considered to be the more condensed. It defines Supply Chain Management as:
“The systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and the tactics across these
business functions within a particular company and across businesses within the supply chain, for the
purposes of improving the long-term performance of the individual companies and the supply chain as a
whole”.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 2 -
SCC is a global, non-profit consortium, open to all types of
organizations and enumerating approximately a thousand members.
The methodology, diagnostic and benchmarking tools of SCC aim to
enhance the supply chain processes of its professional members. SCC
has established the SCOR Model, the world’s most widely accepted
supply chain analytical tool (SCC, 2009). More details on SCC are given
on the box to the left.
SCOR model, version 9.0, constitutes the endeavor of the Supply-Chain
Council (SCC, 2009) to “capture, assess and organize supply chain
managerial issues so as to formulate a framework of supply chain
analysis and improvement and a communications platform among
various actors of diverse supply chains”.
Source Make Deliver
Return Return
Source Make Deliver
Return Return
Source Make Deliver
Return Return
Plan
Deliver
Return
Source
Return
Plan
Plan
Supplier’s
Supplier
Supplier
Internal or External
Customer
Internal or External
Your Company Customer’s
Customer
Figure 1-1 Scope and Structure of SCOR Model
SCOR, as a process reference model, unifies well-known concepts of
business process reengineering, benchmarking and process
measurement into a cross-functional skeleton. It consists of three
levels. SCOR level one captures the “as-is” state of a process and
derives the desired “to-be” future state on the basis of five strategic-
related Performance Attributes, them being SC Reliability, SC
Responsiveness, SC Agility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency. SCOR
level two quantifies the operational performance of similar companies
and establishes internal targets based on “best-in-class” results. These
results are expressed by representative Metrics. These Metrics
correspond to the five strategic-related Performance Attributes, which
were used in the first level to define the strategic positioning and
targets of the implementing company. SCOR level three characterizes
The Supply-Chain Council (SCC) is a global
non-profit consortium whose methodology,
diagnostic and benchmarking tools help nearly
a thousand organizations make dramatic and
rapid improvements in supply chain processes.
SCC has established the supply chain world’s
most widely accepted framework for evaluating
and comparing supply chain activities and their
performance. The framework—the SCOR®
process reference model—lets companies
quickly determine and compare the
performance of supply chain and related
operations within their company or against
other companies.
SCC continually advances its tools and
educates sponsors about how companies are
capitalizing on those tools. By using its tools,
SCC sponsors are able to rapidly overcome the
first difficult step in supply chain improvement:
determining what processes to improve first
and how much to improve them. Sponsors also
use SCC’s reference models to:
1) Guide the consolidation of internal supply
chains, which results in significant cost
reductions from eliminating duplicative assets
2) Create standard processes and common
information systems across business units,
which generates major cost savings, cycle-time
and quality improvements
3) Create a common scorecard by which
customers can measure their performance and
by which SCC sponsors can measure suppliers’
performance, which can lead to major cross-
organizational process improvements
To help members maximize the value of SCC’s
reference models, the consortium provides a
benchmarking database by which companies
can compare their supply chain performance to
others in their industries; training classes so
that managers can master the use of the
reference models; and conferences at which
supply chain and senior business executives
can learn how SCC member companies have
used the consortium’s services to make
dramatic improvements in supply chain and
overall financial performance.
(Source: SCC, 2009)
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 3 -
the management practices and software solutions that result in “best-in-class” performance, while SCOR
level four, describes the elements that fall out of the model’s scope, and is
occupied with the implementation of the located solutions.
A short description of the SCOR model was essential, as a first impression
of the core element of this research. Based on this short description, the
introduction of the research problem can now take place. A deep analysis
of SCOR Model follows later on.
At this point, the structure outline is introduced and depicted on the
figure at the right side. This outline represents the structure of this
research and is used hereafter in the early beginning of every chapter to
indicate the position of this research at every time. In specific, an orange
frame highlights the chapter that is analyzed per occasion. To illustrate,
the introduction block is highlighted in this section, since the research
deployment stands on the introduction chapter. The following chapter
focuses on the research framework and the corresponding decisions and
assumptions that are made towards the exploration of the research topic.
Then a description of SCOR Model and a review of the literature take
place, leading to the creation of a questionnaire, which is then used in a
number of interviews with people of expertise. The results of these two
chapters are used for the conceptual design of an updated version of the
model, as well as for the extraction of relevant conclusions and
recommendations.
1.2. Research Problem
No matter how methodical and straightforward the implementation of the SCOR Model is, it presents
some characteristic deficiencies that can be accounted to the way it captures a couple of important
corporate notions. On one hand, being a typical benchmarking application, SCOR Model fails to
recognize all the valuable input that can be derived from the Business Strategy notion and thereby
leads, at best, in equal and not superior performance (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). On the other hand, it
deals with Business Sustainability superficially and, as a result, it does not accomplish to substantially
promote the adoption of sustainable solutions (SCC, 2009).
With respect to benchmarking practices and the pitfalls they may lead into, a correlation to the social
proof theory reveals large part of the story. In brief, this approach describes that "If a lot of people are
doing the same thing, they must know something we don't. Especially when we are uncertain, we are
willing to place an enormous amount of trust in the collective knowledge of the crowd” (Cialdini, 1993).
In a business environment, this theory explains the tendency of companies to unconstructively imitate
best-in-class practices, as well as the repercussions of such irresponsible decisions, especially in periods
of breakthrough changes in the pertinent industries. The examples are numerous (Enders & König,
Introduction
Research Framework
Design Principles and
Conceptual Design
Interview Results
SCOR Description-Lit.
Review-Int. Framework
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Figure 1-2 Structure
Outline: Introduction
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 4 -
2009); US automobile
industry since the 1960s
fails to decide responsively
and is gradually eclipsed by
Toyota and other Asian car
manufacturers; traditional
aviation firms in the 1990s
fail to act “untraditionally”
and are driven to
bankruptcy by Southwest
and other no-frills airlines;
and the computer industry
in the 1980s is helplessly
overtaken by Apple and
other PC manufacturers.
This inability of established
companies to think out of
the box makes them blindly rely on benchmarking practices and, thereby, imprisons them in the role of
the follower. Here is where the concept of Business Strategy emerges. A concise description of the term
business Strategy is given
in the box at the left. As it
will be discussed later on,
Porter (1996), among
others, urges the fact that
“Strategy is about being
different” and underlines
the superiority of strategy
as opposed to operations.
In this research, this
approach of Michael
Porter is espoused. Further
details on this subject are given in the literature review section. Overall, the described contradiction
between strategic theory and business practice is evident in the SCOR Model as well, as it was claimed
on the beginning of this part. Therefore, it becomes apparent why it is crucial to fully and successfully
incorporate Business Strategy in the SCOR Model and why research on this field is necessitated.
On the other hand, regarding the concept of Business Sustainability, the consequences of its superficial
confrontation by SCOR Model, in specific, and the Supply Chain Management domain, in general, can be
disastrous and exceed by far those related to benchmarking pitfalls, which are basically bound by the
concept of profitability. It is not the purpose of this research, here, to describe in detail the
environmental impact of corporations, and the way they reinforce CO2 emissions and the greenhouse
Business Strategy Description
Being the second layer of Strategic Management, below Corporate
Strategy and above Functional Strategy, Business Strategy is occupied
with: “The maximization and reservation of a company’s competitive edge, in
comparison with the one of its best-in-class competitors”
(Sources: Grant & King (1982), Hax & Majluf (1984), and Hofer &
Schendel (1978))
Example from the Music Industry
Consider, for instance, the music industry. Only after the music majors
had already suffered major revenue declines because of illegal peer-to-
peer trading platforms, they finally also decided to go online themselves.
However, they nevertheless all stuck to their old model of generating
revenues, which can be summed up as “record one or two good songs
and six or seven mediocre ones and compile them on one album; then,
sell the album for 10 Euros or more.” It was ultimately up to Apple, an
industry outsider, to introduce a business model – one song for 99 cents
– that would suit the new habits of internet users who configure their
own collections of the singles they like instead of buying pre-compiled
albums. In the end, Apple succeeded while the majors failed. Similar
stories can be found in many other industries where all established
players fail to respond appropriately to radical changes in their
environment.
(Source: Enders and König, 2009)
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 5 -
effect, even less the serious consequences of the latter. However, it is sufficient to simply contemplate
a) the continuously increasing CO2 emissions, as the following chart indicates, along with the fact that b)
supply chains account for the vast majority of these emissions (Environmental Leader, 2009), as well as
with c) the reality of nowadays, where the 65% of corporations globally do not have an explicit green
strategy regarding their supply chains (Environmental Leader, 2009). On the same track, the Supply
Chain Leadership Collaboration (SCLC), an effort of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), which acts on
behalf of 475 investors with assets of $55 trillion towards confronting climate change, is more than
illustrative (CDP, 2009).
Figure 1-3 CO2 Emissions by Country from 1990 to 2030 (Source: Energy Information Administration,
cited by Mongabay, 2009)
Looking now over the diffusion of the sustainability concept within business environments, the results
are not that positive (SCC, 2009). An explanation of this situation is given by Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers
and Steger (2005), who “identify a clearly insufficient understanding of manager’s key arguments or
business logic for adopting corporate sustainability strategies”. This recorded gap between theory and
practice cannot be fully
accounted on managers’
competencies; there must
be a problem either on the
definition of sustainability
or on the processes
through which it is
implemented, a problem
that constrains the
diffusion of sustainability
within business
Business Sustainability Description
The term of Business Sustainability refers to the process of converting
conventional business to sustainable, or else to a business able to: “Meet the needs of the present world without compromising the ability
of the future generations to meet their own needs”
(Source: Anderson, 2006)
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 6 -
environments. Regarding the definition of sustainability, it is quite straightforward, as it can be seen on
the previous box at the right. Therefore, the described problem should be related with the processes
through which sustainability is implemented in business environments.
Indeed, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) locate this problem on the way the notion of Business Sustainability
is confronted by corporations. That is, they observe that corporate thinking mistakenly equates
sustainability with eco-efficiency. This reduction inhibits the holistic management of the, after all,
complex notion of sustainability and prevents the extraction of substantive solutions. As it will be shown
in the literature review section, SCOR Model appears to fall into the described pitfall, i.e. equating
sustainability with eco-
efficiency. Therefore, it
becomes apparent that the
way SCOR Model deals with
sustainability should be
reexamined and enriched. In
this direction, an explorative
research is necessitated, a
research that will point out
the guidelines for this
improvement.
There is no intention of
questioning or invalidating
the contribution of the
SCOR Model in the Supply
Chain Management domain. This does not mean, though, that there is no room for improvement. That
is, a potential successful expansion of the model’s horizons, towards the Business Strategy and Business
Sustainability directions, would substantially improve the significance and the effectiveness of this
already established approach. Either seen as a heavy responsibility or as a generous inheritance,
research on this field is from justified to essential.
1.3. Research Objective
As it has been presented so far, the subject of this research is SCOR Model and how it can be improved
by recapturing the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. Specifically, the scope of
the research is narrowed down to the improvement of the model through the alleviation of
benchmarking effects and through the successful incorporation of sustainable features. It has been
shown that there is an initial indication that Business Strategy can help on benchmarking issues.
Similarly, Business Sustainability, and the way it is confronted by corporate logic, is the key to the
promotion and successful incorporation of proposed sustainable solutions.
Whereas in the mid-1990s local authorities were probably the most
active players trying to implement sustainable development, the focus
has recently shifted strongly towards business as a major actor. Although
it is to be commended that managers accept their responsibility for
environmental and social issues, their interpretation of the ‘business link
to sustainable development’ is also worrying. In their quest to find ‘a
single concept, perhaps a single word to sum up the business end of
sustainable development’ most firms have opted for eco-efficiency as
their guiding principle.
Eco-efficiency is a valuable part of corporate strategies. However, as
the sole concept it is insufficient.
(Source: Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002)
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 7 -
An explorative qualitative research is considered to be the best method in this direction, since what is
sought for is an investigation of the correlations between SCOR Model and two business areas. The
result of such an exploration would be valuable insight and guidelines with respect to the improvement
of SCOR Model on the drawn directions. Instead of limiting this research on an infertile enlistment of
conclusions, the idea here is to take a step further and conceptualize an updated version of the model
that can effectively incorporate these two business concepts.
Summarizing the arguments of this part, it can be said that the objective of this research is two-fold:
1.4. General Research Questions and Conceptual Framework
Following the positioning of this research and the definition of its scope, it is now time to formulate the
general research question and present the conceptual framework, upon which it is going to be assessed.
Linked to its objective, the central inquiry, or else the exploration starting line, of this research is
described by the following research questions.
Reading this central research questions, two areas that need to be explored can be noticed; a) the
concept of Business Strategy and the way it can contribute to the alleviation of benchmarking effects
Research Objective:
1. a) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Strategy concept to the
alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model
b) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Sustainability concept to the
successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR
Model
2. To set the design criteria and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can
effectively incorporate the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts
General Research Questions:
a) “How can Business Strategy practically contribute to the alleviation of benchmarking effects,
towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”
b) “How can Business Sustainability practically contribute to the successful incorporation of
sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 8 -
towards the improvement of the SCOR Model, and b) the concept of Business Sustainability and the way
it can contribute to the successful incorporation of sustainable solutions towards the improvement of
the SCOR Model. This basic conceptual framework is depicted on the following figure:
Figure 1-4 Basic Conceptual Framework
Once the conceptual framework has been derived, the question now is how this research is going to
proceed. In this respect, the following section is occupied with the Research framework, or else the
definition of the character of this research and the description of the steps that need to be followed
towards its fulfillment. On this basis, the located research problem can be systematically confronted and
satisfy the research objective by answering the research questions.
In brief, the general idea is to attempt an initial investigation of the two areas described, so as to locate
existing scientific material and define the grey areas that need to be further explored. In this respect and
first of all, SCOR Model is described and assessed. Then, a review of the literature is performed, to map
the room for the model’s improvement and point out that alleviation of benchmarking effects and
successful incorporation of sustainable solutions are two major opportunities towards the improvement
of the model. Then, it is shown that the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability are
closely related and can substantially contribute in the improvement of the model, by confronting the
recorded problems respectively. Finally, the ways this contribution can be realized are sought for in the
literature. This exploration serves in the assessment of existing scientific material and in the definition of
the grey areas that need to be further explored. The definition of these grey areas sets the directions
and guidelines for the qualitative research and the pertinent interview sessions that follow.
The described steps serve both the objectives of this research. On one hand, they systematically
perform the exploration described under the first objective. On the other hand, they aid in the
production of results that can be directly used to satisfy the second objective, or else the
conceptualization of an updated version of the model that integrates the located opportunities for
improvement. Before rushing into the next section and the details about the design of this research, this
section concludes with three complementary paragraphs; one regarding the potential significance of this
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 9 -
research and the urgency for its development; one looking over the prospective clients and the way they
can benefit from this research; and one reflecting on the scope of this research and the pertinent
selections and assumptions.
1.5. Potential Significance and Urgency
The conduction of this research can be supported by the significance of the benefits, following a
potential successful incorporation of the examined concepts in the SCOR model. This significance is
multi-aspect and can be better observed if decomposed in three main categories of relevance, them
being scientific, managerial and social relevance.
With respect to the scientific relevance of this research, it can be found on the integration of expertise
and research efforts aiming to result in the advancement of knowledge on the field of SC Management,
as it is pursued herewith on the intersection of benchmarking practices and relevant strategic
implications, and on the field of sustainability and sustainable solutions. Bridging this scientific gap can
lead in substantial conclusions and valuable practical applications.
Furthermore, the managerial relevance of this research can be seen on the number of managerial
terms intervening in this endeavor. The above-benchmarking insertion of the Business Strategy notion in
the SCOR Model can promote the strategic alignment of corporate activities, increasing this way
productivity and cost-efficiency and leading in enhanced added-value creation and profitability. Similarly,
effective incorporation of Business Sustainability can advance resource allocation and waste
management practices, aiding companies to reduce their supply chain costs and comply with relevant
regulations.
Finally, this research can be also seen as socially relevant, since it investigates how the Sustainability
notion can be successfully incorporated. Sustainable supply chain solutions and practices can
dramatically reduce the resources used, leading in major economical gains. Reduced transportation
utilization can decrease consumption of fuels and traffic congestions, bringing this way environmental
pollution down and fostering the elevation of urban living standards.
It is mentioned at this point that the potential significance of this research, as it is recorded in this
paragraph, is the initial element supporting the continuation and correctness of this endeavor. Further
support was provided by Mr. Marcel Wolfs, a supply chain expert and former member of the SCC.
Specifically, on the basis of his experience within the SCC environment and regarding the character of
SCOR Model, Mr. Wolfs was asked to judge whether the orientation of this research is on the right track.
Indeed, he confirmed the relevance and potential significance of this endeavor and justified its
continuation. Furthermore, Mr. Wolfs was also called, and kindly responded positively, to evaluate the
output of this research. This second part of his contribution, along with more details on Mr. Wolfs’
profile, is presented later on, within the design principles and conceptual design section.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 10 -
Apart from the potential significance that has been described so far, the urgency for the conduction of
this research needs also to be assessed. The reason is that significance is necessary for the conduction of
a research, but not sufficient; a research also needs to be urgent. Otherwise, it might very well lead to a
shallow report, to an unconstructive enlistment of facts and opinions. Through this prism of reasoning,
the directions of this research are reexamined.
First of all, regarding the benchmarking pitfalls of SCOR Model, it could be easily and logically claimed
that they are of minor importance, and that there are many cases where imitating best-in-class practices
can only be beneficial. For example, a company with the strategy of a follower, or a company with the
strategy of a leader that decides to be a follower when it comes to Supply Chain Management, can
merely benefit from benchmarking to the performance of their best-in-class competitors. Although
these examples are completely true, leaving, on account of these examples, the recognized
benchmarking pitfalls unaddressed, would mean the admittance of no direct correlation between
Business Strategy and Supply Chain Management. That is, on an inductive and non-scientific way, it
would be concluded that since one or more type of companies do not need to take into account strategy
when benchmarking on their supply chain competitors, then no company needs to and Supply Chain
Management can be confronted as a domain, completely independent from Business Strategy.
Apparently, this approach is from wrong to dangerous, not only because it leads to false conclusions, but
also because similar lines of reasoning can lead in disastrous results.
Therefore, the improvement of the way SCOR Model deals with the concept of Business Strategy is an
urgent task that needs to be addressed, if it is to establish a strong relation between supply chain
strategy and supply chain operations. Whether now practitioners would be strategically interested in an
updated approach or simply willing to follow the conventional SCOR Model paradigm, this is another
topic of discussion. The central idea here is that SCOR Model, as a state-of-the-art analytical tool
dominating the Supply Chain Management domain, needs to capture the concept of Business Strategy in
a holistic and spherical way that allows the pursuit of or contemplation over any type of strategy.
Secondly, with respect to the fact that corporations do not think “green” regarding their supply chains
and that SCOR Model fails to capture the term of Business Sustainability effectively so as to promote
“green” features, the urgency for a solution is apparent, given the consequences of not having one. That
is, while not confronting benchmarking pitfalls can at worst affect a company’s profitability, a superficial
confrontation of sustainability has a direct impact on environment and human life. In other words, the
urgency here is clear, since the discussion is about people, not about money.
Thirdly and given the fact that one of the main reasons that corporations do not seek for sustainable
solutions is monetary budget restrictions, as well as the fact that Business Strategy is after all about
profit and long-term prosperity, an examination of the notion of sustainability through a strategic prism
seems rather promising. It could yield substantial conclusions and solutions regarding the creation of
value from “green” practices, regarding the translation of sustainability in business terms. Although very
brief and simplistic, the content of these two sentences is sufficient to point out the opportunities
behind such an approach, sufficient to stress the urgency for the examination of Business Sustainability
in conjunction with Business Strategy.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 11 -
However, the research here is one step behind the examination of this possibility. The object of this
research is to explore the notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. Then, on the basis of
the foundations set in this research, it could be further explored how these two notions can reinforce
each other. To sum up, additional urgency to explore the notions of Business Strategy and Business
Sustainability is provided by the mutually reinforcing relationship that potentially exists between them.
Yet, this relationship, as it will be claimed in the reflection paragraph, exceeds the boundaries of the
specific research as well as of the Supply Chain Management domain, and could only be the object of a
future research that builds upon the foundations developed here.
1.6. Prospective Clients and Research Contribution
Looking over the potential significance and urgency, the prospective clients of this research can be
located. At first, the SCC itself could be interested in evaluating the output of this endeavor. It could
derive useful conclusions regarding the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability aspects of the
model, conclusions that can be used either as instructive guidelines on the way the model should be
confronted or even become part of the model in a future updated version. Secondly, companies that
already use SCOR Model could benefit either from an improved utilization guideline or even from an in-
house, customized enrichment of SCOR Model current version, towards the described directions.
Thirdly, consultancies could make use of the derived conclusions to enhance the quality of their supply
chain advices, both in terms of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. Fourthly, researchers from
the Supply Chain Management domain can be inspired and motivated to carry on this endeavor on the
future research directions, and, as a result, enhance the validity and the impact of the research initiated
here. Finally, governmental and (non-)governmental organizations could also draw on this research so as
to promote the implementation of sustainable solutions, either by focusing on the notion of Business
Sustainability or on its reinforcing relation with the notion of Business Strategy.
So far, the questions of why this research is significant and urgent and who is going to benefit from its
development have been answered. It is now time to focus on the question of how this research can
contribute, what would be the output of this endeavor. An accumulation of elements of the up-to-now
argumentation, leads to a description of the contribution of this research, as it is presented below:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 12 -
1.7. Reflection on the Research Scope
A discussion should be made at this point with respect to the scope of the described conceptual
framework. A quick overview of the general research question and the way it is expressed through the
conceptual framework generates a number of questions. These questions are mainly related to the
selected boundaries of the research and how this selection is justified. Answering these questions is an
important task towards the constructive positioning of this research and its corresponding framework.
Therefore, they are presented below and each of them is dealt with separately.
• Why does this research focus only on the alleviation of benchmarking effects and on the
successful incorporation of sustainable solutions? Aren’t there more opportunities for
improvement?
It is truth that there have been several opportunities and directions for improving SCOR Model recorded
in the literature. An indicative overview of such opportunities is given in the literature review section
that follows. The objective fact is that each of them deserves to be explored, an exploration that could
equally result in a minor, similar or grater improvement of the model. However, the subjective reality is
that a couple of these opportunities will draw more attention than the others, depending on research
circumstances such as the background of the researcher, the time and monetary resources of the
research and the general scientific environment within which the research is performed. This distance
between theoretical truth and practical application is not considered able to reduce the quality of the
research. That is, the quality of the research results has to do with the precise definition of the research
boundaries, not with the comparative effectiveness of this research to others.
In this respect, it needs to be clarified that this research aims to examine the improvement of the SCOR
Model in the described directions, not to locate the most promising opportunities for the model’s
Research Contribution:
1. Extraction of guidelines regarding the effective utilization of SCOR Model, when it comes to
topics related to the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
2. Extraction of design solutions regarding the implementation of the derived conclusions, so
that they can either become part of the model or be used peripherally, in a customized and per-
case basis
3. Inspiration and motivation of individuals and groups of people, willing and authorized to
undertake the continuation of this endeavor on the recognized research directions, towards the
establishment of substantial conclusions and solutions
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 13 -
improvement. Thus, alleviation of benchmarking effects and successful incorporation of sustainable
solutions are the two opportunities considered - by the herewith research circumstances - the most
important to explore. The anticipation for valuable results on these directions does not reduce or
compromise research efforts that could be performed on any other opportunity for SCOR Model
improvement.
• Why does this research focus only on Business Strategy and Business Sustainability? Aren’t
there other business concepts that could equally contribute to the improvement of the
model in the described directions?
The argumentation on this question follows a similar line of reasoning. It is truth that the alleviation of
benchmarking effects could be equally or better dealt with by another managerial or scientific domain,
such as Human Resource Management or Psychology. Likewise, successful incorporation of sustainable
solutions could be equally confronted by the domains of Decision Making or Policy Analysis. However,
the herewith research circumstances promote the examination of the Business Strategy and Business
Sustainability notions towards the exploitation of the selected opportunities. This fact does not
compromise the quality of the results because, again, what is sought for here is how can these business
concepts contribute, not which is the domain that could contribute most. However, there is a necessary
and sufficient condition that needs to be satisfied in the drawn direction. Specifically, it has to be proved
that, although may not be the most-contributing, Business Strategy and Business Sustainability can
indeed contribute in the improvement of the model on the described directions. Otherwise, the adopted
line of reasoning would not be valid.
In this sense, the connection of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability with the SCOR Model is
apparent, since the model already makes use of these concepts. Similarly, looking for a connection
between Business Sustainability and successful incorporation of sustainable solutions leads almost to a
tautology. On the same track, alleviation of benchmarking effects and successful incorporation of
sustainable solutions automatically contribute to SCOR Model improvement. On the other hand, the
connection between Business Strategy and alleviation of benchmarking effects is not that clear by
definition. Nevertheless, strong evidence of this correlation can be found on the literature. This
temporarily missing link will be supported and proven in the literature review section, and will herald
the establishment of the adopted research path. Then, it can be explored how exactly this sequence of
steps from Business Strategy and Business Sustainability towards SCOR Model improvement can actually
and optimally take place. The argumentation provided here is also depicted on the following figure:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 14 -
Figure 1-5 Logical Correlations included in the Conceptual Framework
• Are Business Strategy and Business Sustainability two actually independent notions?
As it has, perhaps, already been observed or as it can be seen on the logical decomposition of the
conceptual framework illustrated on the previous figure, there is a missing link between the concepts of
Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. It is truth that there are numerous endeavors supporting
the close relation of these two notions (e.g. IFC, 2004), as well as the fact that, in many cases, they
should be faced by corporations as a single business element (e.g. Deloitte & Touche, & the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, 1992). This perception may, or probably does, conceal a
reinforcing relationship between these two notions, a relationship able to create a positive feedback
loop when it comes to their effective incorporation in the SCOR Model.
No matter how promising this hypothesis sounds and no matter how important could the results of such
an establishment could be, the herewith research circumstances, along with the abstractness of this
idea and the implications this can have on its practical implementation, render this area out of the scope
of this research. Nevertheless, as it will be pointed out later on, this is a must area for future research,
research that exceeds the borders of SCOR Model and Supply Chain Management and touches the
broad-spectrum areas of Business, Environment and Society.
• Why is it important to improve the SCOR Model in these or any other theoretical
directions? Couldn’t the SCC limit the application of SCOR Model to operational issues
without compromising the quality of its results?
This would be a rational, subtle question that can only be answered subjectively. The reason is that, no
matter how scientific the research approach would be, the object of this research cannot be subjected
to experiment, as in the case of a natural phenomenon, and can be thereby interpreted in more than
one ways. As a result, what seems correct to the eyes of an individual is not necessarily truth or valid.
This is both the weakness and the magic of Managerial subjects, in specific, and social sciences, in
general, who mostly look for confirmation within the mathematical domain of Statistics (Goven, 2003).
Since the specific research constitutes a qualitative approach and can only be supplemented by
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 15 -
statistical proofs in case there would be a future quantitative research on the same topic, the only way
to provide a satisfying answer is to rely on logical argumentation.
Indeed, SCOR Model is a state-of-the-art analytical tool with impressive results in the Supply Chain
Management domain. Its ability to organize operations in a general overarching context can and does
lead in rather consistent, systematic and compatible solutions. However, it deals only with one of the
functional strategies comprising the business strategy spectrum. Specifically, there are seven significant
functional strategies being used in a corporate environment, them being 1) marketing strategies, 2) new
product development strategies, 3) human resource strategies, 4) financial strategies, 5) legal strategies,
6) supply-chain strategies and 7) information technology management strategies (Abell, 1993).
In this respect, it is logically expected that each of these functional strategies should be connected to
and even directed by Business Strategy. And when it comes to the connection of supply chain Strategy
with Business Strategy, the role of SCOR Model is becoming apparent. No matter how well-organized
operations could be, their contribution to corporate performance would be negative if they were not
aligned with the general strategy. Therefore, SCOR Model should have a reliable bridging platform,
connecting the Supply Chain Management domain it represents with the overarching Business Strategy.
Whether this bridging platform should be positioned above, between or below SCOR Model is yet to be
explored.
With regard to the improvement of the model so as to successfully incorporate sustainable features,
there is not much to be said. The fact that SCC has already incorporated “green” features in the
traditional model, along with the recorded, by the SCC itself, resistance of practitioners to make use of
these features, justify why SCOR Model needs to be improved in this direction. Finally, the question
whether it is worth improving the model in other directions falls out of the scope of this research, as it
has been explained. However, in case it did not, a similar argumentation and line of reasoning would
have been used.
1.8. Summary
In this section, a first introduction to the orientation of this research is given. A quick overview of the
Supply Chain Management domain illustrates the role of SCOR Model, which is the core element of this
research. Then, SCC, the organization that created the model, is introduced and a first short description
of SCOR Model is given. On this basis the research problem is formulated. Then, the objective of this
research and the general research questions are described and the conceptual framework is created.
The section is completed with three complementary paragraphs; one examining the potential
significance of this research and the urgency for its conduction; one looking over the prospective clients
and the contribution of this research; and one reflecting on the scope of this research by defining and
defending its orientation. The key elements of this chapter are presented in the following table. The
research framework section that follows is used to set further the course of this research.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 16 -
Topic Description
Research
Problem
SCOR Model fails to recognize all the valuable input that can be derived from the Business Strategy notion and thereby leads, at best, in equal and not superior performance. On the other hand, it deals with Business Sustainability superficially and, as a result, it does not accomplish to substantially promote the adoption of sustainable solutions.
Research
Objective
1. a) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Strategy concept to the alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model b) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Sustainability concept to the successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model 2. To set the design criteria and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can effectively incorporate the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts
Research
Questions
a) How can Business Strategy practically contribute to the alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model? b) How can Business Sustainability practically contribute to the successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?
Potential
Significance This research is all scientifically, managerially and socially relevant.
Urgency
It is urgent 1) to capture the entire picture of Business Strategy and avoid dangerous misperceptions, 2) to effectively capture the concept of Business Sustainability and responsibly confront serious environmental issues, and 3) to set the foundations for exploring Business Sustainability through the promising prism of Business Strategy
Prospective
Clients
1) The SCC, 2) implementing companies, 3) consultancies, 4) researchers, 5) governmental organizations and 6) non-governmental organizations
Research
Contribution
1. Extraction of guidelines regarding the effective utilization of SCOR Model, when it comes to topics related to the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability 2. Extraction of design solutions regarding the implementation of the derived conclusions, so that they can either become part of the model or be used peripherally, in a customized and per-case basis 3. Inspiration and motivation of individuals and groups of people, willing and authorized to undertake the continuation of this endeavor on the recognized research directions, towards the establishment of substantial conclusions and solutions
Table 1-1 Summarizing key elements of the chapter
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 17 -
2. Research Framework
2.1. Introduction
The purpose of this section is to establish the research methodology and
research methods that are used towards the conduction of the qualitative
research that has been previously introduced. The previous section set
the orientation and scope of this research, and recognized the gaps that
should be bridged. It is the object of this section now to build upon the
described research orientation and establish a scientific and systematic
qualitative manner to assess the selected research topic.
In this respect, the first step includes the definition of the qualitative
research and the reasons it fits with the character of this endeavor.
Thereby, it is constructively justified why the specific research approach
has been adopted, and it becomes straightforward how the selected
research elements connect to each other. The second step focuses on the
research methodology, which basically coincides with adoption of the
triangulation method. Therefore, the triangulation method is defined and
described in deep, and it becomes apparent why it is being used and how
it contributes to the quality of this research.
Following the definition and description of the research methodology, the
third step is occupied with the selection of specific research methods. On
the basis of the qualitative research characteristics and of the
triangulation method guidelines, three research methods are chosen,
defined and described. In brief, unstructured interviews, semi-structured
interviews and archiving data are the methods used. These methods are
organized in a pattern that allows the comparison of their results and leads in conclusions with
increased reliability and validity.
Once the general directions of the research framework are set, the next step is to determine the
population of the research. Thus, the fourth step emphasizes on the supply chain experts that are
approached, in terms of the criteria upon which they have been selected. The fifth step of this section
describes the process that will be used towards the evaluation of the results. The final step enlists the
limitations of this research and recognizes corresponding mitigators. The research framework described
here is depicted on the following figure:
Figure 2-2 Research framework (van der Velde, Jansen & Anderson, 2007)
Introduction
Research Framework
Design Principles and
Conceptual Design
Interview Results
SCOR Description-Lit.
Review-Int. Framework
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Figure 2-1 Structure
Outline: Research
Framework
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 18 -
2.2. Qualitative Research
As it has been explained, this part aims to define the concept of qualitative research and illustrate the
way it coincides with the character of this research. In this direction, the characteristics of qualitative
research, as they are defined in the pertinent literature, are opposed here to those of the specific
research. The following table unifies these characteristics under universal research elements. Appendix
A presents the literature search that led to the creation of this table.
Research
Type
Research
Question
Research Aim Research
Theory
Research Strategies Data Collection
Explorative How?
Why?
Development
of Hypotheses
Not Well-
Established
Qualitative (Case
Studies or Theoretical
Research)
Mostly Interviews
(Unstructured &
Semi-structured)
Table 2-1 Explorative Research Elements (see appendix A)
To begin this comparison process, the type of this research is, first of all, clearly explorative since it
investigates how the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability can be effectively
recaptured by SCOR Model. Secondly, the general research question begins with a “How”, revealing its
explorative impetus. The output of this research, or the research aim, also fits with the described
research type, since it consists of advisory guidelines towards the enrichment of SCOR Model.
Furthermore, as it has been claimed in the introduction and is shown in the literature review section,
the research theory overarching the examined areas is not clear and well-established. Thus, it becomes
apparent that the selection of a qualitative and, in specific, theoretical research strategy is more than
justified. In this respect, interviews, unstructured or semi-structured, is the most appropriate data
collection method.
It has been shown that the research conducted here is, indeed, of qualitative nature. Thus, the design of
this research should hereafter comply with the corresponding theory about qualitative research. The
next step now is to define and describe the espoused research methodology, according to which the
data collection methods are selected later on.
2.3. Research Methodology
As it was described in the introduction, the second step of this section emphasizes on the adopted
research methodology, which coincides herewith with the triangulation method. Here is a
representative definition of triangulation (O’Donoghue & Punch, 2003):
“Triangulation is a method of cross-checking data from multiple sources to search for
regularities in the research data”.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 19 -
In other words, triangulation method aims to enhance the confidence of ensuing findings through cross-
examination of a single research topic. That is, instead of approaching a research topic through a single
research channel, this method proposes a multiple confrontation of the researched topic. This way, the
level of confidence to the outcome of the research is considered to increase, as a result of alleviating the
limitations of one research method by using the advantages of another (Alan Bryman, 2008). Extra
details on triangulation, why it is being used and how it contributes to the quality of this research are
provided in appendix B. The general idea is that, in qualitative research, the two basic factors affecting
the quality of the research are the ability and effort of the researcher to establish credibility and
trustworthiness on the results; and triangulation is a prominent research tool in this direction.
This conclusion justifies the selection of the triangulation method within the qualitative context of this
research. With regard now to the characteristics and dimensions of the triangulation method that are
used in this research, they are described later on in this section. This includes the definition of the
research methods and all the other elements that are considered by the author crucial when it comes to
increasing the trustworthiness of this research.
In brief and regarding the research methods in use, they target specific data sources, data sources that
have been chosen as vital pieces of the triangulation puzzle that is constructed here around the topic of
improving SCOR Model in the described directions. These three data sources are 1) expert knowledge, 2)
practical experience and 3) scientific impact/ theoretical evaluation of SCOR Model. These sources are
assumed to be satisfyingly covered by 1) a SC expert that is or has been part of the SCC, 2) SC
professionals that make use of the model and 3) articles and other literature sources that are directly or
indirectly related with SCOR Model and the Supply Chain Management domain, respectively. The
methods now to extract the required data from these three data sources are 1) unstructured interview,
2) semi-structured interviews and 3) archiving data respectively, and it is the object of the next
paragraph to describe these methods and put them in context.
2.4. Research Methods
With regard to the research methods that are adopted in this research, three different types are
selected. The first two, unstructured and semi-structured interviews, follow from the qualitative nature
of this research. Archiving data comes as the third methodological element that frames the research in
the way the triangulation paradigm defines. This research scheme is depicted on the following figure:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 20 -
Figure 2-3 Triangulation Method
Regarding the appropriateness of the selected methods and the way they are related and contributing
to the specific research, the following paragraphs are illustrative.
2.4.1. Unstructured Interviews
This research method is generally used in exploratory research, aiming in the acquisition of insight into
the research issue and its context (van der Velde, Jansen & Anderson, 2007). It merely contains the
introduction of the topic and the definition of major questions, in order to capture the unbiased opinion
of the interviewee. Examples of such questions can be “What do you think/ know about…?”, “In your
opinion…?” etc. This way, unstructured interviews provide the opportunity of redirecting the subject
during the interview, towards the extraction of the actual truth. As it becomes apparent, this method
puts extra weight on the opinion of the interviewee, which correspondingly should be of an analogous
caliber. In the context of the specific research now, one unstructured interview has been used in the
early beginning, so as to provide a deeper and objective overview of the topic and set the general
research guidelines. The disadvantages of this method are mostly related to the fact that it is time-
consuming, cost-inefficient and presents low speed of data collection. However, all these characteristics
can be dealt with by personal work and be shouldered on the enthusiasm of the researcher. Other
disadvantages refer to the generalizability and reliability of the interview results. As it has been
discussed though, triangulation method is considered to be sufficient in dealing with these issues.
2.4.2. Archiving Data
This method is described by the collection and analysis of existing material, which is basically performed
through a literature review. The purpose of this method is to lead in a meta-analysis, i.e. not to re-
analyze results, but to analyze combined results of various studies around one topic (van der Velde,
Jansen & Anderson, 2007). In this context, relevant scientific articles and primary publications are
gathered and their conclusions are synthesized towards the extraction of valuable directions for further
research. The main advantage of this method is that it can combine various studies and lead to valuable
generalizations. Its main disadvantage, in qualitative terms, is the time it requires to make diverse data
comparable and compatible, a disadvantage that can be again dealt with by the personal work of the
researcher.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 21 -
2.4.3. Semi-structured Interviews
This method stands between the unstructured and structured interview approaches. The purpose of
semi-structured interviews is still explorative, yet ready to focus on more specific research areas (van
der Velde, Jansen & Anderson, 2007). These areas are set here by unstructured interviews and data
archives. Then, a questionnaire is developed, containing open questions that explore the already set
research guidelines. These questions are open in the sense that they do not offer choices of answers.
They merely introduce an issue, an unexplored area. Apparently, these semi-structured interviews are
communicated to respondents that have a direct or indirect experience with the object of this research,
i.e. SCOR Model. In addition though, a semi-structured interview is also used as a mean to evaluate the
ensuing findings. The population that will be called to participate in these interviews and the relevant
selection criteria are described later on in this section. Regarding the advantages and disadvantages of
this research method, they coincide with those of unstructured interviews and are dealt with in the
same way.
2.4.4. Interrelation of the Research Methods
The way the research methods in use interrelate can be seen on their description. The unstructured
interview is used on top of the other methods and as a mean to validate the research idea and guide the
application of the other two methods. On the basis set by the unstructured interview, the archiving data
method searches for relevant articles and publications that can be used for a meta-analysis on the
selected research subject. Finally, this meta-analysis, along with the guidelines defined by the
unstructured interview, set the grounds for the formulation of the semi-structured interviews which are
meant to capture and systemize the opinions of the experts on the research subject, so as to lead in
valuable conclusions. Apparently, the findings of the semi-structured interviews can subsequently give
feedback on the completeness and the effectiveness of the literature search and the unstructured
interview respectively.
This paragraph was used to define and describe the research methods hereby used. Another issue that
needs to be clarified is the population of the respondents and the relevant selection criteria. These
issues are being dealt with in the following paragraph.
2.5. Sample Selection
Apart from the theoretical part of defining the elements of the research framework, the practical part of
selecting and approaching the actual respondents is of equal, if not greater, importance. Therefore, a
systematic approach is required for this process as well. The most important part in this direction is to
carefully set the criteria of this selection. It is noted that this selection refers to the respondents of the
semi-structured interviews.
The first criterion describes the given and granted connection of all the respondents with the main
component of this research, i.e. SCOR Model. It is necessary for the respondents to be familiar with the
functions and philosophy of the model so as to understand the topics discussed and contribute
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 22 -
substantially in their confrontation. In this respect, all the respondents need to be registered as SCOR
model subscribers. An extensive list of such companies, containing more than 900 members, can be
found on the website of SCC (2009). The second criterion is related to the overall performance of the
selected companies. In other words, interference with Supply Chain Management is necessary but not
sufficient. The participants in this research need to have a deep understanding of supply chain
excellence and the way it is achieved. Thus, all the respondents will work for companies well-established
in their industry and their pertinent supply chain(s).
The third criterion refers to the personal experience and competence of the respondents. That is, being
familiar with SCOR Model is not sufficient. The individuals that will participate in this research need to
be highly experienced in terms of Supply Chain Management and in position to take strategic and
operational decisions on a regular basis. In this regard, all the respondents will be SC senior employers
of the companies they work for. The final criterion seeks to reassure the involvement of all the
stakeholders related in the specific research topic. As it was recognized in the introduction section,
these stakeholders namely are the SCC, companies, consultancies and potentially governmental and
non-governmental organizations. Given that the interference of the latter was stated to be only
peripheral, respondents from the SCC, companies and consultancies are needed in this research.
Sample Selection Criteria
1) • SC senior employers
2) • Employment in well-established companies & consultancies
3) • Employment in companies registered as SCOR Model subscribers
Table 2-2 Sample Selection Criteria
To sum-up the profile of the respondents to be selected, SC senior employers will be here sought for,
employed by well-established companies and consultancies, registered as SCOR Model subscribers. The
question now is what the minimum number of respondents, or else the appropriate sample size. While
answering this question it is prominent to keep in mind the qualitative nature of this research. That is,
the conversation, in general, is about quality, not quantity. In this respect, the number of respondents is
only peripherally relevant to the validity or trustworthiness of this research. The fundamental element
that provides the results of this –and any other qualitative- research with credibility is the effort of the
researcher and the method adopted.
In this respect, it was decided that four interviews are sufficient for data convergence and towards
reaching theoretical consensus. Details about the respondents will be given in the interview results
section, up to the extent that the pertinent requests for secrecy and anonymity are not violated. It is
merely noted here that the respondents are employed by different and prominent companies, which
have been selected randomly, basically on the criterion of availability, and, although diverse, they are
assumed to take the same stand on SCOR Model standards. The sufficiency of the four decisions is
supported by the sampling strategy adopted here, assuming a critical case, which generates criteria,
from a homogeneous sample, with constraints of convenience. Details on the line of reasoning and the
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 23 -
literature supporting this strategy can be found in appendix C. In general, the confidence for the
sufficiency of the four interviews is based on two facts. Firstly, the fast convergence of the results is a
strong indication of the credibility of the developed theory. Secondly, the interviews constitute only one
part of the triangulation method adopted in this research. That is, the parallel contribution of the
unstructured interview and of the data archives increases the confidence in these results critically.
This paragraph set the criteria for the sample selection, took a look on the adopted sampling strategy
and systematically concluded on the semi-structured interviews sample size (see appendix C). Following
the definition of the population interfering with this research, the final important element, regarding
the effectiveness of this research framework, is the evaluation phase, or the channel through which the
derived results will be assessed.
2.6. Research Evaluation
Following the data collection phase, a way to evaluate the final results is needed. Apparently, apart from
common sense, the SCC point of view would be of substantial contribution in this evaluation process.
Given the educational resources and practical experience of the SCC, it is certain that the results of this
research can be substantially and objectively evaluated by one of its current or former employees.
In this respect, Mr. Wolfs, the SC senior manager that has been a member of SCC in the past and is
responding the initial unstructured interview, presents an ideal prospect, for a number of reasons. First
of all, he is an experienced highly-positioned supply chain manager; secondly, he has experience with
the SCOR Model since he was working for the SCC in a position of high responsibility; and thirdly, he is
familiar with this research approach and its purpose.
Regarding the evaluation channel, the concept is quite straightforward. Following the completion of the
data collection and the analysis of the results, the derived observations and conclusions get through the
evaluation funnel of the SC expert. During this process, the expert judges the completeness and
potential of all the conclusions and solutions respectively. His ideas and comments are recorded and
used, towards the assessment of the research results and the elevation of the research quality.
It has to be noted that, apart from the basic channel of evaluation described here, the special care put
on the research framework and during the data acquisition process are also considered to be prominent
elements in this evaluation direction. The utilization of research guidelines extracted from state-of-the-
art literature and the overall tendency of the research framework to stick to a carefully created research
protocol are considered to dramatically enhance the filtering process that removes abundant or of
secondary importance data.
2.7. Research Limitations
As any type of research, this endeavor here presents some limitations, it has been based on some
assumptions and is framed by a number of constraints that affect the magnitude of its impact. Whether
this affect is major or minor, this is to be decided individually, by the actual reader. The purpose of this
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 24 -
paragraph is to recognize and enlist these limitations, so as to declare knowledge of their existence and,
thereby, reduce their effect.
Limitations Mitigators
1) Unpredictavle nature of qualitative research Systematic and constructive research approach
2)
Research decisions (sample selection criteria,
sample size, appropriateness of respondents,
ability of the researcher)
Assessment of corresponding literature
3) Research context (qualitative thesis: time and
budget constraints)
Dedicated work, well-structured planning,
careful selection of the boundaries between the
teritorries of current and future research.
Table 2-3 Research Limitations and Corresponding Mitigators
In this regard, the main issue constraining the impact of this research is the qualitative type of its same
nature. That is, it is not always possible, in qualitative terms, to capture the essence of the problem and
provide a tangible solution or advice. The chance of being left with nothing but unrelated data is not to
be neglected and extra attention is required in this direction. Therefore, a systematic and constructive
research approach has been chosen, as a mitigator of this limitation. A step-by-step confrontation of the
research problem is considered sufficient to direct the collection, organization, analysis and synthesis of
data towards valuable conclusions and tangible solutions.
Other limitations characterizing this research are related with a number of decisions that have been
made during the pertinent research set-up. The sample selection criteria, the sample size, the quality
and appropriateness of the respondents, even the ability of the researcher to conduct the interviews
could be seen as inhibiting factors. Again, as it has been claimed under the research methodology
paragraph, when it comes to qualitative research, trustworthiness on the results is translated as trust on
the ability of the researcher to run the research. There are no objective criteria such as the reliability
and validity ones in quantitative research. The only relevant action that can be taken is the assessment
of corresponding literature so as to gather and comply with already established approaches and
practices; and this action has definetely been a vital part of this research, as the extensive corresponding
appendices indicate.
A final issue limiting the effectiveness of this research, is the overall context within which this researh is
taking place. That is, as an MSc dissertation, this research is seriously limited by time and budget
constraints. Along with the unpredictable and hard to schedule nature of qualitative research, there
could be a problem created at this point. However, dedicated work and well-structured planning are
considered to be dynamos, sufficient to confront this limitation. Additionally, another key mitigator of
this constraint is the careful selection of the boundaries between the teritorries of current and future
research.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 25 -
2.8. Summary
This section is occupied with the creation of a research framework, able to guide and guarantee the
conduction of a state-of-the-art research. In this respect, qualitative research is defined and it is shown
how much compatible it is with the nature of this research. Then, the same happens with the
triangulation method. Furthermore, the research methods used in the adopted triangulation scheme are
described. Subsequently, extra attention is placed on the sample selected, and specifically on the
selection criteria and on the sample size. Next, the evaluation channel, used for the assessment of the
results, is described. The section is completed with an analysis of the limitations characterizing this
research and the recognition of the corresponding mitigators. The key elements of this chapter are
presented in the following table.
Topic Description
Qualitative
Research
The type of this research is clearly explorative, with a general research question beginning with a “How” and with a corresponding research aim to produce advisory guidelines, over an unclear and not well-established theory.
Triangulation
Methodology
Triangulation method proposes a multiple confrontation of the researched topic, so as to enhance the ability and effort of the researcher to establish credibility and trustworthiness on the qualitative results.
Research
Methods
1) Unstructured interview with a former member of the SC, aiming to collect expert knowledge on SCOR Model 2) Semi-structured interviews with SC professionals of implementing companies, aiming to collect practical knowledge on SCOR Model 3) Archiving data from the literature, aiming to collect scientific input and theoretical knowledge on and peripherally to SCOR Model
Sample
Selection
The selection criteria create the profile of SC senior employers, employed by different and random well-established companies and consultancies, which are registered as SCOR Model subscribers. The sample size is decided to be four, on the basis of a critical case/ criterion/ homogeneous/ convenience sampling strategy.
Research
Evaluation
It mainly relies on the experience of a SC expert, former member of the SCC, as well as on the integrity of the research framework.
Research
Limitations
and
Mitigators
1) Unpredictable nature of qualitative research, mitigated by systematic and constructive research approach 2) Research decisions and assumptions, mitigated by a systematic assessment of the corresponding literature 3) Thesis research constraints, mitigated by dedicated work, well-structured planning, careful selection of current and future research boundaries.
Table 2-4 Summarizing key elements of the chapter
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 26 -
3. SCOR Model Description, Literature Review & Interview Framework
3.1. Introduction
The purpose of this section is to logically and scientifically support the
research that is conducted here and the methodology that has been
adopted in this direction. That is, being the realization of the archiving
data method, this section performs an initial exploration of the research
problem, an exploration that aims to systemize the relevant existing
knowledge and point out specific grey areas that can be subsequently
confronted by the interview sessions. In this respect, the topic and the
problem of this research are analyzed and grounded on literature efforts
of well-respected authors and analysts of related academic domains. The
line of reasoning followed in this direction is quite straightforward.
First of all, SCOR Model is being assessed. This includes a general
description of the model and the way it functions, a description that
emphasizes on these elements of the model that are considered to be
related to the orientation of this research, i.e. how Business Strategy and
Business Sustainability can contribute in the enhancement of the model.
Secondly and following this introduction, the literature review begins and
focuses on the issues and opportunities for improvement, having been
recorded on selected SCOR Model evaluation attempts. Once the room
for improvement has been mapped, the opportunities for improvement
that are or can be related with and reclaimed by the Business Strategy and
Business Sustainability concepts are located. Specifically, the research is
narrowed down on two opportunities for improvement, i.e. alleviation of benchmarking characteristics
and facilitation of “green” features incorporation, and on how Business Strategy and Business
Sustainability can help in these directions respectively. After establishing an initial correlation between
the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts, and the located opportunities for
improvement, the scope of the literature review turns to the assessment of these principle concepts. In
this respect, multiple scientific articles are investigated.
Thirdly, the conclusions derived from the literature are compared to the current approaches of the SCOR
Model, and the results of this comparison are synthesized towards the construction of a systemized
framework of potential strategic and sustainable contribution to the improvement of the SCOR Model,
again towards the described directions. Thereby, the basis of the explorative research is formed, since it
becomes apparent which are the topics that have been dealt with so far and which require further
attention. This framework is named hereafter interview framework, since it maps the grey areas that are
explored later on by the semi-structured interviews. The described logical path, or else line of reasoning,
is depicted on the following figure:
Introduction
Research Framework
Design Principles and
Conceptual Design
Interview Results
SCOR Description-Lit.
Review-Int. Framework
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Figure 3-1 Structure
Outline: Literature Review
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 27 -
Figure 3-2 Logical path of the Literature Review section: From the Research Problem Definition to the
Interview Framework
3.2. SCOR Model Description
The Supply-Chain Operations Reference-model (SCOR) constitutes the endeavor of the Supply-Chain
Council (SCC) to capture, assess and organize supply chain managerial issues so as to formulate a
framework of supply chain analysis and improvement and a communications platform among various
actors of diverse supply chains. Although most of the SCOR content has been informally used for several
years, the specific approach illustrates a unique way to correlate business processes, metrics, best
practices and technology features. Towards the establishment and sustainability of the model’s state-of-
the-art character, SCC by definition involves numerous companies that contribute to a constant update
and enrichment of the model through participation in specialized development projects. The eight basic
functionalities of the model are separately presented and analyzed below:
3.2.1. 1st Functionality: Cross-Functional Skeleton
SCOR, as a process reference model, unifies well-known concepts of business process reengineering,
benchmarking and process measurement into a cross-functional skeleton. In detail, it captures the “as-
is” state of a process and derives the desired “to-be” future state, it quantifies the operational
performance of similar companies and establishes internal targets based on “best-in-class” results and it
characterizes the management practices and software solutions that result in “best-in-class”
performance.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 28 -
Figure 3-3 Cross-Functional Skeleton of the Process Reference Model (SCC, 2009)
3.2.2. 2nd Functionality: Five Core Management Processes
SCOR is basically analyzed upon five distinct processes, them being the plan, source, make, deliver and
return processes. This is a first attempt of the model to systemize the managerial approach. A detailed
overview of these processes is given on the following table:
General Overview Detailed Description
Pla
n
Processes that
balance aggregate
demand and supply to
develop a course of
action which best
meets sourcing,
production and
delivery requirements
• Balance resources with requirements and establish/communicate plans
for the whole supply chain, including Return, and the execution
processes of Source, Make, and Deliver
• Management of business rules, supply chain performance, data
collection, inventory, capital assets, transportation, planning
configuration, regulatory requirements and compliance, and supply
chain risk
• Align the supply chain unit plan with the financial plan
So
urc
e
Processes that
procure goods and
services to meet
planned or
actual demand
• Schedule deliveries; receive, verify, and transfer product; and authorize
supplier payments
• Identify and select supply sources when not predetermined, as for
engineer-to-order product
• Manage business rules, assess supplier performance, and maintain data.
• Manage inventory, capital assets, incoming product, supplier network,
import/export requirements, supplier agreements, and supply chain
source risk
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 29 -
Ma
ke
Processes that
transform product to
a finished state to
meet planned or
actual demand
• Schedule production activities, issue product, produce and test,
package, stage product, and release product to deliver. With the
addition of Green to SCOR, there are now processes specifically for
Waste Disposal in MAKE
• Finalize engineering for engineer-to-order product
• Manage rules, performance, data, in-process products (WIP), equipment
and facilities, transportation, production network, regulatory
compliance for production, and supply chain make risk
De
liv
er
Processes that provide
finished goods and
services to meet
planned or actual
demand, typically
including order
management,
transportation
management, and
distribution
management
• All order management steps from processing customer inquiries and
quotes to routing shipments and selecting carriers
• Warehouse management from receiving and picking product to load
and ship product
• Receive and verify product at customer site and install, if necessary.
• Invoicing customer
• Manage Deliver business rules, performance, information, finished
product inventories, capital assets, transportation, product life cycle,
import/export requirements, and supply chain deliver risk
Re
turn
Processes associated
with returning or
receiving returned
products for any
reason.
These processes
extend into post-
delivery customer
support
• All Return Defective Product steps from source–identify product
condition, disposition product, request product return authorization,
schedule product shipment, and return defective product–and deliver–
authorized product return, schedule return receipt, receive product, and
transfer defective product
• All Return Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul product steps from
source–identify product condition, disposition product, request product
return authorization, schedule product shipment, and return MRO
product–and deliver–authorize product return, schedule return receipt,
receive product, and transfer MRO product
• All Return Excess Product steps from source–identify product condition,
disposition product, request product return authorization, schedule
product shipment, and return excess product–and deliver–authorize
product return, schedule return receipt, receive product, and transfer
excess product
• Manage Return business rules, performance, data collection, return
inventory, capital assets, transportation, network configuration,
regulatory requirements and compliance, and supply chain return risk
Table 3-1 Description of SCOR Model’s Five Core Management processes (SCC, 2009)
3.2.3. 3rd Functionality: Three Product Types
Furthermore, products in the SCOR model are also classified in three categories, them being stocked,
made-to-order and engineered-to-order products. Again, the idea behind this classification is in parallel
with the systematic approach of the model. Details on these product types are given on the following
table:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 30 -
Product Type Characteristics Example
Stocked Product
• Inventory Driven (Plan)
• Standard Material Orders
• High Fill-rate, short turnaround
A retail air conditioner which is
pulled off the shelf, and restocked
based on SKU
Make-to-Order
• Customer Order Driven
• Configurable Materials
• Longer turn-around times
A car is built with a particular
combination of colors and features
and ordered from a distributor
Engineer-to-Order
• Customer Requirements Driven
• Sourcing New Materials
• Longest long lead-times, low fill rates
An architect and engineer creates
a new kitchen for you, with some
custom-build and custom-sourced
materials
Table 3-2 Description of SCOR Model’s Product Types (SCC, 2009)
3.2.4. 4th Functionality: Model Scope and Structure
A direct result of this systematic approach of SCOR Model is the expansion of its implementation
boundaries. That is,
the constructive
categorization of
processes and
products described so
far, allows the scope
of the model to be
quite wide, exceeding
from suppliers’
supplier to customers’
customer, while it can
thereby consider
multiple aspects
including all customer
interactions, product transactions and market interactions.
3.2.5. 5th Functionality: Three Levels of Analysis
Another advantage, deriving from the methodical character of the SCOR Model, is the possibility to
choose the level of the analysis’ depth. SCOR Model consists of three levels of analysis, the description
and connection of which is depicted on the following figure.
Source Make Deliver
Return Return
Source Make Deliver
Return Return
Source Make Deliver
Return Return
Plan
Deliver
Return
Source
Return
Plan
Plan
Supplier’s
Supplier
Supplier
Internal or External
Customer
Internal or External
Your Company Customer’s
Customer
Figure 3-4 Model Scope and Structure (SCC, 2009)
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 31 -
Figure 3-5 Description of the three levels of the SCOR Model (SCC, 2009)
At this point it can be shown how various processes of various levels are codified within SCOR Model.
First of all, at the first level, P stands for Plan elements, S for Source elements, M for Make elements, D
for Deliver elements and R for Return elements. SR stands for Source Return and DR for Deliver Return.
E can be used before all these elements to indicate an Enable element, i.e. EP stands for Enable Plan
Element. Secondly, at the second level, 1, 2 and 3 are used right after the described capital initials to
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 32 -
indicate a Stocked, Made-to-order and Engineered-to-order type of product respectively (i.e. S2 stands
for Source Stocked Product, M3 for Make Engineer-to-order Product etc.). Finally, another number can
be added in the end of these abbreviations, during a third level analysis and in an attempt to decompose
further a level two process category i.e. S1, or Source Stocked product in its S1.1, S1.2, S1.3 etc. level
three process elements (indicatively S1.2 stands for Receive Product).
3.2.6. 6th Functionality: Practical Implementation
It has become clear so far how the model promotes the methodical positioning of the implementing
company within its supply chain, by organizing its own managerial processes, by connecting them with
those of collaborating supply chain actors, by defining the type of the product it handles and by
determining the level of analysis’ depth required per occasion. The second prominent aspect that needs
to be examined is how the model leads to the realization of decisions regarding the improvement of its
supply chain performance.
Once the “as-is” state of the company is captured, the recognized process types, categories or elements
(depending on the level of the analysis’ depth) are benchmarked to the corresponding of the company’s
“best-in-class” competitors. This benchmarking process similarly follows a rather systematic approach.
SCOR Model uses a number of Metrics in conjunction with Performance Attributes in this direction. That
is, it describes supply chain performance on the basis of five representative Attributes, each of which is
correlated with a number of Metrics. These Attributes are namely SC Reliability, SC Responsiveness, SC
Agility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency, with the three first being categorized as Customer-Facing and
the last two as Internal-Facing. The definitions of these Attributes, along with some representative
Performance Metrics, are given on the following table:
Performance Attribute Definition Metrics
SC Reliability
The performance of the supply chain in
delivering: the correct product, to the
correct place, at the correct time, in the
correct condition and packaging, in the
correct quantity, with the correct
documentation, to the correct customer.
• Delivery Performance
• Fill Rates
• Perfect Order Fulfillment
SC Responsiveness
The velocity at which a supply chain provides
products to the customer.
• Order Fulfillment Lead
Times
SC Agility
The agility of a supply chain in responding to
marketplace changes to gain or maintain
competitive advantage.
• SC Response Time
• Production Flexibility
SC Costs
The costs associated with operating the
supply chain.
• Cost of Goods Sold
• Total SC Management
Costs
• Value-Added Productivity
• Warranty/ Returns
• Processing Costs
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 33 -
SC Assets Efficiency
The effectiveness of an organization in
managing assets to support demand
satisfaction. This includes the management
of all assets: fixed and working capital.
• Cash-to-Cash Cycle Time
• Inventory Days of Supply
• Asset Returns
Table 3-3 Description of the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model (SCC, 2009)
Thereby, the implementing company can determine with the preciseness it desires how satisfyingly it
performs on each of these Performance Attributes, simply by selecting representative corresponding
Metrics and comparing its performance on those with the occasional best-in-class performance. An
illustrative example of this approach (Francis, 2007) is given below.
The following table is the simplest version of the described benchmarking process that the
implementing company needs to execute. The five Performance Attributes appear on the left side of the
table. Each of them is accompanied with a single Metric. It is noted that there is a pool of more than 250
Metrics in the SCOR reference guide, the purpose of this example, though, renders their inclusion
meaningless. In general, mature corporations choose smartly between 10 and 40 Metrics, trying to
achieve a 1:1 analogy to their customers’ expectations. The third column contains the performance of
the implementing company on each of these Metrics, corresponding in this case to each of the five
Performance Attributes. The numbers are simple representative indications with no connection to any
real corporation.
Attribute Metric Company Parity Advantage Superior Parity
Gap
Competitive
Gap
Reliability
Perfect
Order
Fulfillment
98%
Responsiveness
Order
Fulfillment
Cycle Time
14 days
Flexibility
Upside
Supply Chain
Flexibility
62 days
Cost
Supply Chain
Management
Cost
2.1%
Assets Return on
Fixed Assets 289%
Table 3-4 Simple SCORcard Example (Francis, 2007)
Once the performance of the company is mapped, the benchmarking process is ready to begin. In this
respect, SCC provides users with datasets of benchmarking information. The median value of the
benchmarking dataset is generally chosen to indicate “Parity”, meaning that half of the competitors
perform worse and half perform better than a company that is at parity. Similarly, a 90% percentile
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 34 -
value of the benchmarking dataset is chosen to indicate “Superior” performance, with obvious
implications for the companies that fit in this category. Finally, “Advantage” is defined as the midpoint
between “Superior” and “Parity”. Apparently, different set-points can be chosen depending on the case
and on the benchmarking experience of the implementing company. Based on these guidelines, the
SCORcard table can be filled in and the parity gap of the implementing company –meaning the distance
of the company from performance at parity- can be calculated:
Attribute Metric Company Parity Advantage Superior Parity
Gap
Competitive
Gap
Reliability
Perfect
Order
Fulfillment
98% 92% 96% 98% -6%
Responsiveness
Order
Fulfillment
Cycle Time
14 days 8 days 6 days 4 days 6 days
Flexibility
Upside
Supply Chain
Flexibility
62 days 80 days 62 days 40 days -18 days
Cost
Supply Chain
Management
Cost
2.1% 2.8% 2.4% 2.2% -0.7%
Assets Return on
Fixed Assets 289% 100% 150% 200% -189%
Table 3-5 Calculation of the Parity Gap (Francis, 2007)
The final step describes the calculation of the competitive gap, or else the distance of the company from
a competitive position. In doing so, the implementing company needs to define first the desired
competitive position. This can be done by deciding in advance whether the target is to be at parity, or
advantageous, or superior, for each of the five Performance Attributes. It is mentioned that the general
rule allows “Superior” label only on one Attribute, “Advantage” on two and “Parity” on two. For the
specific example, this process is taking place on the following handy chart, which indicates the desired
competitive position of the implementing company:
Attribute Competitive Position
Reliability Advantage
Responsiveness Superior
Flexibility Advantage
Cost Parity
Assets Parity
Table 3-6 Competitive Positioning Chart (Francis, 2007)
On this basis, the competitive gap can be now calculated. For the Reliability Attribute, where
advantageous performance is sought for, the company of the example has a 2% gap to “deteriorate” its
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 35 -
performance. On the contrary, for the Responsiveness Attribute, where superior performance is sought
for, the company needs to bridge a gap of 10 days. On the same way, the rest of the competitive gap
column is filled in:
Attribute Metric Company Parity Advantage Superior Parity
Gap
Competitive
Gap
Reliability
Perfect
Order
Fulfillment
98% 92% 96% 98% -6% -2%
Responsiveness
Order
Fulfillment
Cycle Time
14 days 8 days 6 days 4 days 6 days 10 days
Flexibility
Upside
Supply Chain
Flexibility
62 days 80 days 62 days 40 days -18 days 0 days
Cost
Supply Chain
Management
Cost
2.1% 2.8% 2.4% 2.2% -0.7% -0.7%
Assets Return on
Fixed Assets 289% 100% 150% 200% -189% -189%
Table 3-7 Calculation of the Competitive Gap (Francis, 2007)
As it is shown by this simple example, the rather constructive and methodical approach of the SCOR
Model yields tangible and concrete targets for an implementing company that seeks for establishing the
competitive position it aspires.
3.2.7. 7th Functionality: Configurability
An additional characteristic of the SCOR Model that requires special attention is what the SCC defines as
the Concept of “Configurability”. Examining the physical elements hidden behind the management
processes recognized within the SCOR Model can reveal the drivers of a supply-chain configuration.
Specifically, “Plan” can refer to levels of aggregation and information sources; “Source”, to locations and
products; “Make”, to production sites and methods; “Deliver”, to channels, inventory deployment and
products; and “Return” to locations and methods. It can be seen that the recognized management
processes refer to physical elements that are or should be interrelated. In fact, SCC recognizes that each
intersection of two execution processes (such as Source-Make-Deliver) is a “link” in the supply chain,
while each link is a customer of the previous and a supplier to the next link.
SCOR Model, understanding that it should accurately reflect how a supply-chain’s configuration can
impact management processes and practices, uses Planning Processes to manage the described
customer-supplier links. In other words, it recognizes that every link requires the occurrence of a
planning activity and it uses Planning Processes on each one of them to facilitate the cooperation
between the actors involved and “balance” the supply chain.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 36 -
Figure 3-6 The Concept of “Configurability” (SCC, 2009)
In this direction, SCOR Model recognizes different types of models to simulate this planning
intervention, since each occasion requires different handling. In this respect, four types of models are
used. These types of models are presented on the following table and figures. The example of the
imaginary mp3 Incorporation is used to indicate the way an implementing company applies the model
on various operational aspects and levels.
Model Types
Business Scope Diagrams To set the scope for a project or organization
Geographic Maps To describe material flows in a geographic context
and highlight node complexity or redundancy
Thread Diagrams
Material flow diagrams that focus on level 2
process connectivity and describe high level
process complexity or redundancy
Workflow or Process Models
Information, material and work flow level 3
diagrams that highlight information, people and
system interaction issues
Figure 3-7 Types of Models Simulating the Planning Intervention towards SC Configurability (SCC,
2009)
Figure 3-8 Business Scope Diagram (SCC, 2009)
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 37 -
Figure 3-9 Geographic Map (SCC, 2009)
Figure 3-10 Thread Diagram (SCC, 2009)
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 38 -
Figure 3-11 Workflow or Process Model (SCC, 2009)
3.2.8. 8th Functionality: Sustainability Incorporation
Finally, from version 9.0 and on, SCOR Model has included process elements addressing environmental
aspects of Supply Chain Management (SCC, 2009). This way, practitioners have the possibility to manage
their supply chain operations while keeping Sustainability in mind. These “green” process elements are
followed by a set of total environmental footprint metrics and green best practices, which allow the
connection of environmental aspects with supply chain strategy. To illustrate, a “Make” green process is
Waste Disposal, defined as “activities associated with collecting and managing waste produced during
the produce and test process including scrap material and non-conforming product”; corresponding
metrics are 1) Waste Processing Errors, 2) Waste Accumulation Time, 3) Waste Storage Costs as % of
Make Costs, 4) Hazardous Waste as % of Total Waste and 5) Recyclable Waste as % of Total Waste; and
an example of green best practice would be Storm Water Prevention Plans, defined as “storm water
prevention and spill control plans for waste accumulation areas”.
The sustainability approach adopted by SCOR Model is a close derivative of Environmental Accounting,
as it is described by the following definition:
“Environmental or Green Accounting is an area [of accounting] which identifies resource use, measures
and communicates costs of a company’s or national economy’s impact on the environment. Costs include
cost to clean up or remediate contaminated sites, environmental fines, penalties and taxes, purchase of
pollution prevention technologies and waste management costs” (Hecht, 2005)
Apart from the corrective action described in this definition, SCOR Model also undertakes the
calculation of actual pollution. This calculating process is based on four main types of waste, them being
(SCC, 2009):
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 39 -
Main Types of Waste
Carbon: Green house gas emissions (CO₂)
Air Pollutants: Major emissions tracked by the U.S. EPA (COx, NOx, SOx, and more)
Liquid Waste: Liquid waste disposed or released to open water or sewer systems
Solid Waste: Solid waste generated
Table 3-8 List of waste types towards pollution calculation within SCOR Model (SCC, 2009)
It is noted that the metric “% Waste Recycled” is used for the case of solid waste and is subtracted from
the total waste generated. In general, the green character of the SCOR Model 9.0 release offers a
number of additional sustainability-oriented capabilities which are described on the following table:
Sustainability-oriented capabilities
• Industry best practices for making the supply chain more environmentally friendly, such as
collaborating with partners on environmental issues, reducing fuel and energy consumption, and
minimizing and reusing packaging materials
• Metrics to measure the effects of greening, including carbon and environmental footprint, emissions
costs per unit, energy costs as a percent of production costs, waste produced as a percent of product
produced, and returned products disposed of versus remanufactured.
• Processes to address waste management, such as how to collect and manage waste produced during
production and testing (including scrap metal and nonconforming product).
• The green capabilities within SCOR 9.0 not only make it easier for companies to comply with
governmental and other regulations, but they also can improve overall supply-chain performance by
identifying ways to reduce consumption and waste.
Table 3-9 List of sustainability-oriented capabilities (SCC, 2009)
3.3. Literature Review
3.3.1. Mapping the Room for Improvement
Following the introduction and description of the SCOR Model and the way it functions, it is now time to
locate the directions that could lead to the model’s further improvement. In this respect, a literature
review on the SCOR model is a constructive step towards noticing the “grey” areas of the model,
recorded by experts of the Supply Chain Management community. There have been several reports and
articles focusing on the evaluation of the SCOR Model. Gathering the findings of these efforts is the first
step towards assessing the model and its pertinent room for improvement. Then, it can be
systematically derived which of the recorded issues are worth and interesting to be explored.
In this respect, Poluha (2007) noticed, while evaluating SCOR Model that, in spite of the popularity of
the SCOR Model, there is a lack of scientific foundations about its applicability that hampers its diffusion.
Specifically, he observed that scientific community has been occupied with validating the results of the
model, disregarding the appropriateness of the model’s structure itself. Therefore, he initiated an
exploratory attempt for the creation of a theory that, among other things, would provide an indication
of gaps in present knowledge. In this direction, he concluded that SCOR Model could be enriched with
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 40 -
additional factors that can improve the results of the model, such as the company type and region and
the human factor. Furthermore, he located incapacity of the model to capture financial performance,
when it comes to performance measurement, mainly because SCOR Model uses a number of non-
monetary metrics that cannot be easily aggregated. Thus, he proposes an association of the Balanced
Scorecard metrics with the SCOR Model performance measurement process. Thereby, not only the
performance measurement effectiveness will be increased, but also the inclusion of employees in this
process will be facilitated, reducing the negative effects falling under the human factor category.
On the other hand, Huang, Sheoran and Wang (2004), although recognizing the potential of the SCOR
Model to become an industry standard, they focus on the way it could include aspects related to Change
Management. First of all, they claim that Market Analysis, or else understanding customer needs and
adjusting supply chain accordingly, is “the key input to the future strategic decisions of the SCOR Model
and should receive analogous attention”. Secondly, it is recognized that companies cannot any longer
meet the expense of competing as individual entities and they need to advance to network or chain
competition, what can be otherwise named as integration to synchronization. Thus, SCOR Model should
be rather flexible and agile to capture, guide and synchronize these alliance dynamics. Finally, in order
to effectively provide solution to these matters, SCOR Model should include advanced network
modeling tools, allowing companies to properly map the pertinent dynamics and thereby improving the
related decision making processes.
Furthermore, the SCOR Model description provided is sufficient to ground the benchmarking character
of the SCOR Model. As a consequence, it is logical to expect and identify the effects of benchmarking
practices within the model. In this respect, Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) recorded three main deficiencies of
benchmarking practices, deficiencies that are directly related to the SCOR Model. At first, strong
emphasis on copying successful practices can at best lead to perfect imitation. Secondly, practices that
are copied are often the most visible and superficial ones. Finally, careless imitation of successful
practices is a usual phenomenon with potential harmful results. Similarly, Hammer and Champy (1993)
also point out that “benchmarking is a tool for catching up, not for jumping way ahead”. The same
conclusions are derived by Kaplan (2005) as well, who claims that “when you ignore the differentiated
output that internal support or shared services groups provide, such straight-across cost or numeric
comparisons become meaningless”. In general, benchmarking does not reassure success, since there is
no guarantee that what is optimal for one company will be equally effective for another (Cox, 1998).
Finally, SCC itself has observed that, although available, most of the companies resist in using the
integrated “green” sustainable features (SCC, 2009). This problem is mainly located on the
organizational and business cultural differences, evident between supply chain and environmental
representatives. To illustrate, diverse goals and priorities prevent these two business segments from
collaborating fruitfully and as a result, although the necessary philosophy and software are available,
they are not used properly.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 41 -
This first review of the literature points out the most prominent opportunities for improving SCOR
Model, as they were recorded by well-respected authors of relevant scientific fields. These opportunities
are summarized on the following table:
Opportunities for Improvement
• Improving the Model by Incorporating Additional Factors, such as Financial Performance
• Improving the Model by Considering the Concept of Change Management
• Improving the Model by Alleviating the Effects of Benchmarking
• Improving the Model by Enhancing the Process of Sustainability Incorporation
Table 3-10 Located Opportunities for Improving SCOR Model
Among these issues, there are some rather compatible with the scope of this research, as it is expressed
by the general guideline of enhancing SCOR Model through the Business Strategy and Business
Sustainability concepts. Specifically, Business Strategy could aid in the alleviation of the model’s
benchmarking issues, while Business Sustainability could facilitate the introduction and implementation
of the synonymous sustainable features within the model. While the justification of the second
correlation is quite apparent, the first correlation needs extra support, which is provided on the
“Business Strategy Potential Contribution” part through representative definitions. One way or another,
these are the two correlations that are explored within this qualitative research.
This first literature exploration is actually serving as an initial establishment of a correlation of strategic
and sustainable aspects with supply chain managerial solutions. Apparently, there may be more
correlations on the same direction. However, locating all these correlations is not the object of this
research. What is aimed for here is to examine how Business Strategy and Business Sustainability can
respectively contribute to and how they are interrelated with the benchmarking and sustainable issues
of the SCOR Model in specific and Supply Chain Management in general.
In this respect, a second review of the literature is performed, where multiple scientific articles are
assessed and their conclusions are synthesized towards the construction of a systemized framework of
potential contribution in these two directions. This literature review forms the basis of the explorative
research that follows, since it distinguishes the efforts that have been made so far and the areas that
need to be further explored. The described endeavor is decomposed in two main literature reviewing
categories, them being Business Strategy and Business Sustainability Potential Contribution.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 42 -
3.3.2. Business Strategy Potential Contribution
The literature review that took place on the previous paragraphs
pointed out tangible opportunities for improving SCOR Model. In this
part it is examined how the notion of Business Strategy can
contribute in this direction. It has been explained that this
examination focuses specifically on how Business Strategy can
alleviate benchmarking effects. These effects have been mentioned
several times so far. It is thus important to define what they exactly
refer to. The box on the right provides a constructive description and
definition of benchmarking practices.
Before examining whether relevant literature indicates directions to
enhance the correlation between Business Strategy and
benchmarking effects’ alleviation, it is important to inspect what,
after all, Business Strategy is about and whether this correlation is
actually true.
The definition of the term Business Strategy is close to and derived
from the most generic term of Strategic Management. Strategic
Management can be described as:
“The art, science and craft of formulating, implementing and
evaluating cross-functional decisions that will enable an
organization to achieve its long-term objectives” (David, 1989)
According to Grant and King (1982), Hax and Majluf (1984), and Hofer
and Schendel (1978), Strategic Management can be decomposed into
three strategic hierarchical levels. First of all, Corporate Strategy,
dealing with the business or industry the firm should develop or
expand, is the overarching strategy. One step down, Business
Strategy is occupied with the maximization and reservation of a
company’s competitive edge, in comparison with the one of its best-
in-class competitors. Finally, Functional Strategy emphasizes on short
and medium term plans, derived from the two broader strategic
levels, referring to a particular function or department and occupied with the accomplishment of
optimal resource allocation within the function they refer to.
There have been numerous approaches on further decomposing the definition of Business Strategy, or
Strategy in general, by various well-respected authors, all aiming to provide the corporate community
with substantial advice on how to accomplish optimal strategic positioning (Steiner (1979), Mintzberg
(1994), Andrews (1980), Tregoe & Zimmerman (1980), Robert (1993) and Treacy & Wiersema (1994)). In
this research, the approach of Michael Porter (1996) on Business Strategy is going to be espoused, as it
Being the father of the entire philosophy,
Robert Camp (1989) defines
Benchmarking as “the search for industry
best practices that lead to superior
performance”. This was the idea based on
which the method was developed in the
beginning. In 1979, Xerox, struggling to
keep up with competitive forces, tried
and managed to imitate the best
practices of its competitors. This
approach was that successful that
became a standard operating procedure
of the company in 1981, establishing the
first Benchmarking practice. Since then
many companies have created their own
Benchmarking practices; all, though, are
based on the same principle, appealingly
described by Harris (1995) in the
following definition:
“Put quite simply, benchmarking is the art
of finding out -in a completely
straightforward and open way- how
others go about organizing and
implementing the same things you do or
that you plan to do. The idea is not simply
to compare your efficiency with others
but rather to find out what exact process,
procedures, or technological applications
produced better results; and when you
find something better, to use or copy it -
or even improve upon it still further”.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 43 -
appears to be 1) rather close to the adopted line of reasoning, 2) rather revealing in the direction of
capturing the importance of Business Strategy and 3) a lively proof of the correlation between Business
Strategy and benchmarking issues within Supply Chain Management, in general, and SCOR Model, in
specific, a proof that was sought for in the previous section.
In his article “What is Strategy”, Porter (1996) makes five important points towards defining the essence
of strategy. First of all, he states that while operational effectiveness means performing similar activities
better than rivals, strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals or performing
similar activities in different ways. The reason he makes this point is that he notices a competitive
convergence, deriving from the persistent attempt of companies to outweigh their competitors on
specific dimensions of operational performance. As a result, there is a rapid diffusion of best practices
and no relative improvement for anyone. This also explains the wave of industry consolidation, since
companies become similar and it gets easier for the most powerful one to overtake the rest.
Therefore, his second point is that competitive strategy is about being different, or else about
deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value. In this respect, he
identifies three types of strategic positions and the combinations of them; variety-based, or producing a
subset of an industry’s product or service; needs-based, or serving almost all needs of a particular group
of customers; and access-based, or serving customers accessible in different ways. Then, he states that
companies, based on the value they want to deliver to their customers, have to decide their strategic
positioning and set of activities so as to create a unique position in their market.
The third point made is that choosing a unique position is one part; sustaining the competitive
advantage is the other. Indeed, a valuable position will attract imitation by incumbents. However, the
uniqueness of the position reassures that there have been made trade-offs with other positions or sets
of activities. These trade-offs conceal an action of choice, a choice that protects against imitation.
Therefore, strategy is making trade-offs in competing. The fourth point is that, while operational
effectiveness is about achieving excellence in individual activities, strategy is about combining activities.
This combination, or else fit, locks out imitators by creating a chain that is as strong as its strongest link.
This way, strategic fit creates competitive advantage, since positions built on systems of activities are far
more sustainable than those built on individual activities. Thus, strategy is creating fit among a
company’s activities. The final point states that failure to choose is one reason of strategic
disorientation. Generally, the desire to grow has perhaps the most perverse effect on strategy, since
managers have the tendency to sacrifice their company’s competitive uniqueness on the shrine of
growth. Therefore, the role of leadership on efficient strategic positioning is catalytic.
It can be seen that Porter constantly underlines the necessity for strategic uniqueness and activities’
compatibility when it comes to the selection of a corporate strategy. This importance of strategic
alignment and relevance is also supported by a plethora of other authors (Kearns & Lederer, 2000;
Luftman, Papp & Brier, 1999; Venkatraman, Henderson & Olbach, 1991; Schwan & Spady, 1998; Swiatek
2005; Jeston & Nelis 2008). An overall conclusion that can be derived by this argument is that strategy
should define operations and not vice versa. This conclusion has strong implications on benchmarking
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 44 -
practices and should be kept in mind for the analysis that is going to follow the completion of the
literature review on Business Strategy potential contribution. In addition, this conclusion inductively
proves the correlation between Business Strategy and benchmarking issues within Supply Chain
Management, in general, and SCOR Model, in specific; i.e. it shows that Business Strategy offers a
remedy to benchmarking effects, which sequentially are apparent on Supply Chain Management, in
general, and on SCOR Model, in specific.
Once the definition of Business Strategy, in the sense it is used in this research, has been given and its
correlation with benchmarking issues within the SCOR Model has been proved, it is now time to explore
how exactly this correlation can be strengthened so as to lead to the improvement of the model. In this
respect, a number of representative articles are examined. The important elements of these articles will
be then gathered, organized and compared with the way SCOR Model captures Business Strategy. This
process will indicate how effectively SCOR Model deals with Business Strategy and benchmarking issues
and it will generate explorative guidelines for improving this aspect of the model.
In this direction, Stalk, Evans and Shulman (1992) underline the fact that there has been a fundamental
shift in the logic of competition since 1990s, a shift that has revolutionized the conventional meaning of
Business Strategy. In specific, they claim that the concurrent dynamic business environment urges the
confrontation of competition as a “war of movement”, where anticipation of market trends and
versatility to adjust on changing customer demands are the two central aspects. The structure of a
company’s markets and products is not anymore the essence of strategy. In other words, it is no longer
simply where, it is about how to compete. In this sense, they suggest that the building blocks of
corporate strategy are no longer products and markets but business processes. In other words, a
capabilities-based competition has emerged, where capability is defined as a set of business processes
strategically understood, i.e. beginning and ending with the customer, a set that is collective and cross-
functional, i.e. being “everywhere and nowhere”, not controlled by one actor. This emergence of
capabilities-based competition is also confirmed by Teece, Pisano and Shuen (1997), who point out the
importance of the resource-based, as it is opposed to the industry-based, approach of strategic analysis
and positioning.
The example of Wall-Mart and Kmart (Stalk, Evans and Shulman, 1992) is indicative of this new form of
strategy effectiveness. In 1979, Kmart enjoyed a dominant position in the discount retailing industry, an
industry that was basically created by the company itself. The 1891 stores of the company, with average
revenues of $7.25 million per store, draw the picture. On the other hand, with 229 stores and
approximately half the revenues of Kmart stores, Wal-Mart could be hardly characterized as a decent
competitor. Ten years later though, Wal-Mart pretax return on sales was 8%, nearly double the
analogous of Kmart. Wal-Mart managed to become the largest and highest profit retailer in the world,
with a 32% return on equity and a market valuation more than 10 times book value.
The key component of this magnificent turnaround can be found on the relentless focus of Wal-Mart to
satisfy customer demands. This focus was basically expressed by the pioneering management of the
company’s supply chain processes. Inventory management became the milestone of corporate strategy,
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 45 -
resulting in the nowadays famous technique of “cross-docking”. Similarly, extreme attention was placed
on obtaining a fast and responsive transportation system. The question then would be why Kmart did
not follow the same example. The answer is two-fold. On one hand, such an approach is extremely hard
to manage. On the other hand, Kmart found to be trapped on the structural dimension of strategy.
Strong centralized line management, narrow focus on a few product-centered strategic business units
and excess emphasis on cost reduction and economically sound solutions were common examples of
this entrapment. On the contrary, Wal-Mart accomplished a gigantic leap by framing the structural
dimension of strategy with an emphasis on behavior, a managerial attention on the infrastructure that
supports capabilities.
This example is rather useful in underlining the prominence of business strategy, as well as the close
relation of strategy and Supply Chain Management. One step further on the same article, Stalk, Evans
and Shulman (1992) identify five major dimensions of advantages, deriving from capabilities-based
competition. These dimensions are enlisted below:
Capabilities-based Competition: Five Dimensions of Advantages
Speed • The ability to respond quickly to respond to customer or market demands and to
incorporate new ideas and technologies quickly into products
Consistency • The ability to produce a product that unfailingly satisfies customers’ expectations
Acuity • The ability to see the competitive environment clearly and thus to anticipate and
respond customers’ evolving needs and wants
Agility • The ability to adapt simultaneously to many different business environments
Innovativeness • The ability to generate new ideas and to combine existing elements to create new
sources of value
Table 3-11 Five Major Dimensions of Advantages, deriving from Capabilities-Based Competition (Stalk,
Evans & Shulman, 1992)
That is, it is claimed that effective implementation of a capabilities-based strategy can lead in beneficial
results that fall under one or more of these dimensions. It is important to keep these dimensions in
mind for the analysis that is going to follow after the completion of the literature review on Business
Strategy potential contribution.
A lot of discussion has been made so far with respect to the positive effects of strategic fit on business
performance. It is therefore legitimate to question whether this positive correlation actually exists or it
is nothing more than a speculation. The work of Smith and Reece (1999) is indicative and concise in this
direction. In specific, it is demonstrated in this study that strategic fit has a significant positive and direct
effect on business performance. In fact, it is shown that the accomplishment of strategic fit appears to
have greater significance than the selection of the strategy itself. This is also a vital conclusion for the
analysis that is going to follow.
A deeper dive in the literature brings us upon the work of Cox (1999), who recognizes two additional
parameters related to Supply Chain Management - either it is seen through a strategic or an operational
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 46 -
perspective. In detail, Cox argues, in line with Porter’s statements, that what is optimal for one company
is not necessarily beneficial for another. In order to assess the existence or not of such a strategic
compatibility between two companies, he proposes the intermediation of two other representative
notions, them being Power Structure Positioning and Value-Creation Compatibility.
Analytically, Power Structure Positioning indicates the positioning of a company in the power structure
of the pertinent industry. Thus, the imitating company can weigh its strategic compatibility to the
company with the best-in-class performance, simply by comparing their positions in the pertinent
industry power structure. Additional literature that supports the importance of power in strategy
formulation is provided by Horton (2003) and by Hrebiniak and Joyce (cited by Hitt, Freeman & Harrison,
2001).
On the other hand, Value Creation Compatibility indicates the way a company accumulates value for
itself. That is, some companies are obliged by competition to give out much value to their customers,
while others have the possibility to retain much of this value for themselves. As a result, the imitating
company can again determine its strategic compatibility to the company with the best-in-class
performance, simply by comparing their ways of creating and capturing value. Indicatively, there can be
various strategic approaches when it comes to value creation, such as short-term or long-term, self-
interest-oriented or idealistic (O'Malley, 1998). For empirical data on value creation strategies, a
representative case study can be found on the work of Huang and Zhang (2007).
It can be extracted from Cox’s work that there are specific prominent strategic factors that are not taken
into account when it comes to Supply Chain Management. Power Structure Positioning and Value
Creation Compatibility are two of them, indicating the gaps that can be found and the room for
improvement that exists. This conclusion should be borne in mind for the analysis that is going to follow
the completion of the literature review on Business Strategy potential contribution.
It has been shown so far that the importance of Business Strategy is not only empirically recognized but
also practically proved and that it directly connects to the domain of Supply Chain Management. The
question now is whether and how SCOR Model takes into account Business Strategy. As it was presented
on the description of the SCOR Model, there is a set of five Performance Attributes, i.e. Reliability
Responsiveness, Agility, Costs and Assets efficiency, used to capture the supply chain strategic
positioning of the implementing company. It is the object of the next paragraph to organize and use the
elements found on the literature to evaluate the strategic approach of SCOR Model. This evaluation will
result on the location of the opportunities towards the alleviation of the model’s benchmarking
character, opportunities which are explored subsequently through a qualitative research. Before this,
the same process is followed for Business Sustainability, so as to bring this concept on the same level of
analysis.
It has to be mentioned at this point that, at a later stage of this research, a couple of articles came up
(Poluha, 2007; Ren, 2008), arguing that SCOR Model can be linked with the Balanced ScoreCard (Kaplan
& Norton, 1992) and lead in substantial results with regard to the strategic positioning of a company
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 47 -
within the pertinent supply chain. These articles not only support the intuition of this research but also
provide a direction for future development. This direction is brought up again in the recommendations
section, where, combined with the actual results of this research, draws the path for the SCOR Model
leap into business concepts; a leap which is also justified by the business move of SCC to include a risk
management section in version 10.0 of SCOR Model (SCC, 2009).
3.3.3. Business Sustainability Potential Contribution
The part referring to the opportunities for SCOR Model improvement pointed out the concern of the
SCC with respect to the successful implementation of the newly introduced sustainable features.
Specifically, there have been noticed a resistance from the model’s practitioners to make use of the
green features, a resistance that is mainly accounted to organizational and business cultural differences,
evident between supply chain and environmental representatives. Diverse goals and priorities prevent
these two business segments from collaborating fruitfully and as a result, although the necessary
philosophy and software are available, they are not used properly. Before examining how appropriate
has the “green” features’ incorporation process been, it is important to assess what, after all, Business
Sustainability is about and how it connects to Supply Chain Management.
The term of Business Sustainability refers to the process of converting conventional business to
sustainable, or else to a business able to “meet the needs of the present world without compromising
the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs” (Anderson, 2006). In other words, all
processes, products and services performed by companies should comply with this general idea and the
relevant regulations, while they remain in a business environment, or else they continue to make
profits.
With regard to the relation between Business Sustainability and Supply Chain Management, the Lowell
Framework, developed by the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (2009) is indicative and
revealing in this direction. This framework is depicted on the following figure:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 48 -
Level 1:
Facility Compliance/ Conformance Indicators
Level 2:
Facility Material Use and Performance Indicators
Level 3:
Facility Effect Indicators
Level 4:
Supply Chain and Product Life-Cycle Indicators
Level 5:
Sustainable Systems Indicators
Increasingly comprehensive
measurement of firm environmental impact
Figure 3-12 Lowell Framework (Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, 2009)
As it can be seen, supply chain is recognized, along with Product Life Cycle, as one of the five basic levels
of implementing sustainability. In detail, this framework categorizes the types of indicators that should
be used so as to measure corporate environmental impact comprehensively. These indicators are
divided on five levels, each building on the previous one. In this respect, the process goes beyond
individual company boundaries and focuses on the general picture, as it is described by the idea of
supply chain as well as product distribution, use and ultimate disposal. Examples of indicators used in
this level are percentage of products designed to be easily reused or recycled, percentage of suppliers
receiving safety training per year, embodied energy in key raw materials and packaging, tons of GHG
emissions generated during product transportation and so on.
For the record, level one is used to evaluate the extent to which a facility is in compliance with
regulations or in conformance to some industry/association standards. Level two includes measures of
facility/company inputs, outputs and performance, such as resource use efficiency, byproducts,
emissions, or waste. Level three measures the potential effects of a facility/company on the
environment and public health and level five shows how an individual company's production processes
fit into the larger picture of a sustainable society. While most firms already employ level one and level
two type environmental indicators, they are just beginning to develop level three and level four;
level five still appears to be neglected.
The intuition of the common sense that Supply Chain Management and Business Sustainability are
closely related has been practically confirmed and seen in the Lowell Framework. Thus, the next step
would be to examine how the notion of Sustainability should be ideally incorporated in business
environments so as to lead to the expected results. In this respect, the article “Beyond the business case
of corporate sustainability”, developed by Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), provides useful insight and a
rather systematic approach. The initial idea behind the development of this article lies on the
observation that, at the business level, Sustainability is often equated with eco-efficiency. It is claimed
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 49 -
then, that such a reduction leads to the exclusion of several other important criteria that have to be
satisfied by companies if they really want to become sustainable.
In general, the purpose of Sustainability coincides with the continuous satisfaction of human needs on a
global level (Brundtland, 1987). When transposing this idea to the business level, Corporate
Sustainability can accordingly be defined as “meeting the needs of a company’s direct and indirect
stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees, clients, pressure groups, communities etc), without
compromising its ability to meet the needs of future stakeholders as well”. In this direction, firms need to
maintain and grow their economic, social and environmental capital base while actively contributing to
sustainability in the political domain. From this definition, three key elements of corporate sustainability
can be identified:
1) Integrating the economic, ecological and social aspects in a “triple-bottom line”:
The realization that “economic sustainability alone is no sufficient condition for the overall sustainability
of a corporation” is the basic departure of the sustainability concept from the orthodox management
theory (Gladwin et al., 1995). A narrow-minded emphasis on economic sustainability can succeed in the
short run; however, in the long run sustainability requires all three dimensions to be satisfied
simultaneously. As it is depicted on the following figure, these three dimensions are inter-related and
may influence each other in multiple ways, in a similar to Elkington’s (1997) “triple-bottom-line” concept
pattern.
Figure 3-13 Three Dimensions of Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)
2) Integrating the short-term and long-term aspects:
It has been a common managerial practice, for executives in recent years, to sacrifice long-term success
on the shrine of short-term quarterly gains. Such an approach apparently contradicts the idea of
Sustainability, which recognizes the obligation of a sustainable firm to meet the needs of its
stakeholders in the future as well as today. There is no clear picture yet of how costly social and
economical degradation can be and, as a consequence, short-term gains are considered to be more
economically sound.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 50 -
3) Consuming the income and not the capital:
Business representatives widely accept that maintaining the capital basis intact is a precondition of
effective and responsible management. Nevertheless, when it comes to long-term Sustainability,
companies need to realize that this precondition is not only related to economic capital, but to natural
and social capital as well.
The precise definition of Sustainability pre-requires the definition of capital. In this direction, economic,
natural and social capital is subsequently defined in the sense of the approach that should be used per
occasion so as to achieve Sustainability:
Types of
Capital Description
Economic
capital
“Economically sustainable companies guarantee at any time cash flow sufficient to ensure
liquidity while producing a persistent above average return to their shareholders”
Natural
Capital
“Ecologically sustainable companies use only natural resources that are consumed at a
rate below the natural reproduction, or at a rate below the development of substitutes.
They do not cause emissions that accumulate in the environment at a rate beyond the
capacity of the natural system to absorb and assimilate these emissions. Finally they do
not engage in activity that degrades eco-system services”
Social
Capital
“Socially sustainable companies add value to the communities within which they operate
by increasing the human capital of individual partners as well as furthering the societal
capital of these communities. They manage social capital in such a way that stakeholders
can understand its motivations and can broadly agree with the company’s value system”
Figure 3-14 Three Types of Capital (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)
Along with these capital definitions, there are two other principles, rather important for the realization
of the Sustainability concept as it is herewith presented. The first refers to the “non-substitutability of
capital”, meaning that not all kinds of capital can be efficiently substituted. The second is the
“Irreversibility and non-linearity of capital depletion”, meaning that some kinds of capital cannot be
eternally substituted, and reversing depleted capital requires non-linear amounts of substituting capital.
It has been shown so far what the primary dimensions are when it comes to the incorporation of the
Sustainability notion in a business environment. One step further, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) assess the
way these dimensions interact and come up with a framework that underlines the criteria that should
be mutually satisfied towards Business Sustainability. Specifically, they determine the paths through
which each of the three Sustainability dimensions, i.e. Business, Nature and Society, can enhance the
other two. In this respect, they claim that the links of Nature and Society to Business Sustainability are
eco-efficiency and socio-efficiency respectively. Eco-efficiency is “achieved by the delivery of
competitively-priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and bring quality of life, while
progressively reducing ecological impacts and resource intensity throughout the life-cycle to a level at
least in line with the earth’s carrying capacity” (De Simone & Popoff, 1997); Socio-efficiency (Hockerts,
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 51 -
1996, 1999; Figge & Hahn, 2001) describes “the relation between a firm’s value added and its social
impact. Depending on the type of impact, socio-efficiency implies minimizing negative social impacts (i.e.
accidents per value added) or maximizing positive social impacts (i.e. donations) in relation to the value
added”. The contribution of Nature and Society to Business, or else of eco-efficiency and socio-efficiency
to economic sustainability is depicted on the following figure:
Figure 3-15 The “Business Case” of Corporate Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)
Similarly, the links of Business and Society to Natural Sustainability are eco-effectiveness and sufficiency
respectively. Eco-effectiveness can be described through an example, as opposed to eco-efficiency. In
general, more efficient cars reduce the cost of driving a car. However, since most people nowadays need
a car to cover their individual mobility, less costly cars may easily lead to a non-ecological increase of
cars’ number and of kilometers driven per year. Therefore, apart from, let’s say, fossil fuel efficiency,
manufacturers should also take into consideration the effectiveness of e.g. solar powered fuel cells, so
as to avoid the described rebound-effect and achieve a balance. On the other hand, sufficiency is
another criterion towards sustainability, suggested by several authors (Schumacher, 1974; Sachs, 1993;
Gladwin et al., 1995; Umweltbundesamt, 1997; Kreibich, 1997; Diekmann, 1999; Zavestovski, 2001, cited
by Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002). Sufficiency is seen as an issue of individual choice rather than a single
firm’s responsibility, and refers to the individual responsibility of avoiding environmentally-costly
products and services. Radical supporters of this criterion ask even for ‘brand jamming’ and customers’
out-right refusal to follow what they see as marketing terror (e.g. Klein, 2000). The contribution of
Business and Society to Nature, or else of eco-effectiveness and sufficiency to ecological sustainability is
depicted on the following figure:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 52 -
Figure 3-16 The “Natural Case” of Corporate Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)
Finally, the links of Business and Nature to Societal Sustainability are socio-effectiveness and ecological
equity respectively. Again, socio-effectiveness can be seen as opposed to socio-efficiency. While socio-
efficiency describes the relation between a firm’s value added and its social impact, socio-effectiveness
considers that “business conduct should be judged not on a relative scale but rather in relation to the
absolute positive social impact a firm could reasonably have achieved”. On the other hand, ecological
equity refers to the optimal use and distribution of natural capital, so as to avoid depletion of resources
and damage of future generations. The contribution of Business and Nature to Society, or else of socio-
effectiveness and ecological equity to societal sustainability is depicted on the following figure:
Figure 3-17 The “Societal Case” of Corporate Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)
The framework described here provides a holistic and spherical view of the notion of Sustainability and
how it can be effectively implemented within a business environment. The general case, depicted on the
following figure, along with the six criteria should be kept in mind for the analysis that is going to follow
the completion of the literature review on Business Sustainability potential contribution.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 53 -
Figure 3-18 Overview of the Six Criteria of Corporate Sustainability (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002)
Once the guidelines for successfully including the concept of Sustainability in a business environment
have been formulated, it is now interesting to examine how these principles can be applied. Waage et al
(2005), building upon preexisting work (see Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3) (2002) 197 and 8(3)
(2000) 243), came up with a framework on how to implement sustainable solutions effectively, a
decision-making model that facilitates the inclusion of sustainability aspects in corporate activities. In
this respect, the proposed approach recognizes six main levels of decisions, them being 1) System
Definition, 2) Identification of Outcomes and Success, 3) Articulation of Strategies, 4) Determination of
Actions and 5) Enlistment of Available Assessment Tools. Then, it proposes a) the insertion of criteria for
assessing products in terms of sustainability factors, b) the inclusion of social aspects of sustainability
and c) the consideration of other elements such as landscape-level issues, cumulative effects, and eco-
regional specificity, on multiple levels of the initial model.
This article provides an indication of how sustainable solutions can be implemented. On the same track,
Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001) proposed twenty two core indicators of sustainability and a loop-model
for defining and measuring sustainability performance of organizations. This model is depicted on the
following figure:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 54 -
Figure 3-19 Continuous-loop model for defining and measuring sustainability performance of
organizations (Veleva & Ellenbecker 2001)
Although this implementation process may vary from case to case, it is useful to keep these systematic
approaches in mind for the Sustainability evaluation of the SCOR Model that follows this literature
review. It has to be mentioned that, that there have been many efforts during the last 15 years to
connect Sustainability with Business and to derive analogous viable strategies; the results, though, were
not that impressing, mainly because managers do not appear to espouse the business logic for adopting
corporate sustainability strategies (Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers & Steger, 2005). This main barrier should
be also kept in mind during the analysis that follows.
3.4. Explorative Guidelines, & Interview Framework
The purpose of this part is to build upon the literature review and take a step towards the creation of
the Interview Framework that bridges the existing literature with the explorative research that is going
to follow. In this respect, the conclusions and findings of the literature review are gathered and
organized, so as to point out the recorded scientific gaps, evaluate the model upon the located issues
and set the guidelines that will direct the research towards the improvement of the SCOR Model. The
described approach is again divided in the two main categories of Business Strategy and Business
Sustainability. The output in both cases is a set of questions that need to be explored.
3.4.1. From Business Strategy Conclusions to Explorative Guidelines
The literature review on Business Strategy Potential Contribution revealed a number of useful
conclusions that can be used towards the evaluation of the SCOR Model’s strategic approach in general
and benchmarking confrontation in specific. A comparison between these findings and the analytical
process used within the model is considered to be sufficient first step towards the extraction of research
questions and guidelines. The conclusions derived from the literature are presented on the following
table:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 55 -
Strategy Literature Review Findings
Stalk, Evans
and Shulman
(1992)
Five major dimensions of advantages, deriving from capabilities-based competition:
• Speed: The ability to respond quickly to respond to customer or market demands
and to incorporate new ideas and technologies quickly into products
• Consistency: The ability to produce a product that unfailingly satisfies customers’
expectations
• Acuity: The ability to see the competitive environment clearly and thus to
anticipate and respond customers’ evolving needs and wants
• Agility: The ability to adapt simultaneously to many different business
environments
• Innovativeness: The ability to generate new ideas and to combine existing
elements to create new sources of value
Porter (1996) A strong emphasis on the necessity for strategic uniqueness and activities’
compatibility is observed, when it comes to the selection of a corporate strategy.
Strategy should define operations and not vice versa.
Smith and
Reece (1999)
Strategic fit has a significant positive and direct effect on business performance. The
accomplishment of strategic fit appears to have greater significance than the selection
of the strategy itself.
Cox (1999) There are specific prominent strategic factors that are not taken into account when it
comes to Supply Chain Management. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation
Compatibility are two of them.
Table 3-12 Findings of the Literature Review on Business Strategy
The way SCOR Model is approaching strategic context has already been described under the literature
review section. It is now time to put the strategy-related literature findings opposite to this approach.
First of all, Stalk, Evans and Shulman (1992) have recognized five major dimensions of advantages
deriving from capabilities-based competition, them being Speed, Consistency, Acuity, Agility and
Innovativeness. A quick comparison between these dimensions and the Performance Attributes defined
in the SCOR Model illustrates that those of the attributes labeled as Customer-facing are included in the
list of the five major dimensions discussed here. That is, Responsiveness coincides with Speed, Reliability
with Consistency and Agility with Agility. Acuity and Innovativeness, on the other hand, do not appear as
Performance Attributes in the SCOR Model. Apparently, it can be said that they have a direct effect on
the Internal-Facing Attributes, i.e. Supply Chain Costs and Supply Chain Assets Efficiency; however, it is
not clear or definite that these internally-oriented Attributes are sufficient to capture the notions of
Acuity and Innovativeness.
It should be clarified here that Acuity, although being about “responding” to customers’ evolving needs
and wants, should not be seen as coinciding with Responsiveness. To illustrate this difference with an
example, a responsive company, or else a company performing well in terms of Responsiveness, is a
company able to achieve respectable order fulfillment times. On the other hand, an acute company, or
else a company performing well in terms of Acuity, is a company able to determine effectively, whether
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 56 -
the market asks for responsive or reliable or agile etc. services. In other words, Responsiveness refers to
the operational side, while Acuity deals with the strategic context of Supply Chain Management.
Overall, it can be argued that these two “missing” Attributes, i.e. Acuity and Innovativeness, may not be
relevant when it comes to Supply Chain Management; or that their contribution is simply
complementary and of secondary importance; or that they are impossible to measure. In any case, this
located gap between those two approaches needs to be explored, since it generated questions that are
not precisely answered. These questions are:
Furthermore, Porter (1996) underlined the fact that Strategy should define operations and not vice
versa. Considering the benchmarking process taking place at almost any level of the SCOR Model
analysis, it is logical to wonder whether the operations that are being benchmarked, as they are
expressed by the corresponding Metrics in use, do indeed fall under the Corporate Strategy of the
implementing company or they just indicate an opportunity to considerably reduce operational distance
from a competitor that might, or not, be wise to imitate. It is true that SCOR Model uses a handy tool to
indicate strategic priorities, simply by attaching a “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” label on the
Performance Attributes that represent strategic positioning. Still though, here there is a strong
assumption that Strategy can be monitored and expressed through Performance; and there can be
found numerous authors arguing for exactly the opposite.
Further argumentation on this subject can only lead to the popular chicken or the hen causality
dilemma. It is quite clear that the ability of SCOR Model to assess Strategic Positioning and prioritize it
over Operational Performance needs to be explored. The reason is that, in case SCOR Model does not
capture the discussed line of reasoning, strategic fit is not accomplished and implementing companies
• At what extent are Acuity and Innovativeness relevant to the Supply Chain
Management domain and capable of contributing to the alleviation of
benchmarking effects?
• At what extent do Acuity and Innovativeness overlap with the Performance
Attributes of the SCOR Model?
• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the inclusion of these parameters
in the SCOR Model?
• How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 57 -
fall in the benchmarking traps described in the literature review section. The questions that are
generated in this direction are enlisted below:
The next stop in the Business Strategy literature brings us upon Smith and Reece (1999), who claim that
strategic fit has a significant positive and direct effect on business performance, so important that the
accomplishment of strategic fit appears to have greater significance than the selection of the strategy
itself. This argument generates questions close to those just enlisted, since the debate is again about
strategic fit and how well or not it is captured. It is still possible, though, to assess this topic from a
different, applicability-oriented perspective, as it is revealed by the following set of questions:
Finally, the work of Cox (1999) reveals that there are specific and prominent strategic factors that are
not taken into account when it comes to Supply Chain Management, such as Power Structure
Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility. This argument also links to the questions already posed,
since it basically investigates the broadness of the strategic variables in use. In this sense, new questions
that can be derived are:
• How straightforward and/ or realistic would it be to assess strategic fit through an
analytical tool, such as the SCOR Model?
• What could be the indicators to define and measure strategic fit?
• At what extent can the concept of strategic fit be taken into consideration manually
and through the comprehensive use of its practitioners?
• At what extent does the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool promote Strategy
above Operations?
• At what extent do the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool and the Five
Performance Attributes manage to capture the concept of strategic fit?
• How likely is it for an implementing company to fall into the recorded
benchmarking pitfalls?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 58 -
The preliminary research steps, towards the exploration of Business Strategy and the way it does or
could contribute to alleviate the benchmarking effects of the SCOR Model, have been completed. The
important arguments from the literature have been gathered, organized accordingly and compared with
the strategic positioning process, taking place currently within the model. The result of this comparison
was the extraction of a number of questions that will guide the explorative/ qualitative research. The
same approach is followed now for the notion of Business Sustainability. The following table contains
the entire spectrum of the derived questions.
Business Strategy Explorative Questions
1) • At what extent are Acuity and Innovativeness relevant to the Supply Chain Management
domain and capable of contributing to the alleviation of benchmarking effects?
2) • At what extent do Acuity and Innovativeness overlap with the Performance Attributes of
the SCOR Model?
3) • How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the inclusion of these parameters in the
SCOR Model?
4) • How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?
5) • At what extent does the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool promote Strategy above
Operations?
6) • At what extent do the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool and the Five Performance
Attributes manage to capture the concept of strategic fit?
7) • How likely is it for an implementing company to fall into the recorded benchmarking
pitfalls?
8) • How straightforward and/ or realistic would it be to assess strategic fit through an
analytical tool, such as the SCOR Model?
9) • What could be the indicators to define and measure strategic fit?
10) • At what extent can the concept of strategic fit be taken into consideration manually and
through the comprehensive use of its practitioners?
11) • How important can be the contribution of Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation
Compatibility, when it comes to strategic positioning and benchmarking effects’ confrontation
within the domain of Supply Chain Management?
• How important can be the contribution of Power Structure Positioning and Value
Creation Compatibility, when it comes to strategic positioning and benchmarking effects’
confrontation within the domain of Supply Chain Management?
• What would be the indicators to define and measure Power Structure Positioning
and Value Creation Compatibility?
• What could be other variables to be included in the strategic positioning process
taking place within the SCOR Model? What would their indicators be?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 59 -
12) • What would be the indicators to define and measure Power Structure Positioning and Value
Creation Compatibility?
13) • What could be other variables to be included in the strategic positioning process taking place
within the SCOR Model? What would their indicators be?
Table 3-13 Explorative Questions on Business Strategy
3.4.2. From Business Sustainability Conclusions to Explorative Guidelines
The same process is implemented now for the case of Business Sustainability. The conclusions and
findings of the Sustainability literature review are gathered and organized, so as to point out the
recorded scientific gaps, evaluate the model upon the located issues and set the guidelines that will
direct the qualitative research towards the improvement of the SCOR Model. The conclusions derived
from the literature are presented on the following table:
Sustainability Literature Review Findings
Lowell Center for
Sustainable
Production (2009)
Lowell framework recognizes Supply Chain Management as the fourth major step
towards Sustainability. Still though, it has only recently, and still peripherally, begun to
be confronted by companies through a sustainability perspective.
Dyllick and
Hockerts (2002)
Sustainability is often but mistakenly equated with eco-efficiency. In reality, this is
merely one out of the six criteria towards Sustainability:
1) eco-efficiency
2) socio-efficiency
3) eco-effectiveness
4) sufficiency
5) socio-effectiveness
6) ecological equity
In general, three key elements towards corporate sustainability can be identified:
1) Integrating the economic, ecological and social aspects in a “triple-bottom line”
2) Integrating the short-term and long-term aspects
3) Consuming the income and not the capital
Additionally, Capital has a triadic essence in sustainability terms, i.e. Economic, Natural
and Social Capital.
Waage et al (2005);
Veleva and
Ellenbecker (2001)
The former came up with a framework on how to implement sustainable solutions
effectively, a decision-making model that facilitates the inclusion of sustainability
aspects in corporate activities.
The latter developed a continuous-loop model for defining and measuring
sustainability performance of organizations.
Salzmann, Ionescu-
Somers and Steger
(2005)
There have been many efforts during the last 15 years to connect Sustainability with
Business and to derive analogous viable strategies; the results, though, were not that
impressing, mainly because managers do not appear to espouse the business logic for
adopting corporate sustainability strategies.
Table 3-14 Findings of the Literature Review on Business Sustainability
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 60 -
The way SCOR Model is dealing with Sustainability has already been described under the literature
review section. It is now time to put the sustainability-related literature findings opposite to this
approach. In this respect, Lowell framework is first of all used to justify two objects; one is the strong
connection between Sustainability and Supply Chain Management; the second is the problematic
diffusion of sustainable solutions within Supply Chain Management and the extent up to which this is
justified by resisting corporate culture. While the first object serves mainly as the basis for the further
development of this analysis, the second generates a crucial inquiry on why corporate cultures resist to
the idea of sustainability. The findings of Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers and Steger (2005), presented on the
previous table, also build upon this general but vital subject. In this respect, the following set of
questions is formulated towards the exploration of this grey area between Sustainability and Supply
Chain Management:
Furthermore, the approach of SCOR Model itself should be explored, in case it conceals any issues that
prevent Sustainability diffusion. The work of Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) is rather revealing in this
direction. As it has been shown, the notion of Sustainability is quite complex and a successful
implementation requires multi-aspect confrontation. Specifically, Sustainability should be seen as the
aggregation of three interacting dimensions, them being Business, Nature and Society. The
communicating channels among these dimensions are described by six criteria, which namely are eco-
efficiency, socio-efficiency, eco-effectiveness, sufficiency, socio-effectiveness and ecological equity. In
this sense, Capital has a triadic essence in sustainability terms, i.e. Economic, Natural and Social Capital,
and there are three key elements towards corporate sustainability, them being 1) integrating the
economic, ecological and social aspects in a “triple-bottom line”, 2) integrating the short-term and long-
term aspects and 3) consuming the income and not the capital.
Comparing this approach to Sustainability with the one used within the SCOR Model leads to the
extraction of viable explorative guidelines towards the improvement of the model. In specific, SCOR
Model appears to fall into the common pitfall of equating Sustainability with eco-efficiency, as this is
described by Dyllick and Hockerts (2002). The model attempts to take a corrective action on the basis of
a bulk actual pollution calculation. In this respect, it recognizes four main types of waste, i.e. Carbon, Air
• Why would corporate cultures resist to the diffusion of sustainable strategies or
strategic elements?
• To what extent could this incompatibility be accounted to Supply Chain or
Environmental actors?
• Apart from corporate culture, what could be other factors inhibiting this diffusion
(i.e. type of industry or type of operation etc. simply disguised under the visor of corporate
culture)?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 61 -
Pollutants, Liquid Waste and Solid Waste and it proposes the adoption of best practices, on the basis of
a performance evaluation guided by a set of corresponding Metrics. However, this is merely the channel
connecting Nature to Business, or else, the eco-efficiency path. The other five criteria appear to be
neglected. This comparison brings on the surface a number of subjects that need to be explored. That is,
it should be examined how sufficient such an approach can be, how straightforward would be the
inclusion of the rest of the criteria and so on. Research questions that arise in this direction are enlisted
below:
A final subject that needs to be examined in this direction is the impression of practitioners with regard
to the sustainability approach of SCOR Model, when it comes to the actual implementation process.
There have been presented two characteristic systematic approaches in the literature review section,
both occupied with the implementation of sustainable solutions. In detail, Waage et al (2005) came up
with a framework on how to implement sustainable solutions effectively; a decision-making model that
facilitates the inclusion of sustainability aspects in corporate activities. On the other hand, Veleva and
Ellenbecker (2001) developed a continuous-loop model for defining and measuring sustainability
performance of organizations. The methodical approach of these two initiatives generates inquiries on
the approach of the SCOR Model, inquiries that are presented on the following research questions:
• At what extent would eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards Sustainability?
• What could be the input of the rest of the criteria, in case they were included?
• At what extent could the inclusion of the rest of the criteria improve the
implementation of sustainable solutions?
• How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include the rest of the criteria?
• At what extent would such a holistic approach on Sustainability promote or
restrain the emphasis of practitioners on supply chain sustainable solutions?
• At what extent is effective implementation of Sustainability a responsibility of
SCC?
• What could be alternative scenarios regarding the effective implementation of
Sustainability within the SCOR Model?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 62 -
The preliminary research steps, towards the exploration of Business Sustainability and the way it does or
could contribute within the SCOR Model, have also been completed. The important arguments from the
literature have been gathered, organized accordingly and compared with the strategic positioning
process, taking place currently within the model. The result of this comparison was the extraction of a
number of questions that will guide the explorative/ qualitative research. The following table contains
the entire spectrum of the derived questions.
Business Sustainability Explorative Questions
1) • Why would corporate cultures resist to the diffusion of sustainable strategies or strategic
elements?
2) • To what extent could this incompatibility be accounted to supply chain or environmental
actors?
3) • Apart from corporate culture, what could be other factors inhibiting this diffusion (i.e. type
of industry or type of operation etc. simply disguised under the visor of corporate
culture)?
4) • At what extent would eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards Sustainability?
5) • What could be the input of the rest of the criteria, in case they were included?
6) • At what extent could the inclusion of the rest of the criteria improve the implementation
of sustainable solutions?
7) • How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include the rest of the criteria?
8) • At what extent would such a holistic approach on Sustainability promote or restrain the
emphasis of practitioners on supply chain sustainable solutions?
9) • At what extent is effective implementation of Sustainability a responsibility of SCC?
10) • What could be alternative scenarios regarding the effective implementation of
Sustainability within the SCOR Model?
11) • How systematic is the sustainability approach of SCOR Model?
12) • At what extent does the sustainability approach of SCOR Model capture and promote the
idea of sustainability?
13) • How could the sustainability implementation process within the SCOR Model be
improved?
Table 3-15 Explorative Questions on Business Sustainability
• How systematic is the sustainability approach of SCOR Model?
• At what extent does the sustainability approach of SCOR Model capture and
promote the idea of sustainability?
• How could the sustainability implementation process within the SCOR Model be
improved?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 63 -
3.4.3. Synthesis of Guidelines and Interview Framework Creation
This section is close to an end, close to delivering the interview framework it is supposed to. The last
task is to synthesize the guidelines derived from the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
domains. In this respect, extra attention should be placed on the way this synthesis will be realized, so
as to take into account the special characteristics of this research. That is, it has been explained from the
beginning that this research is of qualitative nature, it explores the landscape around the research
question to locate potential solutions to the research problem. However, in an attempt to assess related
literature in deep, a rather constructive approach was adopted, an approach that may be superficially
seen as contradicting the qualitative character of this research.
Thereby, it should be a task of the interview framework to clarify this contradiction and stress the fact
that the systematic literature approach was merely meant to gather related information and point out
the areas that need to be further explored; there was no intention of binding the orientation of this
research to specific solutions and limiting its explorative potential. Having this prominent argument in
mind, the interview framework is constructed and depicted on the following figure:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 64 -
Figure 3-20 Interview framework
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 65 -
It becomes clear that no matter how systematic the literature approach was, the research remains
abstract and justifies/ retains its explorative character. It can be seen on the structure of the interview
framework that the guidelines derived from the literature are 1) mere indications and 2) not clearly or
necessarily independent from each other.
This approach, as it is presented here, is also in accordance with the triangulation method that has
already been adopted. In brief, the purpose of this section and method is to build upon the intuition of
the unstructured interview and the overall topic of this research, and prepare the ground for the next
method, i.e. the semi-structured interviews. That is, the aim here is to locate the grey areas that need to
be explored, not to come up with specific directions already from the literature review. In this respect,
the interview framework that is presented is a representative illustration of this argumentation, and also
consistent with the principles set by the research framework. In the next chapter, the interview
framework is used for the creation of the questionnaire that is communicated to the respondents,
regarding the semi-structured interviews.
3.5. Summary
This section is primarily occupied with the tasks of SCOR Model description, literature review and
interview framework creation. In this respect, a constructive logical path is firstly adopted for the
assessment of the literature. Firstly, SCOR Model is described in deep. Then, pertinent opportunities for
improvement are located in the literature and connected to the concepts of Business Strategy and
Business Sustainability. On this basis, Business Strategy and Business Sustainability are assessed and
guidelines for further improvement of the model on the described directions are extracted. A
comparison of these guidelines with the current practices of SCOR Model reveals the paths that should
be followed, according to the literature. On this basis, the interview framework is constructed. The
structure of the interview framework allows the systematic continuation of the research and,
specifically, the formulation of the questionnaire that is communicated to the selected SC professionals,
towards the completion of the semi-structured interviews. The next chapter presents the results of
these interviews. The key elements of this chapter are presented in the following table.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 66 -
Topic Description
SCOR Model
Description
• SCOR captures the “as-is” state of a process and derives the desired “to-be” future state, it quantifies the operational performance of similar companies and establishes internal targets based on “best-in-class” results and it characterizes the management practices and software solutions that result in “best-in-class” performance.
• It is basically analyzed upon five distinct processes, them being the plan, source, make, deliver and return processes.
• It classifies products in three categories, them being stocked, made-to-order and engineered-to-order products.
• The scope of the model is quite wide, exceeding from suppliers’ supplier to customers’ customer, considering product transactions, customer and market interactions.
• It consists of three levels of analysis, them being process types, categories and elements.
• The concept of configurability. In fact, SCC recognizes that each intersection of two execution processes (such as Source-Make-Deliver) is a “link” in the supply chain, while each link is a customer of the previous and a supplier to the next link.
• It uses the concept of configurability to accurately reflect how a supply-chain’s configuration can impact management processes and practices.
• It includes “green” process elements, followed by a set of total environmental footprint metrics and green best practices, allowing the connection of environment with strategy.
Literature
Review
Strategy Literature Review Findings
• Stalk, Evans and Shulman (1992): Five major dimensions of advantages, deriving from capabilities-based competition, them being Speed, Consistency, Agility, Acuity and Innovativeness. The two latter are not covered by SCOR Model.
• Porter (1996): Strategy is about being different. Strategy should define operations and not vice versa.
• Smith and Reece (1999): Strategic fit has a significant positive and direct effect on business performance, greater than the selection of the strategy itself.
• Cox (1999): There are prominent strategic factors not taken into account in SCM. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility are two of them.
Sustainability Literature Review Findings
• Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (2009): SCM is the fourth major step towards Sustainability. Still though, it is not yet responsibly confronted.
• Dyllick and Hockerts (2002): Sustainability is often but mistakenly equated with eco-efficiency. This is merely one out of the six criteria towards Sustainability.
• Waage et al (2005); Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001): Both providing frameworks on how to approach sustainability systematically.
• Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers and Steger (2005): Despite the efforts, managers still do not espouse the business logic for adopting “green” corporate strategies.
Interview
Framework
Business Strategy Explorative Questions
• At what extent are Acuity and Innovativeness relevant to SCM and capable of contributing to the alleviation of benchmarking effects?
• At what extent do Acuity and Innovativeness overlap with the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 67 -
• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be their inclusion in SCOR Model? • How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics? • At what extent does the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool promote Strategy
above Operations? • At what extent do the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool and the Five
Performance Attributes manage to capture the concept of strategic fit? • How likely is it for a company to fall into the recorded benchmarking pitfalls? • How realistic is it to assess strategic fit through SCOR Model? • What could be the indicators to define and measure strategic fit? • At what extent is the concept of strategic fit taken into consideration manually? • How important are Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility in
strategic positioning and benchmarking effects’ confrontation within SCM? • What would be the indicators to define and measure Power Structure Positioning
and Value Creation Compatibility? • What could be other variables to be included in the strategic positioning process
taking place within the SCOR Model? What would their indicators be? Business Sustainability Explorative Questions
• Why corporate cultures resist to the diffusion of sustainable strategies? • To what extent could this be accounted to supply chain or environmental actors? • Apart from corporate culture, what could be other factors inhibiting this diffusion? • At what extent would eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards Sustainability? • What could be the input of the rest of the criteria, in case they were included? • At what extent could the rest of the criteria improve sustainability implementation? • How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include the rest of the criteria? • At what extent would such a holistic approach on Sustainability promote or restrain
the emphasis of practitioners on supply chain sustainable solutions? • At what extent is effective implementation of Sustainability a responsibility of SCC? • What are alternative scenarios for the effective implementation of Sustainability? • How systematic is the sustainability approach of SCOR Model? • At what extent does SCOR Model capture and promote the idea of sustainability? • How could the sustainability implementation process be improved? General Remarks on the Interview Framework Synthesis
• Despite the systematic literature review, the research is still explorative. • The guidelines derived are 1) mere indications and 2) not mutually independent. • These guidelines are used to create the semi-structured interviews questionnaire.
Table 3-16 Summarizing key elements of the chapter
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 68 -
4. Interview Results
4.1. Introduction
This section builds upon the output of the previous section and presents
the interview results of this research. The research questions, derived
from the literature, are answered, on the basis of the interview
framework and the guidelines set within the pertinent section. In this
respect, a semi-structured interview questionnaire has been created.
This questionnaire collects, organizes and enriches the questions derived
from the literature, so as to set them before the selected respondents in
an appropriate format, capable of reproducing the aspired interview
circumstances. Apparently, since this research is of qualitative/
explorative nature, aspired circumstances would be those leading to
unbiased, unstructured and spontaneous answers that can hopefully
help in an initial systemization of the selected research topic. Therefore,
this re-organization of the literature research questions, according to the
research framework guidelines, aims to remove the rigidness of the
questions’ set, as it was described within the pertinent, interview
framework section.
The connection between the literature research questions and the
questions used during the interviews is most of the times clear and
direct; otherwise, it is still easy to notice. Thus, there is no point in
wasting a section dismantling this connection in the main body of this
research. Analytical details regarding this transition from the literature
research questions to the interview questionnaire are given in appendix C. Furthermore, the essence of
this research is to locate and organize certain opinions of experts regarding SCOR Model, not to
obligatorily answer the located questions. Therefore, the answers of the interviewees are presented in a
semi-structured pattern, not following from the corresponding interview questions and not necessarily
connected to the questions derived from the literature. After all, the interview questionnaire was made
to be flexible, leaving room for “unexpected” responses. The interview questionnaire is presented in
appendix E.
Before starting the citation of the results, it is necessary to provide some information with respect to the
selected respondents. Unfortunately, all four of them opted for a secrecy policy, requesting the
preservation of their - and their companies’ - anonymity. Nevertheless, such a setting is also beneficial
for a qualitative research, since it releases the respondents from their professional reservations and
allows the occurrence of a free, constructive interview session. In this respect, only peripheral details
can be given about the semi-structured interview respondents. These details, although unable to reveal
the identity of the respondents, are sufficient and rather helpful in describing the character of the
Introduction
Research Framework
Design Principles and
Conceptual Design
Interview Results
SCOR Description-Lit.
Review-Int. Framework
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Figure 4-1 Structure
Outline: Interview Results
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 69 -
respondents and their relevance with the research topic. The following table accumulates these details
and presents them per respondent. The name of the respondents and the companies they are employed
by are imaginary and fabricated for practical reasons.
Company Name Industry Employee Name Employee Position
ABC Management
Consulting
Rick Wellers Supply Chain
Management Consultant
Highlight
Consulting B.V.
Professional
Services
Peter den Haman Supply Chain
Management Consultant
Atkins Electronics Electronics Jon Keller Senior Director Global
Logistics
Akron Caller Chemicals Janna Henderson Supply Chain Manager
Table 4-1 Details about the semi-structured interviews respondents
Once the format of the interview results’ presentation has been discussed and justified, and the selected
respondents have been described, it is now time to present the results. This process is completed in four
paragraphs, one per respondent, each of which paragraphs includes two sections, one for Business
Strategy and one for Business Sustainability.
4.2. ABC
The contribution of Mr. Wellers, employee of ABC, was rather constructive and concise. His experience
in the Management Consulting Industry, which has been serving as a Supply Chain Management
Consultant for many years, forearmed him with a unique sense of wisdom. Thereby, his positions and
opinions were really valuable and revealing in the context of this research. An analysis of Mr. Wellers’
argumentation is given below, separated in the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability categories.
Business Strategy
The approach of Mr. Wellers on the topic Business Strategy and SCOR Model, or generally Supply Chain
Management, is clear and direct. While consulting a client about supply chain related issues, the first
element to examine and start from is Business Strategy - either on a general or specific context. In this
respect, the first question to ask is “what are the
client’s growth aspirations?” Because the advice
should be firstly adjusted on the overall demands of
the client; subsequently, it is easier and more
substantial to look for SC implications. In other
words, Mr. Wellers translates strategy as “a policy
to eliminate the distance between what is
happening now and what the client wants to achieve”.
In this regard, he considers the contribution of any analytical tool as peripheral and of secondary
importance. It is the professional experience and practical wisdom of the people involved that reassures
“The first element to examine and
start from, is Business Strategy”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 70 -
the location of viable solutions. Judging from his general perception about the potential contribution of
analytical tools, Mr. Wellers appears to be skeptical regarding the usefulness of SCOR Model in general.
This has to be mentioned, since it indicates the prism through which his judgments should be evaluated.
As a simulation of the real world, he says, SCOR Model deals with Supply Chain Management issues in a
systematic manner, so as to increase the possibilities of effectively approaching real facts. In this
respect, it first and foremost attempts to capture the notion of Business Strategy with a neat approach.
Therefore, it recognizes Five Performance Indicators, which, depending on the industry under focus,
may constitute a strategic priority or not. For example, a manufacturer of spare parts for airlines should
compete on responsiveness, while a bank should compete on costs, since, in the Financial Services
industry, Supply Chain Management is not seen as a domain on the competitive edge. Regarding now
how effective this strategic approach of SCOR Model can be, the opinion of Mr. Wellers is two-fold. On
one hand, he admits that the approach of SCOR Model is rather systematic and can lead in precise
results when it comes to the strategic positioning of a company in the supply chain competitive map of
their industry. On the other hand though, he doubts the range of the Five Main Attributes and whether
they are able to capture the entire strategic spectrum of a company. In this respect, he considers the
variables of Acuity and Innovativeness that were located in the literature as potentially good
enrichments, which still though do not solve the located issue.
One step further, regarding the benchmarking process of SCOR Model, Mr. Wellers raises a number of
central issues. First of all, he distinguishes between two types of benchmarking. He refers to the first
one as statistical comparison, meaning the traditional benchmarking process, where the performance of
companies is benchmarked on the
performance of their best-in-class
competitors, on several selected
performance categories. His
criticism on this benchmarking
category is severe. The main
question here is “How do you
define best-in-class?” The answer
is by calculating and comparing
performance indicators, as it also
happens in the SCOR Model case. But then what is recognized as best-in-class may merely be the policy
of a company to cut down costs, concealing this way a problem that can arise later on. This is a typical
problem, according to Mr. Wellers with several representative examples. Similarly, a company may
purposefully lag in a performance category. Google payroll services for example are highly inefficient,
almost double than their competitors. However, they only care about growth. Thus, they prefer to
sacrifice performance in one category, but retain their innovative resilience that leads to the recorded
growth. In general, benchmarking databases that are statistically produced can highlight areas for
improvement, which, though, if not strategically relevant do not really matter. Mr. Wellers stresses that
this type of benchmarking rarely really works; “you have to know the company you benchmark to, you
have to know their capabilities”.
“Benchmarking is central only if there is
strategic relevance between the implementing
and the benchmarked company, only if they
present similar or analogous capabilities”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 71 -
This brings the discussion to the second benchmarking category, which basically attempts to connect the
companies that perform fine with the companies of inferior performance, on the basis of their
capabilities and no matter the industry they belong to. In fact, Mr. Wellers claims that there is no point
in advising e.g. a chemical company on the basis of the performance of another chemical company,
since the probability for a shallow recommendation is high. What needs to be sought for here is a type
of strategic criterion that connects the companies under comparison. According to Mr. Wellers,
“Benchmarking is central only if there is strategic relevance between the implementing and the
benchmarked company, only if they present similar or analogous capabilities”.
Then, how can this relevance be determined? The literature review revealed two indicators that could
be used in this direction, i.e. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility. However,
the opinion of Mr. Wellers on this topic is quite clear; there is only one relevant question when it comes
to strategic relevance, i.e. “do the compared companies use similar strategic weapons?” All the variables
that are or can be used, attempt
to answer this question. They
constitute an approach to
systemize the strategic
orientation of the examined
companies. In this respect, it is
hard to determine an overall set
of indicators that define business
strategy in a systematic way,
allowing comparisons between
companies. Additionally, it is always a problem to efficiently measure such indicators. Mr. Wellers
replies to the usefulness of the located indicators with this general statement. However, he makes an
exception for Power Structure Positioning, which considers being an indicative, easily measured variable
when it comes to the location of strategic relevance or compatibility.
The final issue posed by Mr. Wellers on Business Strategy refers to the degree of flexibility that should
characterize SCOR Model. That is, the development of a bureaucratic analytical tool with numerous
variables and functions that diminish user-friendliness and inhibit the extraction of overall conclusions is
not the point. If it is to establish a Supply Chain Management analytical tool, it needs to be as flexible as
possible, it needs to take into consideration and respect the experience of the practitioners and leave
room for maneuver and initiative.
Business Sustainability
Regarding Business Sustainability and the
way it is confronted by SCOR Model, the
opinion of Mr. Wellers is straightforward.
The endeavor of the SCC is concise and
perhaps optimal, since further improvement
“If it is to establish a Supply Chain Management
analytical tool, it needs to be as flexible as
possible, it needs to take into consideration and
respect the experience of the practitioners and
leave room for maneuver and initiative”
“Green policies start to flourish only
when customers start to demand them”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 72 -
of this approach may fall out of the council’s authority. From a business perspective, Mr. Wellers claims
that sustainability is well beyond the “hippy” era, corporations have already realized their interest in this
domain. The competitive advantage of becoming “green” is by far more apparent on a business-to-
customer (B2C) level, while on a business-to-business (B2B) level, costs usually overshadow the concept
of sustainability. The reason is that green policies start to flourish only when customers start to demand
them. In this respect, the influence of the SCC is limited and its contribution bound to SCOR Model
features.
In general, it is the responsibility of broader organizations, governmental and non-governmental, to
motivate customers, provide them with incentives and promote sustainable over conventional solutions.
In this regard, the approach of the SCC on sustainability is, given this situation, as to the point as it gets.
The intense focus on eco-efficiency,
which, according to the literature,
comprises only one out of the six
prominent sustainable aspects, is a
one-way path, given the described
constraints that limit the action of SCC.
In other words, given these
circumstances, the approach of the SCC to equalize sustainability with eco-efficiency is justified. Mr.
Wellers stresses that the inclusion of the other sustainable aspects, related to nature and society, is also
important and urgent; however, it is not a responsibility of the SCC to include them in SCOR Model and
Supply Chain Management.
Peripheral points of Mr. Wellers invalidate the hypothesis of the SCC that the conflict between supply
chain managers and environmentalists inhibits the promotion of SCOR Model’s sustainable features. It is
the lack of financial incentives that deter companies from promoting sustainability and setting it as a
priority. Additionally, he underlines the importance of the industry sector parameter, since this is a
prominent differentiating factor when discussing about sustainability.
4.3. Highlight Consulting B.V.
Peter den Haman, Supply Chain Management consultant of Highlight, was also generous in sharing his
experience with and opinion about SCOR Model. In fact, his arguments were found to be rather close to
the orientation of this research and to the pertinent literature findings. Either in accordance with these
findings or not, the argumentation of Mr. Haman was precise and his contribution to this research
substantial. Again, the analysis of this interview is given under the Business Strategy and Business
Sustainability categories.
Business Strategy
When it comes to Business Strategy, the role of SCOR Model is specific and well-defined for Mr. Haman
and Highlight. That is, they use SCOR Model during the strategic assessment of their clients’ supply
chains, but merely as a reference to set the scope and structure the problem. In other words, they use it
“The influence of the SCC is limited and its
contribution bound to SCOR Model features”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 73 -
as guidance and opt for specific functions. They do not use it in the conventional three-level pattern. In
this respect, they found it to be helpful in supply chain reviews, but limited to peripheral use for two
reasons.
First of all, the applicability of the model is constrained by the overall nature of models, in specific, and
simulation, in general. Mr. Haman claims that “models are nice to have, can provide you with a direction
so as to cover everything, but just that”. Real-life examples point out a need for versatility, each client
comes with specific issues, connected to certain areas of the model. Therefore, the model cannot be
used as an overall template, as a leading tool, but only peripherally and complementary, since,
according to Mr. Haman, one should think from the direction of the client, not from a pre-constructed
model’s perspective. This argument, similar to the one in the case of ABC, exceeds the boundaries of this
research. However, it is recorded for reasons of coherence, since it is indicative of the interviewee’s
positioning on the research topic.
The second constraint on the universal use of
the model, when it comes to strategic context,
is the broadness of the five variables. Mr.
Haman argues that “the scope of the five
variables is too limited to capture business
strategy”. In fact, following the intuition of this
research attempt, Mr. Haman witnesses the enrichment of this set of variables in Highlight, by adding
dimensions depending on their customer demands. Examples of such dimensions are Strategy,
Geography, Culture, Business Size, Tax, New Product Development and Organizational Structure. Acuity
and Innovativeness could also add important information in this direction; however he is not sure how
easily they can be measured.
One step further, regarding the benchmarking character of SCOR Model, Mr. Haman appears to be quite
positive. He claims that “benchmarking can be used to get better than your competitor”, while he, sort
of, contradicts the approach of Michael Porter by saying that “being different from your competitor
doesn’t mean you have to be different
in every aspect”. In this respect, he
argues that competitive advantage
can be gained simply by a great
product at a low price, or by a unique
product, or by an excellent service
etc., in general by a core competence
or key point that differentiates you from your competitor. However, this does not exclude the utilization
of benchmarking complementarily, for the improvement of peripheral activities. In fact, he uses his
experience to recognize a number of specific examples, where competitive advantage was gained from a
field other than the one of Supply Chain Management. In such cases, the role of Supply Chain
Management - and SCOR Model in specific – is limited on cost reduction; it is not occupied with
increasing customer base or market share, or generally creating competitive advantage.
“The scope of the five variables is too
limited to capture business strategy”
“Being different from your competitor doesn’t
mean you have to be different in every aspect”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 74 -
At face value, the approach of Mr. Haman on benchmarking appears to contradict the direction of this
research. At second glance, it simply complements it and makes it stronger. Indeed, Supply Chain
Management is not merely and always about creating competitive advantage. Decent performance is, in
many cases, sufficient. However, there are several examples where companies seek for supply chain
performance beyond the competitive edge. And
this is the question that needs to be answered in
this research; how should SCOR Model capture
the concept of Business Strategy so as to allow
companies to fulfill their strategic goals, either
they coincide with a pursuit for superiority or
with a compromise with parity. In other words,
benchmarking is not by definition positive or negative; the truth is that effective utilization of
benchmarking practices can yield impressive results. And the term “effective” refers to the location of
representative benchmarks, to the comparison with actually strategically-compatible companies.
This brings the discussion to what has been labeled in this research as strategic compatibility. Mr.
Haman admits that “It is always important to benchmark comparable (peer) companies”. In Highlight,
they use the industry average as an initial approach and they subsequently try to narrow their
comparison down. The selection of the narrowing-down dimensions is not rigid; it depends on the
clients, their demands and the problem circumstances. Mr. Haman appears to be rather defensive of
this flexibility, for a very simple reason. He expresses his concerns that a rigid and systematic narrowing-
down benchmarking process may lead to the elimination of the benchmarking sample.
It is truth that it is really hard to locate identical companies. There will always be a different approach.
This is why Highlight prefers to compare to the industry average as an initial step; so as to reassure that
they will find a sample to compare and benchmark to.
Then, they are able to examine the industry as a whole
and define and explain its special characteristics that
need to be taken into account. Finally, they distinguish
which company is the best in which performance
category, e.g. assets efficiency, inventory levels,
receivables and so on, and they try to imitate the
analogous one so as to improve their overall
performance. In this respect, Mr. Haman is skeptical
about a rigid funneling benchmarking approach, which
may lead to the loss of opportunities for improvement. As a measure against this repercussion, he
proposes the examination of similar companies in other industries, a practice that can boost the quality
of the benchmarking results, not only because it increases the size of the benchmarking sample, but it
enriches the diversity of the input as well.
“It is always important to benchmark
comparable (peer) companies”
“A rigid and systematic model
may exclude nice corporate
examples and may eliminate
opportunities for improvement”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 75 -
The approach of Highlight, as it is described by Mr. Haman, comes in accordance with the literature
findings. Indeed, Highlight attempts to locate strategically compatible companies to benchmark to, on
an empirical and customized-per-occasion basis. In a similar pattern, the literature review section
indicated the same need, a need that could be confronted through the utilization of two extra variables,
i.e. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility. The former systematic approach does
not coincide with the latter, flexible one. They both, though, try to accomplish the same thing: assess
the strategic compatibility between the companies under comparison. Regarding the opinion of Mr.
Haman about these two variables, he generally thinks that any of them that can be easily measured can
increase the success rate of the attempted strategic assessment.
The final argument of Mr. Haman about Business Strategy refers to the degree of flexibility that should
characterize SCOR Model. As it can be seen on Mr. Haman’s line of reasoning, he is concerned that a
rigid and systematic model may exclude nice corporate examples and may eliminate opportunities for
improvement. Therefore, he claims that the solutions proposed towards the improvement of the
benchmarking process should be loosely implemented, added in a complementary pattern. For example,
benchmarking results can be enriched with some comments next to a selected set of representative
variables. This way, benchmarking can lead to substantial solutions instead of simply providing a general
idea.
Business Sustainability
Only the sound of the word Sustainability caused the immediate reaction of Mr. Haman. Perhaps due to
the opportunities for the promotion of sustainability he sees in the Supply Chain Management domain,
Mr. Haman rushed into phrasing his overall
opinion. “We have to get rid of sub-
optimization” he says, referring to the
uncoordinated spasmodic actions of all the
actors involved. For example,
environmentalists pursue lower CO2 emissions, supply chain managers seek for improving supply chain
networks, and governments play their own, measures-imposing, role, leaving behind them a blurry
sustainability landscape.
Partly, the opinion of Mr. Haman coincides with the diagnosis of the SCC that SCOR Model “green”
features are mainly inhibited by a conflict between environmentalists and supply chain managers. At
least they both claim that there is a lack of priorities and organization recorded. However, Mr. Haman
does not see this conflict as the main
problem to be solved. It is the establishment
of an integrated approach, expanding, at
least, to all common activities - such as the
one of product development - that is
becoming necessary.
“We have to get rid of sub-optimization”
“It is the establishment of an integrated
approach … that is becoming necessary”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 76 -
In this respect, he also agrees with the strategy of the SCC to equalize sustainability with eco-efficiency.
SCOR Model is bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint pattern; there is no room for
alternative confrontation, at least in real and practical terms. Furthermore, he agrees with the intuition
of this research that an effective implementation and promotion of sustainable solutions requires the
intervention of broader organizations. Apart from the SCC, the contribution of which is bound to be
limited, the same goes for companies as well. Their
contribution to sustainability is bound by the concept of
profitability. Sustainability has never been in the priority list,
and even in cases of “green” efforts, the results were not as
impressive as they were expected to be. The example of
BMW’s green campaign is brought on, along with some doubts
whether the pertinent huge investments did finally pay off.
Especially during an economic crisis, like the one that occurs in
parallel to the conduction of this research, sustainability is
definitely overshadowed by cost reduction in a corporate
priority list.
According to Mr. Haman, “substantial solutions in the sustainability domain can only be expected from
governmental initiatives”. The example of the Dutch taxation system is brought on, where inefficient,
highly-polluting automobiles face heavier taxes. Mr. Haman claims that this is “the only way to keep the
notion of sustainability running”. Analogically, he proposes the establishment of an emissions-trading
scheme within supply chains, as a seemingly effective solution. The SCC has provided in its latest release
the tools towards the establishment of such a scheme. It is now the responsibility of governmental
organizations to validate and authorize this endeavor. Contemplating the monetary amounts spent on
corporate responsibility activities, one can realize that the resources required for the establishment of
sustainability exist; however, they are not optimally used and they will never be, unless pertinent
authorities undertake the responsibility of translating sustainability in economic terms.
4.4. Atkins Electronics
Mr. Keller’s perspective on SCOR Model, in specific, and Supply Chain Management, in general, is
practical and wise. As a Senior Director in Global Logistics of Atkins Electronics, Mr. Keller has
confronted SCOR Model as an analytical tool over the operations of the company he is employed by.
Thus, he has the practical experience to locate problematic areas and opportunities for improvement.
His argumentation is rather revealing and adds several new elements in the accumulated results. The
analysis of these elements is presented below, under the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
categories.
Business Strategy
Atkins Electronics officially uses SCOR Model for the management of their supply chain operations and
activities. They mainly use it as a reference model so as to structure their supply chain processes and
control a number of selected key performance indicators (KPIs). Although rigid and impractical when
“Substantial solutions in
the sustainability domain
can only be expected from
governmental initiatives”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 77 -
used in very specific cases, Mr. Keller evaluates SCOR Model positively when generically, but still
operationally, used. Characteristically, he resembles it with a Supply Chain Management language.
This overall opinion of Mr. Keller about the partial applicability of SCOR Model applies to the way it
confronts Business Strategy as well. Although the model is rather systematic and provides a state-of-the-
art framework to determine priorities and actions regarding Supply Chain Management, it does not take
into account concepts such as the business, the market and the competitive environment so as to build
strategic context. These concepts are taken into account by highly-ranked employees, who, on the basis
of their experience, create the general strategic guidelines that should be followed by the various
corporate departments, such as the Supply Chain Management one. In this respect, SCOR Model can
perhaps highlight these concepts and add some relevant content, which however can only be company-
specific and not to be generalized. In other words, Mr. Keller considers that SCOR Model should not
interfere with Business Strategy more than it already does, since this can be very complicated and enter
the grounds of the company’s administration.
In this respect, he is not very positive
regarding the enrichment of the five
Performance Attributes. First of all,
although innovation is always an
important parameter when it comes to
Supply Chain Management, it strongly
depends on the overall positioning of the
company. That is, innovative efforts and
results are not independent from the
nature of the market (static or dynamic),
the size and geographical boundaries of the market, the power and number of the competitors and so
on. This is a subtle detail that should be taken care of when looking on Innovativeness as a performance
indicator. As a consequence, Innovativeness may be more of an issue for the administrative side.
Similarly, Acuity sounds quite vague in supply chain terms. It can be vital in market terms, but it is hard
to be quantified within a supply chain environment. Additionally, Mr. Keller claims that it partially
overlaps with Agility in the sense that it shows how flexible a company is to adjust in more profitable
solutions. Thus, he does not see why it should be added to the five Performance Attributes.
Mr. Keller can be said to be rather influenced by the organizational structure and the way they do things
within Atkins. Although this argument may sound subjective, the presentation of the results will reveal a
contradiction that provides this argument with the required support to condition it logically sound. That
is, it will become apparent that although Mr. Atkins agrees with all of the proposed solutions and
identifies their relevance and contribution, he arbitrarily and non-negotiably rejects their inclusion in the
SCOR Model. Extra support to this conclusion is also provided by the way Atkins has incorporated SCOR
Model in their Supply Chain Management in the past.
“SCOR Model does not take into account
concepts such as the business, the market
and the competitive environment so as to
build strategic context”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 78 -
Specifically, Atkins has used SCOR Model as the basis of a maturity assessment tool, mandatory and
used by all the company’s departments, towards checking performance and proposing solutions. In
other words, SCOR Model has been used as a supply chain corporate language towards the
development of an internal benchmark, based on which Atkins could make their decisions. Additionally,
SCOR Model was also helping Atkins to see how
they meet industry standards. The output of this
maturity tool, though, was not used directly by
the Supply Chain Management department. It
was the administration of the company that was
processing the results and extracting the analogous strategic directions. The Supply Chain Management
department was only responsible for the realization of the administration decisions, for their translation
into supply chain processes. For the record, the implementing departments eventually shifted their
focus and the maturity tool was abandoned approximately 8 years ago.
As it can be seen, Mr. Keller, on the basis of his experience in Atkins, has a very specific view about SCOR
Model and the way it can be adopted by a corporation. It is an operational tool that helps in the
translation of strategic decisions in Supply Chain Management terms and processes. How these
decisions are taken or how SCOR Model is created to accept them is another topic of discussion for Mr.
Keller. This is why it was claimed before that the arguments of Mr. Weller should be somehow filtered;
because as an employee dealing with operational issues, even from an administrative position, he
presents a strategic myopia, as it is witnessed by his strongly operationally-oriented arguments and his
weakness to see the connection to strategy.
In this respect, benchmarking can only be positive, according to Mr. Keller, basically because it fulfills an
essential two-fold function. SCOR Model, using standard definitions and performance indicators,
provides a universal operational code, a common language in Supply Chain Management. The two folds
of this function refer to the two sides one can look
to a company, i.e. internally and externally.
Internally, SCOR Model benchmarks enhance the
communication among the various departments.
The example of customer service is brought on, the
quality of which is measured differently by the
Supply Chain Management and the Marketing
departments, and correspondingly is perceived differently by the customers themselves. Externally,
SCOR Model benchmarks allow the comparison with the industry average and quantify the performance
of the best-in-class competitors. Again, whether these competitors are appropriate to imitate is not a
Supply Chain Managerial issue for Mr. Keller.
On the same track, he sees the potential contribution of strategic compatibility when it comes to
benchmarking, however not within SCOR Model boundaries. Mr. Keller agrees that while defining a
strategy, it is important to know where you are, where you want to be, who the competitor is, what the
market is, the business and so on. In this regard, it would be great to select the practices to imitate on
“Benchmarking can only be positive”
“SCOR Model…a common language
in Supply Chain Management”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 79 -
the basis of a deep and precise analysis that extracts strategically compatible companies to benchmark
to. Whether now this should happen within SCOR Model, Mr. Keller’s view does not change.
Regarding the indicators derived from the literature and their potential contribution in capturing the
concept of strategic compatibility, Mr. Keller is generally positive. Power Structure Positioning is easy to
measure and directly related to Business Strategy. The question of Mr. Keller is again how relevant is
such a strategic indicator to SCOR Model. Value Creation Compatibility, on the other hand, sounds more
concrete in supply chain terms. The challenge here would be to alter the attitude of most people to
confront Supply Chain Management as a tool for cost reduction, not as a tool for value creation.
The final argument of Mr. Keller relates to the degree of complexity
characterizing SCOR Model. “The lighter the better” argues Mr.
Keller, stating that the more one goes in detail, the more likely they
are to deviate from the goal of the company. This is what his
experience has taught him. There are numerous cases, he recalls,
where using SCOR Model beyond level three generated deviations
that made the management of the process counter-productive.
Business Sustainability
First of all, Mr. Keller argues that sustainability is a prominent notion when it comes to Supply Chain
Management and it should be included in SCOR Model in whatever terms. He uses the example of
reverse logistics to illustrate this relation and
support his argument that sustainability should
be central in the SCOR Model, not peripheral.
Regarding now the reason that SCOR Model
“green” features usually stay on the margin,
Mr. Keller cannot account this fact on any kind
of conflict between supply chain managers and
environmentalists. He has witnessed in the past
conflicts between manufacturers, claiming for
high productivity and large batch sizes, and supply chain managers, asking for made-to-order and
immediately-deliverable products, but nothing as such described.
“The key to establishing sustainability in Supply Chain Management is to put it on the corporate
agenda”, says Mr. Keller, to make it a decisive factor for companies. Still though, he perceives this as a
top-down process. That is, Business Sustainability is a strategic issue, deriving from the overarching
business plan. It is nice of SCOR Model to offer “green” features, it remains, however, a decision of the
administration whether to use them or not. In this respect, it is not a responsibility of the SCC to further
promote these features. SCOR Model is a reference model. It is the users that will set their priorities
within this reference.
“The key to establishing sustainability
in Supply Chain Management is to put
it on the corporate agenda”
“The lighter the better”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 80 -
According to the argumentation of Mr. Keller, the “responsibility” for the promotion of sustainability
within Supply Chain Management goes from the SCC to corporations. One step further, Mr. Keller
characterizes sustainability as a demand-driven idea, and shoulders consumers with its promotion and
establishment. Judging from his own experience, his line of reasoning begins from the pertinent
positioning of his company. Atkins is a
consumer-based company that cares about
the consumers’ wants and needs, and
sustainability is occasionally one of these,
embraced by the consumers. Sustainability is
a new area for Atkins, merely confronted as a
branding-strategic issue. That is, Atkins
aspires to establish a brand image that represents the adoption of clear and sustainable policies and
practices. Whether now this image will represent the reality or whether the investments to build this
image are efficiently used or how the related supply chains can become systematically and permanently
green is another topic, falling out of the scope of Atkins; logically, to be said, since these issues are not
directly and autonomously related with profits.
This is where the argumentation of Mr. Keller stops; to the boundaries of Atkins’ interest. He does not
answer who should undertake the stimulation of this demand of the consumers for sustainable
solutions. As long as consumers ask for sustainable products and Atkins offers them, no one cares
whether the related supply chain practices are truly sustainable or as sustainable as it gets. On the other
hand, he admits that eco-efficiency is not enough to provide a company with the “green” stamp.
“Sustainability is something that comes back in many things that we do” and it should be therefore
confronted more spherically if it is to be substantially established. Whether the words of Mr. Keller
sketch the need for intervention of a universally authorized body, such as a government, will not be a
matter of debate in this research.
4.5. Akron Caller
Mrs. Henderson is a supply chain manager of Akron Caller, a company active in the Chemical Industry.
The fact that she interferes with supply chain operations on a daily basis along with the nature of her
company provides this research with rather important arguments in the fields of Business Strategy and
Business Sustainability respectively. On one hand, she has the experience to connect operations with
strategy and capture the overall picture; on the other hand, working in the Chemical Industry elevates
sustainability to a high and urgent priority, both in terms of profitability and ethics. The argumentation
of Mrs. Henderson is presented below, under the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
categories.
“Eco-efficiency is not enough to provide
a company with the ‘green’ stamp”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 81 -
Business Strategy
Regarding the overall usefulness of
SCOR Model, Mrs. Henderson appears to
be a keen admirer. She claims that,
when starting from a zero basis, SCOR
Model is the best solution to organize
and manage a company’s supply chain. It can be used as a template, putting in order all the relevant
loose supply chain processes. Akron Caller has already developed a Supply Chain Management system
that puts in context the company’s supply chain processes, a system quite similar to SCOR Model.
With respect to the approach of SCOR Model when it comes to capturing Business Strategy, Mrs.
Henderson appears to be satisfied. She considers the set of the five Performance Attributes to be
sufficient, although she recognizes that all companies may need to customize and enrich this set so as to
serve their own needs. The main advantage of
SCOR Model, related to the way it captures
Business Strategy, is the transparency of the
connection between strategies, processes,
activities and elements. The benefits of this
systematic breakdown structure can be seen in
two ways.
From a top-down perspective, the model analyzes and dismantles Business Strategy on a number of
main processes, which consist of a number of activities and so on, an approach that conditions the
implementation of Business Strategy systematic and straightforward. From a bottom-up perspective, it
is simple to see how each operational block contributes to the overall strategic plan. This bidirectional
transparency is the main strength of the model when it comes to Business Strategy within the Supply
Chain Management domain. Whether now the recognized breakdown branches are sufficient to
describe and capture Business Strategy, the opinion of Mrs. Henderson can be summarized on the
conclusion that they are necessary but not always sufficient.
In this respect, Innovativeness and Acuity could be
potential enrichments of the Performance
Attributes set. Extra emphasis is placed on the
Innovativeness indicator, who is claimed to be a
strong performance indicator in terms of Supply
Chain Management. However, it has to be strictly
defined if it is to be useful. “There are many ways to
measure Innovativeness; you just need to make sure
that everybody measures the same thing”.
Apparently, this argument applies to any type of indicator; even more to the case of Innovativeness,
though, since there is a long distance between, for example, incremental and breakthrough innovations.
“Business Sustainability is a strategic issue”
“The five Performance Attributes are
necessary but not always sufficient”
“There are many ways to measure
innovativeness; you just need to
make sure that everybody
measures the same thing”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 82 -
It can be seen that Mrs. Henderson confronts SCOR Model from its operational perspective. As an
employee interfering with the Supply Chain Management of massive production lines, she is mainly
interested in the operational side of the model. However, she does see the connection to Business
Strategy and how this process can take place within SCOR Model. This versatility of Mrs. Keller to see the
overall picture despite the fact that she basically interferes with operational issues, is perhaps related
with the organizational structure and the way they do things within Akron Caller.
Comparing to the case of Mr. Keller and
Atkins Electronics, Akron Caller is more
horizontally organized. They have a
decentralized, matrix and process-oriented
organizational system. The reason they
have adopted this system is that they need to manage cross-functional processes, within a technical
environment. As a consequence, although they still use a top-down administrative pattern when it
comes to “big” decisions such as which processes to use and what markets to enter, they need to spread
every-day responsibility horizontally and among various persons. And this is probably the reason that
Mrs. Henderson, although not directly interfering, is acquainted with strategic notions and how they
interrelate to Supply Chain Management. It has to be mentioned, though, that the operational role of
Mrs. Henderson binds her creativity when it comes to the actual suggestion of business solutions. This
deduction should be kept in mind when evaluating her arguments.
With respect to the benchmarking character of SCOR Model, Mrs. Henderson appears aware both of the
way the model makes use of benchmarking practices and of the pertinent pitfalls. “You have to compare
apples with apples” she says and not apples with
oranges when it comes to benchmarking. Her
argument is two-aspect. First of all, she refers to
the type of metrics used within this benchmarking
process. In this respect, she praises SCOR Model for
creating a common communication platform.
Companies usually develop their own metrics to
measure their performance, rendering comparison
a hard and imprecise task, since all of them make
their own calculations and assumptions. A common database like the one created within SCOR Model
surpasses this issue and provides a dependable solution. The second aspect Mrs. Henderson refers to
when talking about benchmarking homogeneity is not the type of the metrics used but the character of
the companies using them. In this aspect, she claims that the type of business the best-in-class
companies belong to and the homogeneity of their overall business context are of vital importance.
Therefore, it would be rather useful, towards the proper implementation of benchmarking practices, if
SCOR Model could incorporate such a differentiating factor.
This brings the discussion to the concept of strategic compatibility, as it is inserted in this research. At
face value, Mrs. Henderson agrees on the necessity of such a variable, at least in a top-down direction.
“You have to compare apples with apples”
“If you could only see how business
people respond to boxes and
arrows, how terrified they get”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 83 -
The highly-ranked administrative employees could use this variable so as to locate which competitors it
is wise to imitate, and then locate the practices to be adopted and move this information down to the
Supply Chain Management department. However, Mrs. Henderson cannot see how this could happen in
a bottom-up direction. That is, based on her experience, business people, usually dealing with Finance,
Marketing and Strategy, are not in position to understand technical subjects, and become resistant. “If
you could only see how business people respond to boxes and arrows, how terrified they get”, she says to
support her argument that SCOR Model is too technocratic to work in a bottom-up direction.
Exaggerating or not, Mrs. Henderson is definitely making a point regarding the way strategic
compatibility should be incorporated in SCOR Model.
Finally, regarding the indicators derived from the literature towards the assessment of strategic
compatibility, Mrs. Henderson appears generally positive. Both Power Structure Positioning and Value
Creation Compatibility could be effectively used in the described direction. The problem remains the
same for Mrs. Henderson. How and where in the model could these variables be added so as to
overcome the described communication difficulties.
Business Sustainability
The common grounds between Sustainability and Supply Chain Management are definite and vast,
according to Mrs. Henderson. No matter how, these two concepts should go together she claims,
supporting the initiative of the SCC to
incorporate “green” features in SCOR Model.
Why now this is not the case in reality, as for
example in the case of SCOR Model where
sustainable features remain on the verge, Mrs.
Henderson, perhaps influenced by the nature of
the Chemical Industry she interferes with, puts the blame on the corporate side.
Regarding the conflict between supply chain managers and environmentalists as the inhibiting factor in
the diffusion of sustainability within the Supply Chain Management domain, Mrs. Henderson could not
come to agreement with the SCC. At least on the basis of her experience, sustainability is and has been
for a long time on the top of Akron Caller’s agenda. As it was mentioned before, the influence of the
Chemical Industry character is obvious on
the argumentation of Mrs. Henderson.
She cannot even imagine how a company
could inhibit the realization of
environmental-friendly policies, for two
main, mutually dependent, reasons. On
one hand, the product portfolio of a
chemical company needs to be as “green” as it gets, otherwise the impact on the brand image and on
the customer satisfaction indicators will be massive and destructive. On the other hand, legislation is
severe with the Chemical Industry and so are the pertinent “green” measures, imposed on the chemical
companies. It is easy to imagine how these two situations interrelate, since a company failing to satisfy
“The blame lies on the corporate side”
“Equalizing sustainability to eco-efficiency
indicates lack of responsibility”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 84 -
the standards will also fail to keep up with the competition. Overall, the responsibility, according to Mrs.
Henderson, remains clearly on the corporate side.
“Equalizing sustainability to eco-efficiency indicates lack of responsibility” claims Mrs. Henderson. The
natural and social implications of sustainability are clear and well-known, and they should not be
neglected. However, it is not the SCC that should take care of this matter. It would be really hard to
incorporate these concepts in SCOR Model whatsoever. It is again a responsibility of corporations to
look over these matters. Departments dealing with Corporate Responsibility and Ethics should look over
the natural and social implications of sustainability and attempt to take them into account when setting
strategic priorities and operational policies.
Finally, with respect to the idea of translating sustainability in
economic terms so as to promote and establish sustainable
solutions, Mrs. Henderson is again categorical. Companies
should actively and voluntarily behave towards sustainability;
otherwise they will not be allowed to operate. “We need to be
dedicated to sustainable thinking”; “Otherwise, how could we
look our children in the eyes”? The deduction that Mrs.
Henderson confronts the issue of sustainability through the Chemical Industry perspective is again
justified. Such questions have always been on the agenda of chemical companies and they increasingly
will, since it is in the core of their survival to convincingly answer them.
Although Mrs. Henderson puts corporations on the spot and appears rather reluctant to discuss about
the translation of sustainability in economic terms, a close examination of her argumentation leads to
the extraction of an alternative, perhaps more convincing, scenario. That is, this translation of
sustainability in economic terms has already happened in the Chemical Industry, long time ago and with
surprisingly positive results. To elaborate on this, Mrs. Henderson claims that the legislative measures
against misbehaving chemical companies are harsh, and those that wish to stay competitively alive are
left with no option but to compromise. One step further, this governmental intervention, as it is
expressed by the enforcement of severe measures, has affected and formulated public opinion, since
consumers demand by chemical products to satisfy specific quality standards. As an indirect
consequence, companies themselves including their employees, in this case Mrs. Henderson, have
learned to comply with governmental measures and have become “dedicated to sustainable thinking”.
This reverse examination of Mrs. Henderson examination not only provides support to the intuition of
this research that governmental intervention is necessary, but also it indicates how successful this
proposal can be.
4.6. Summary
This section is occupied with the analysis of the interview results and the accumulation of all the
important arguments that can be used 1) towards the extraction of the design principles overarching the
proposed updated version, and 2) within the concluding section. In this respect, the questionnaire that
“We need to be dedicated
to sustainable thinking”
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 85 -
is created on the basis of the literature findings is communicated to the supply chain representatives of
four prominent corporations. Appendix D presents the formulation of the interview questionnaire from
the literature research questions, while appendix E presents the questionnaire itself. Details on the
respondents are given in the following table, where the names of their companies and themselves are
imaginary, following their pertinent request for anonymity. The opinions of these experts are recorded
and cited under the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability categories. An overview of their
arguments is given on the two tables concluding this section.
It is mentioned that, given the qualitative nature of this research, there is a need to interpret several
opinions so as to fit the framework of this research. The filters for this interpretation process are given
within the corresponding analyses, wherever considered necessary. This analysis of the interview results
is the first step towards the conceptual design of the updated version that is proposed later on. Next
section is occupied with the accumulation of these results and their synthesis in guidelines for a
conceptual design. Apparently, a great amount of the results of this section is also used in the
concluding section.
Company Name Industry Employee Name Employee Position
ABC Management
Consulting
Rick Wellers Supply Chain
Management Consultant
Highlight
Consulting B.V.
Professional
Services
Peter den Haman Supply Chain
Management Consultant
Atkins Electronics Electronics Jon Keller Senior Director Global
Logistics
Akron Caller Chemicals Janna Henderson Supply Chain Manager
Table 4-2 Key elements of this chapter: Details about the respondents
Enrichin
g S
CO
R M
odel: R
ecaptu
ring the N
otions o
f B
usin
ess S
trate
gy a
nd B
usin
ess S
usta
inability
8
6
BU
SIN
ES
S S
TR
AT
EG
Y
AB
C
Hig
hli
gh
t A
tkin
s A
kr
on
Ca
lle
r
Th
e fi
rst e
lem
en
t to
exa
min
e a
nd
sta
rt
fro
m is
Bus
ine
ss S
trat
egy.
Th
e fiv
e P
erf
orm
an
ce A
ttrib
ute
s a
re n
ece
ssa
ry
bu
t n
ot s
uffic
ien
t. A
cuity
an
d
Inn
ova
tive
ness
co
uld
pa
rtia
lly
con
trib
ute
, b
ut n
ot s
olv
e t
he p
rob
lem
.
Th
e s
cope
of
the
fiv
e va
riabl
es
is t
oo
lim
ited
to
ca
ptu
re b
usi
ness
str
ate
gy.
E
xam
ple
s o
f ext
ra d
ime
nsi
ons
the
y us
e
are
Ne
w P
rodu
ct D
eve
lop
men
t, O
rgan
iza
tion
al S
tru
ctu
re e
tc. A
cuity
an
d
Inn
ova
tive
ness
co
uld
be
ad
ded
in t
his
list
.
It is
an
op
era
tion
al t
ool,
me
rely
mea
nt
to
tra
nsl
ate
str
ate
gic
dec
isio
ns
and
bus
ine
ss
Con
cept
s in
SC
M t
erm
s an
d p
roce
sses
. T
he
refo
re,
ther
e is
no
ne
ed
to e
nric
h t
he f
ive
P
erf
orm
an
ce A
ttrib
ute
s.
Th
e b
idire
ctio
na
l tra
nsp
are
ncy
is t
he
ma
in
stre
ngth
of
the
mo
de
l wh
en
it c
om
es
to
Bu
sin
ess
Str
ate
gy
with
in t
he
SC
M d
om
ain
.
Th
e c
on
trib
utio
n o
f a
ny
an
aly
tica
l to
ol
is p
erip
hera
l an
d of
se
con
dary
im
po
rta
nce
. It
is t
he
pro
fess
iona
l e
xpe
rien
ce a
nd p
ract
ica
l th
at
rea
ssu
res
the
loca
tion
of v
iab
le
solu
tion
s
Be
ing
diff
ere
nt f
rom
yo
ur
com
pe
tito
r d
oe
sn’t
me
an
yo
u h
ave
to b
e d
iffe
ren
t in
e
very
asp
ect.
Be
nch
ma
rkin
g c
an o
nly
be
pos
itive
. S
CO
R
Mo
de
l, us
ing
sta
nda
rd d
efin
itio
ns
and
p
erf
orm
anc
e in
dic
ato
rs, p
rovi
des
an
inte
rna
lly a
nd
ext
ern
ally
co
mm
on
o
pe
ratio
nal l
an
gu
age
in S
CM
.
Th
e fi
ve P
erf
orm
anc
e A
ttrib
utes
are
ne
cess
ary
bu
t n
ot a
lwa
ys s
uffic
ien
t to
des
crib
e a
nd
cap
ture
Bus
ine
ss S
trat
eg
y. A
cuity
an
d,
esp
ecia
lly,
Inn
ova
tive
ness
are
str
ong
enr
ich
ing
o
ptio
ns.
Be
nch
ma
rkin
g is
cen
tra
l on
ly if
th
e tw
o
com
pa
nie
s p
rese
nt s
imila
r o
r a
na
log
ous
ca
pab
ilitie
s.
It is
alw
ays
impo
rta
nt
to b
enc
hma
rk
com
pa
rab
le (
pe
er)
co
mp
an
ies.
Str
ate
gic
com
pa
tibili
ty c
an
po
ten
tially
co
ntr
ibu
te w
he
n it
com
es
to b
ench
ma
rkin
g,
ho
we
ver
no
t with
in S
CO
R M
ode
l b
ou
nda
ries.
Yo
u h
ave
to c
om
pa
re a
pp
les
with
ap
ple
s w
hen
it
com
es
to b
enc
hm
ark
ing,
bo
th in
te
rms
of th
e
me
tric
s u
sed
an
d o
f th
e co
mpa
nie
s us
ing
the
m.
It is
ha
rd t
o d
ete
rmin
e a
n o
vera
ll se
t of
in
dic
ato
rs th
at
defin
e s
tra
teg
ic
com
pa
tibili
ty in
a s
yste
ma
tic w
ay.
A
ddi
tion
ally
, it
is a
lwa
ys a
pro
ble
m to
e
ffic
ient
ly m
ea
sure
su
ch in
dic
ato
rs.
Po
we
r S
tru
ctur
e P
osi
tion
ing
is p
erh
aps
a
n e
xce
ptio
n.
Bo
th P
ow
er
Str
uctu
re P
osi
tion
ing
and
V
alu
e C
rea
tion
Co
mp
atib
ility
ca
n in
cre
ase
th
e s
ucc
ess
rate
of
the
att
em
pte
d st
rate
gic
ass
essm
ent
, g
iven
the
a
ssu
mp
tion
th
ey c
an
be
ea
sily
and
e
ffe
ctiv
ely
me
asu
red
.
Po
we
r S
tru
ctur
e P
osi
tion
ing
an
d V
alu
e
Cre
atio
n C
om
pat
ibili
ty c
an
po
ten
tially
co
ntr
ibu
te in
cap
turin
g th
e c
onc
ep
t of
stra
teg
ic c
om
patib
ility
.
Alth
oug
h s
tra
tegi
c co
mp
atib
ility
ca
n b
e u
sed
in
a t
op
-do
wn
dire
ctio
n,
the
cas
e m
ay
no
t b
e th
e
sam
e f
or
a b
otto
m-u
p d
irect
ion.
It n
eed
s to
be
as
flexi
ble
as
pos
sibl
e,
lea
vin
g r
oo
m fo
r m
ane
uve
r an
d
initi
ativ
e.
Th
e s
olu
tion
s sh
ou
ld b
e c
om
ple
me
nta
rily
ad
de
d, a
void
ing
re
nde
ring
th
e m
od
el r
igid
a
nd
elim
ina
ting
op
po
rtun
itie
s fo
r im
pro
vem
en
t. E
xam
inin
g s
imila
r co
mp
an
ies
in o
the
r in
dust
ries
can
boo
st
the
qua
lity
of
the
ben
chm
ark
ing
re
sults
.
Reg
ard
ing
the
deg
ree
of c
om
ple
xity
of
SC
OR
Mod
el,
the
lig
hte
r th
e b
ett
er.
Bo
th t
he P
ow
er
Str
uct
ure
Pos
itio
nin
g a
nd
Val
ue
C
rea
tion
Co
mp
atib
ility
ind
ica
tors
th
at w
ere
d
eriv
ed
fro
m t
he
lite
ratu
re c
ould
be
use
d t
o
ass
ess
str
ate
gic
co
mp
atib
ility
.
Ta
ble
4-3
Ke
y e
lem
en
ts o
f th
is c
ha
pte
r: S
um
ma
ry o
f th
e A
rgu
me
nts
on
Bu
sin
ess
Str
ate
gy
de
riv
ed
fro
m t
he
Se
mi-
stru
ctu
red
In
terv
iew
s
Enrichin
g S
CO
R M
odel: R
ecaptu
ring the N
otions o
f B
usin
ess S
trate
gy a
nd B
usin
ess S
usta
inability
8
7
BU
SIN
ES
S S
US
TA
INA
BIL
ITY
AB
C
Hig
hli
gh
t A
tkin
s A
kr
on
Ca
lle
r
Gre
en p
olic
ies
sta
rt t
o flo
uris
h o
nly
wh
en
cu
sto
mer
s st
art
to d
em
and
them
.
We
hav
e to
get
rid
of
sub
-opt
imiz
atio
n,
of t
he
unc
oor
din
ated
sp
asm
odi
c ac
tion
s of
all
the
act
ors
invo
lved
.
Th
ere
is n
o k
ind
of c
onfli
ct
betw
ee
n S
C m
an
ag
ers
and
en
viro
nm
en
talis
ts r
eco
rde
d.
Th
e b
lam
e li
es o
n th
e c
orp
ora
te s
ide
.
Th
e in
flue
nce
of
the
SC
C is
lim
ited
an
d its
co
ntr
ibu
tion
bo
und
to S
CO
R M
od
el f
ea
ture
s.
Bro
ad
er
org
an
iza
tions
are
the
on
es
to p
rom
ote
su
sta
ina
ble
ove
r co
nve
ntio
na
l so
lutio
ns.
It is
th
e e
sta
blis
hm
en
t of
an
inte
gra
ted
ap
pro
ach
, exp
an
din
g,
at l
eas
t, to
all
com
mo
n a
ctiv
itie
s -
such
as
the
on
e o
f pr
od
uct
deve
lop
men
t - th
at
is
beco
min
g n
ece
ssa
ry.
Th
e k
ey t
o e
sta
blis
hin
g
sust
ain
ab
ility
in S
CM
is t
o p
ut i
t on
th
e co
rpor
ate
age
nda
.
SC
ma
na
ge
rs a
nd e
nviro
nm
enta
lists
do
not
disa
gre
e o
n t
he
pro
mo
tion
of s
ust
ain
ab
ility
.
Th
e a
ppro
ach
of
the
SC
C t
o e
qu
aliz
e
sust
ain
abi
lity
with
eco
-eff
icie
ncy
is ju
stifi
ed.
Th
e
incl
usi
on
of
nat
ura
l and
so
cie
tal s
usta
ina
ble
a
spec
ts in
SC
M is
als
o im
po
rta
nt a
nd u
rgen
t, b
ut
no
t a
re
spo
nsi
bili
ty o
f th
e S
CC
.
SC
OR
Mod
el i
s b
ou
nd to
ass
ess
sust
ain
ab
ility
on
th
e c
arb
on fo
otp
rint
patt
ern
.
Bu
sin
ess
Sus
tain
ab
ility
is a
st
rate
gic
issu
e,
deriv
ing
fro
m
the
ove
rarc
hin
g b
usi
ness
pla
n.
Eq
ua
lizin
g s
ust
ain
ab
ility
to
eco
-eff
icie
ncy
ind
icat
es
lack
of
resp
ons
ibili
ty.
Th
ere
is n
o s
uch
th
ing
as
conf
lict
be
twe
en S
C
ma
na
ge
rs a
nd
env
iron
me
nta
lists
.
Th
e c
ontr
ibut
ion
of
com
pan
ies
is
bou
nd
to b
e li
mite
d a
s w
ell,
bou
nd b
y th
e c
on
cep
t of
pro
fita
bili
ty.
Th
e “
resp
onsi
bili
ty”
for
the
pro
mo
tion
of
sust
ain
abili
ty
with
in S
CM
go
es
fro
m t
he
SC
C
to c
orp
ora
tions
.
Co
mp
an
ies
sho
uld
act
ive
ly a
nd
vo
lunt
aril
y b
eha
ve
tow
ard
s su
sta
inab
ility
.
Th
e in
dus
try
sect
or
is a
pro
min
ent
diff
ere
ntia
ting
fa
cto
r w
he
n d
iscu
ssin
g a
bou
t su
sta
ina
bili
ty.
Su
bst
antia
l so
lutio
ns
in t
he
sust
ain
ab
ility
do
ma
in c
an
onl
y b
e
exp
ect
ed
from
gov
ern
men
tal
initi
ativ
es.
Eco
-eff
icie
ncy
is n
ot
en
oug
h to
pr
ovi
de
a c
om
pan
y w
ith th
e
“gre
en
” st
am
p.
Ta
ble
4-4
Ke
y e
lem
en
ts o
f th
is c
ha
pte
r: S
um
ma
ry o
f th
e A
rgu
me
nts
on
Bu
sin
ess
Su
sta
ina
bil
ity
de
riv
ed
fro
m t
he
Se
mi-
stru
ctu
red
In
terv
iew
s
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 88 -
5. Design Principles and Conceptual Design
5.1. Introduction
As it was clarified already by the early beginning of this research, the
purpose here is two-fold; on one hand, the exploration and evaluation of
the way Business Strategy and Business Sustainability are captured by
SCOR Model; on the other hand, on the basis of this evaluation, the
proposal and conceptualization of an updated version of the model. In
this respect, the purpose of this section is to accumulate and synthesize
the interview results, set the design principles and guidelines that will
overarch the updated version proposal and finally march on to the
realization of the conceptual design and to a corresponding evaluation.
In specific, this section consists of four parts. First of all, the results of the
interviews are assessed. Much of the information gathered through the
interviews repeats itself while some points are peripheral to the core of
this research. A clearance process is attempted in this part, a process that
will accumulate and synthesize the interview results into design
principles. If it is to effectively use the interview results and responsibly
confront the located room for SCOR Model improvement, there should be
at least an attempt to organize the accumulated information and propose
a solution. The second part of this section includes this attempt to
organize the derived design principles and extract corresponding
guidelines for the conceptual design. On the basis of this attempt, the
third part proposes a solution to deal with the located room for SCOR
Model improvement, by conceptualizing a design for an updated version
of the model. The fourth and final part of this section contains an
evaluation of this design process. As it was explained in the Research Design section, a supply chain
expert, former employee of the SCC, has been approached in this direction and will undertake the task
of this evaluation.
This section is the final one actively contributing to this research endeavor. It basically draws the line
between the specific research estate and the future research territory. Therefore, it will also lead to a
number of deductions and observations that, along with the already generated conclusions, will be
included in the upcoming closing section. This remark is made to stress the centrality of this section to
this research, a research that aspires not only to locate a problem, but also to provide a plausible
solution. The described line of reasoning that overarches this section is depicted on the following figure:
Introduction
Research Framework
Design Principles and
Conceptual Design
Interview Results
SCOR Description-Lit.
Review-Int. Framework
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Figure 5-1 Structure
Outline: Design Principles
and Conceptual Design
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 89 -
Figure 5-2 Four Steps from Interview Results to Conceptual Design
5.2. Results Accumulation and Synthesis to Design Principles
As it becomes apparent from a quick overview of the tables that summarize the results of the
interviews, much of the gathered information repeats itself or hovers around the same topic. Partly
because of the focus of the interview questionnaire, partly due to their similar experiences and
judgments, the respondents, in many cases, came with identical answers or commented on the same
topic. Although this repetition reinforces the trustworthiness on the results, it needs to be filtered out if
it is to use these results in practice. This is the aim of this paragraph: to accumulate and synthesize the
results, by getting rid of repetition and by aggregating related arguments around central topics. This
process will be again conducted under two categories, those referring to the concepts of Business
Strategy and Business Sustainability respectively, and will yield corresponding design principles
whenever possible.
Business Strategy
There are five main topics around which the argumentation of the interviewees is hovering around.
Either in agreement or disagreement, the arguments of the selected supply chain representatives
around these topics need to be organized, become part of the same story and lead to a number of
design principles. This process takes place below, separately for each one of the five recognized topics.
A. SCOR Model approach on Business Strategy
The arguments recorded under this topic are presented on the following table:
1. Business Strategy is the first element, to examine and start from, when it comes to Supply Chain
Management. The five Performance Attributes are necessary but not sufficient. Acuity and
Innovativeness could partially contribute, but not solve the problem.
2. The five Performance Attributes are necessary but not always sufficient to describe and capture
Business Strategy. Acuity and, especially, Innovativeness are strong enriching options.
3. The scope of the five variables is too limited to capture business strategy. Examples of extra
dimensions they use are Strategy, Geography, Culture, Business Size, Tax, New Product
Development and Organizational Structure. Acuity and Innovativeness could be added in this list.
4. The contribution of any analytical tool is peripheral and of secondary importance. It is the
professional experience and practical wisdom that reassures the location of viable solutions.
5. It is an operational tool, merely meant to translate strategic decisions and business Concepts in
SCM terms and processes. Therefore, there is no need to enrich the five Performance Attributes.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 90 -
6. The bidirectional transparency is the main strength of the model when it comes to Business
Strategy within the SCM domain.
Table 5-1 Arguments regarding the approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy
Regarding the first part of the first argument, SCOR Model does take Business Strategy into
consideration, and actually in a quite central position. The five Performance Attributes and the
“Superior”-“Advantage”-“Parity” tool, initiating the function of the model, are indicative elements of
this fact. The design principle (DP) derived from this argument is the following:
DP1: SCOR Model should confront Business Strategy as the first element to examine and start
from.
The second part of the first argument, along with the second and the third arguments, work on the
same direction. They all point out the limited scope of the five Performance Attributes when it comes to
capturing Business Strategy. They are all necessary but not always sufficient. In this direction, Acuity and
Innovativeness, the two indicators located in the literature as potential enrichments to the attempt of
capturing Business Strategy, were generally positively evaluated. On the same track, one of the
interviewees revealed the fact that they enrich this set of attributes when using SCOR Model within his
company, by adding a number of extra dimensions such as Strategy, Geography, Culture, Business Size,
Tax, New Product Development and Organizational Structure. The design principle to be deducted here
is the following:
DP2: SCOR Model should enrich the set of the five Performance Attributes with extra
dimensions, if it is to holistically capture the concept of Business Strategy.
The fourth argument is somewhat contradicting this design endeavor, since it diminishes the
contribution of analytical tools in capturing Business Strategy. They are considered to be of secondary
importance and are positioned quite opposite to professional experience and practical wisdom, which
are the main dynamos behind the location of viable solutions. If it is to derive a design principle from
this argument, it would be the following:
DP3: SCOR Model should keep central the role of and be complementary to the professional
experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners
The fifth argument under this topic sets a limit to the strategic expansion of SCOR Model. Actually, it
underlines the fact that SCOR Model is an operational tool, merely meant to translate strategic decisions
and business Concepts in Supply Chain Management terms and processes. Thereby, the corresponding
design principle is the following:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 91 -
DP4: SCOR Model should remain an operational tool and use the concept of Business Strategy
merely to translate strategic decisions and business Concepts in Supply Chain Management
terms and processes, and vice versa.
The final argument stresses the bidirectional transparency as the main strength of the model when it
comes to Business Strategy, because it enables the quick and easy transition from business to
operational concepts and vice versa. The corresponding design principle states that:
DP5: SCOR Model should retain this bidirectional transparency when it comes to Business
Strategy, allowing the quick and easy transition from business to operational concepts and vice
versa.
B. SCOR Model and Benchmarking
The arguments referring to this topic are presented on the following table:
1. Benchmarking is central only if the two companies present similar or analogous capabilities.
2. It is always important to benchmark comparable (peer) companies.
3. Being different from your competitor doesn’t mean you have to be different in every aspect.
4. Benchmarking can only be positive. SCOR Model, using standard definitions and performance
indicators, provides an internally and externally common operational language in SCM.
5. You have to compare apples with apples when it comes to benchmarking, both in terms of the
metrics used and of the companies using them.
Table 5-2 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Benchmarking
Regarding the first argument, it refers to the importance of comparing companies that present similar or
analogous capabilities. Support to this argument is also provided by the second argument and by the
second part of the fifth argument. If it is to draw a design principle from these arguments, this would be
the following:
DP6: SCOR Model should strive to promote the occurrence of benchmarking between companies
with similar capabilities.
Apparently, there are constraints in this approach, there are factors inhibiting the exact transfer from
theory to practice. The first one is the extent up to which this similarity between benchmarked
companies is a necessary benchmarking prerequisite. Apparently, as the third argument declares, there
are Supply Chain aspects where competitive similarity is not necessarily negative. Secondly, one should
not forget the unquestionable benchmarking benefits. As it is explained in the fourth argument and in
the first part of the fifth, benchmarking metrics provide a valuable, internally and externally common,
operational language in the domain of Supply Chain Management. These two inhibiting factors can be
translated in the following design principles:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 92 -
DP7: SCOR Model should take into consideration that practitioners do not need to be different in
every competitive aspect.
DP8: SCOR Model should not abandon its benchmarking character, simply because the
utilization of standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally and
externally common, operational language in Supply Chain Management.
C. SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility
The arguments relevant to this topic are gathered on the following table:
1. Strategic compatibility can potentially contribute when it comes to benchmarking, however not
within SCOR Model boundaries.
2. Although strategic compatibility can be used in a top-down direction, the case may not be the
same for a bottom-up direction.
Table 5-3 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility
The first argument validates the contribution of strategic compatibility, as it has been defined in this
research, in overcoming the recorded benchmarking pitfalls. Nevertheless, from a practitioner’s point of
view, this notion cannot be appropriately captured within SCOR Model boundaries. On the same track,
the second argument reveals the concern of another practitioner, claiming that, although strategic
compatibility could be communicated in a top-down direction, the case might not be the same in a
bottom-up pattern, given the lack of business people’s familiarity with operational concepts. As a result,
the advantageous, already mentioned, bidirectional transparency of SCOR Model could be lost. An
overview of these arguments, while keeping in mind the particular filters described under the results
section, leads to the extraction of the following design principles:
DP9: SCOR Model should somehow capture the concept of strategic compatibility, since it can
contribute in overcoming the recorded benchmarking pitfalls.
DP10: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a level that it does
not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners, who are not always fond of
business notions.
DP11: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a way that it does not violate the
model’s bidirectional transparency, in a way that it allows business people deal with operational
concepts, in the way it happens in the opposite direction.
D. SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility Indicators
The arguments referring to this topic are presented on the following table:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 93 -
1. It is hard to determine an overall set of indicators that define strategic compatibility in a
systematic way. Additionally, it is always a problem to efficiently measure such indicators. Power
Structure Positioning is perhaps an exception.
2. Both Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility can increase the success rate
of the attempted strategic assessment, given the assumption they can be easily and effectively
measured.
3. Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility can potentially contribute in
capturing the concept of strategic compatibility.
4. Both the Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility indicators that were
derived from the literature could be used to assess strategic compatibility.
Table 5-4 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Literature Indicators
This topic overarches arguments related to the appropriateness of the indicators derived from the
literature to define the concept of strategic compatibility. To make the long story short and stick to the
essence of the process deployed under this paragraph, both of the located indicators are more or less
considered capable of contributing in the described direction, with some fluctuations though in their
prioritization due to individual preferences. The second prominent common denominator of these
arguments is the necessity to accompany these indicators with efficient, defining metrics. Summarizing,
the design principle that arises here is the following:
DP12: SCOR Model could use the indicators derived from the literature or any other relevant
indicator to practically, but perhaps partially, define strategic compatibility, always though with
the necessary and sufficient condition that they can be efficiently defined and measured.
E. SCOR Model and Flexibility
The arguments related to this topic are presented on the following table:
1. It needs to be as flexible as possible, leaving room for maneuver and initiative.
2. Regarding the degree of complexity of SCOR Model, the lighter is the better.
3. The solutions should be complementarily added, avoiding rendering the model rigid and
eliminating opportunities for improvement. Examining similar companies in other industries can
boost the quality of the benchmarking results.
Table 5-5 Arguments regarding the topic SCOR Model and Flexibility
This is the final topic regarding the interviewees’ argumentation towards Business Strategy. It is related
to the extent up to which an analytical tool such as SCOR Model should be systematic and rigid or
flexible and abstract. In this respect, the first and second arguments emphasize on the human side,
underlining the necessity to keep the model light, to provide practitioners with room for maneuver and
initiative. The third argument, on the other hand, focuses on the model side, stressing the importance of
adding new features in a complementary pattern so as to avoid rendering the model rigid and
eliminating opportunities for improvement. The example that is brought on in this direction is the
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 94 -
examination of strategically similar companies classified in other industries, which can boost the
benchmarking results but could also be overlooked by a rigid, industry-specific model. The design
principles that embody the arguments on this topic are the following:
DP13: SCOR Model should be as flexible as possible, leaving room for maneuver and initiative.
DP14: SCOR Model should add new solutions horizontally and complementarily, so as to avoid
rendering the function rigid, or else the funnel slow-flowing, and eliminating opportunities for
improvement.
Business Sustainability
Contrary to the case of Business Strategy, there will be no design principles derived for the Business
Sustainability case. The arguments of the interviewees will be again organized around three central
topics, which, however, will not be followed by the extraction of design principles, for a simple reason.
Unlike the case of Business Strategy, the improvement of SCOR Model’s Business Sustainability
approach was found to fall out of the model’s scope. As it will be analyzed below each one of these
three central topics, the respondents particularly and repeatedly expressed their opinion that further
improvement of the way SCOR Model captures Business Sustainability should not be a concern of the
SCC, which, for the moment, deals optimally with Business Sustainability. Therefore, this paragraph will
be limited to the organization of the results so that they become part of the same story, a story that will
be used to record the described truth, not to propose a solution.
A. Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain
The arguments related to this topic are included in the following table:
1. There is no such thing as conflict between SC Managers and Environmentalists.
2. There is no kind of conflict between SC managers and Environmentalists recorded.
3. SC Managers and Environmentalists do not disagree on the promotion of sustainability.
4. Green policies start to flourish only when customers start to demand them.
5. We have to get rid of sub-optimization, of the uncoordinated spasmodic actions of all the actors
involved.
6. It is the establishment of an integrated approach, expanding, at least, to all common activities
(such as the one of product development) that is becoming necessary.
7. The key to establishing sustainability in SCM is to put it on the corporate agenda.
8. Companies should actively and voluntarily behave towards sustainability.
9. The industry sector is a prominent differentiating factor when discussing about sustainability.
10. Business Sustainability is a strategic issue, deriving from the overarching business plan.
Table 5-6 Arguments regarding the Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply
Chain Management Domain
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 95 -
The first three arguments almost coincide and come to invalidate the hypothesis of the SCC that it is this
conflict that hampers the utilization of SCOR Model’s “green” features. Starting from here, there is a
number of arguments coming, attempting to explain this corporate resistance to sustainability. In this
respect, the fourth argument classifies sustainability as a demand-driven idea, by making the remark
that green policies start to flourish only when customers start to demand them. This way, this argument
locates the described resistance on the fact that customers remain indifferent regarding sustainability.
On the other hand, the fifth argument states that it is a matter of sub-optimization, the explanation lies
on the uncoordinated spasmodic actions of all the actors involved. Therefore, it is the establishment of
an integrated approach, expanding, at least, to all common activities that is becoming necessary,
according to the sixth argument. The example of new product development activities is brought on, to
illustrate an area of intersection between the actors involved in Supply Chain Management. Namely,
these actors are customers, corporations, governmental and non-governmental organizations.
Furthermore, the seventh argument claims that the key to establishing sustainability in Supply Chain
Management is to put it on the corporate agenda. The eighth argument also comes to give support to
this confrontation, stating that it is companies that should actively and voluntarily behave towards
sustainability, meaning that the actual inhibiting factor is their resistance to participate. Apparently, as
the ninth argument states, the industry sector is a prominent differentiating factor when discussing
about sustainability in such terms. However, according to the tenth argument, it is an overall truth that
Business Sustainability is a strategic issue deriving from the overarching business plan, which
correspondingly and after all determines whether a company will pursue sustainable solutions or not.
For the record, this final argument, except for presenting a technology-push perception of sustainability,
it also links to the assumption made from the early beginning of this research, that Business Strategy
and Business Sustainability, although probably influencing each other, will be confronted as two
independent concepts.
The conclusion of this topic is that all the recorded arguments imply a lack of coordination when it
comes to the promotion of Business Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management domain. No matter
whether sustainability is confronted as a demand-pull or technology-push concept, there is an overall
agreement that the involved parties should act jointly and accordingly so as to establish the concept of
sustainability in Supply Chain Management. With regard now to who would be responsible to undertake
this responsibility and promote Business Sustainability, it is the next topic that carries on this line of
reasoning.
B. Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain
The arguments relevant to this topic are presented in the following table:
1. The influence of the SCC is limited and its contribution bound to SCOR Model features. Broader
organizations are the ones to promote sustainable over conventional solutions.
2. The “responsibility” for the promotion of sustainability within SCM goes from the SCC to
corporations.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 96 -
3. The blame lies on the corporate side.
4. The contribution of companies is bound to be limited as well, bound by the concept of
profitability.
5. Substantial solutions in the sustainability domain can only be expected from governmental
initiatives.
Table 5-7 Arguments regarding the Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply
Chain Management Domain
As it has become apparent already from the previous topic of discussion, the influence of the SCC
regarding the promotion of sustainability is limited and its contribution bound to SCOR Model features.
As it is supported by the first argument of this topic, broader organizations are the ones responsible to
promote sustainable over conventional solutions. With respect to who could be the next candidate, this
research has yield two arguments. Specifically, the second and the third argument put the blame on the
corporate side, arguing that the “responsibility” for the promotion of sustainability, within Supply Chain
Management, goes from the SCC to corporations. However, it has to be mentioned at this point that
both these arguments have been connected to a corresponding filter during their analysis within the
Results section. To make the long story short, they have been both found to be heavily influenced by the
nature of the industry they are derived from, and as a result they were considered sufficient merely to
take the responsibility from the SCC, not to actually locate the responsible actor.
The fourth and fifth arguments of this topic, combined, clarify the positioning of this research regarding
the responsibility of corporations when it comes to the promotion of sustainability in the Supply Chain
Management domain. In fact, the contribution of companies is also considered bound to be limited,
bound by the concept of profitability. As long as there are no economic incentives involved, companies
will never care about sustainability in essence. Therefore, substantial solutions in the sustainability
domain can only be expected from governmental initiatives. Governmental bodies are the only one able,
and thus responsible, to promote sustainability, either through economic incentives or by imposing
regulations. Once such initiatives start to take place, corporations will develop an interest in “green”
solutions and customers will start to demand them. Then, it will be beyond doubt a responsibility of the
SCC to holistically capture the concept of Business Sustainability. As it was supported in the Results
section, the Chemical Industry paradigm can be seen as a predecessor of the described series of events.
C. Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency
The arguments related to this topic are gathered in the following table:
1. The approach of the SCC to equalize sustainability with eco-efficiency is justified. The inclusion of
natural and societal sustainable aspects in SCM is also important and urgent, but not a
responsibility of the SCC.
2. SCOR Model is bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint pattern.
3. Eco-efficiency is not enough to provide a company with the “green” stamp.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 97 -
4. Equalizing sustainability to eco-efficiency indicates lack of (corporate) responsibility.
Table 5-8 Arguments regarding the Topic of Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency
Having removed the responsibility for the promotion of sustainability from the SCC shoulders, it is now
time to focus on the way SCOR model currently deals with the concept of Business Sustainability. As it
has been clarified so far, SCOR Model actually equalizes sustainability with eco-efficiency. According to
the first argument under this topic, this approach is justified. Although the inclusion of natural and
societal sustainable aspects in Supply Chain Management is also important and urgent, it is not a
responsibility of the SCC. Given the overall picture as it was described in the previous topics and as the
second argument here claims, SCOR Model is bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint
pattern.
Apparently, the deduction of the third argument that eco-efficiency is not enough to provide a company
with the “green” stamp, is justified and straightforward. Simultaneously though, it would be unrealistic
to expect from the SCC to undertake the promotion of natural and societal sustainable aspects within
the Supply Chain Management domain. The fourth argument claims that equalizing sustainability to eco-
efficiency indicates lack of corporate responsibility. Taking into consideration that this argument is
derived from the Chemical Industry and by bringing in mind the corresponding analysis and filter, it is
safe to conclude that this equalization actually indicates lack of governmental intervention, coordination
and, yes, even responsibility. In this context, the approach of the SCC on Business Sustainability and the
way it is captured by SCOR Model are considered to be more than sufficient, since there is no room for
improvement in this direction and under their authority.
5.3. Extraction of Design Guidelines
On the basis of the design principles derived so far, a set of design guidelines are extracted, guidelines
that will overarch the conceptual design process. The purpose of these guidelines and the reason they
are extracted is to organize the design principles around central topics, unify their essence and come up
with corresponding fundamental design directions. These design guidelines/ directions represent the
conclusions of this research that should essentially be incorporated in an updated version proposal, if it
is to deal with the recognized issues. Apparently, these guidelines refer merely to the Business Strategy
part of this research, since it has been clarified that improvements regarding the Business Sustainability
part fall out of the scope of SCOR Model.
Hopefully, the central topics, from which the design guidelines will be extracted, have already been
recognized. As it was claimed in the previous paragraph, there have been five central topics around
which the opinions of the interviewees have been hovering around. These topics, along with the
corresponding design principles, are presented in the following table and are subsequently analyzed and
assessed so as to lead in the expected design guidelines.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 98 -
Design Principles
A.
Bu
sin
ess
Str
ate
gy
Ap
pro
ach
DP1: SCOR Model should confront Business Strategy as the first element to examine and start
from.
DP2: SCOR Model should enrich the set of the five Performance Attributes with extra dimensions, if
it is to holistically capture the concept of Business Strategy.
DP3: SCOR Model should keep central the role of and be complementary to the professional
experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners.
DP4: SCOR Model should remain an operational tool and use the concept of Business Strategy
merely to translate strategic decisions and business Concepts in Supply Chain Management terms
and processes, and vice versa.
DP5: SCOR Model should retain this bidirectional transparency when it comes to Business Strategy,
allowing the quick and easy transition from business to operational concepts and vice versa.
B.
Be
nch
ma
rkin
g
DP6: SCOR Model should strive to promote the occurrence of benchmarking between companies
with similar capabilities.
DP7: SCOR Model should take into consideration that practitioners do not need to be different in
every competitive aspect.
DP8: SCOR Model should not abandon its benchmarking character, simply because the utilization
of standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally and externally
common, operational language in Supply Chain Management.
C.
Str
ate
gic
Co
mp
ati
bil
ity
DP9: SCOR Model should somehow capture the concept of strategic compatibility, since it can
contribute in overcoming the recorded benchmarking pitfalls.
DP10: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a level that it does
not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners, who are not always fond of
business notions.
DP11: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a way that it does not violate the
model’s bidirectional transparency, in a way that it allows business people deal with operational
concepts, in the way it happens in the opposite direction.
D.
Ind
ica
tors
DP12: SCOR Model could use the indicators derived from the literature or any other relevant
indicator to practically, but perhaps partially, define strategic compatibility, always though with
the necessary and sufficient condition that they can be efficiently defined and measured.
E.
Fle
xib
ilit
y
DP13: SCOR Model should be as flexible as possible, leaving room for maneuver and initiative.
DP14: SCOR Model should add new solutions horizontally and complementarily, so as to avoid
rendering the function rigid, or else the funnel slow-flowing, and eliminating opportunities for
improvement.
Table 5-9 Design Principles
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 99 -
The first topic, or else the approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy, generates two prominent
design guidelines. The first refers to the inability of the current version of the model to connect directly
to the Business Strategy of the implementing company. As a result, the bidirectional transparency of the
model is under threat, a threat that needs to be allayed if the object here is to equally move from
strategic to operational terms and vice versa. The second guideline refers to the way SCOR Model
attempts to capture the concept of Business Strategy, i.e. using a set of five Performance Attributes. In
this respect, this research points out the weakness of this approach and the necessity to enrich the set
in use, offering a number of options. Summarizing:
The next three topics, or else benchmarking, strategic compatibility and strategic compatibility
indicators, reflect on the benchmarking character of SCOR Model, the corresponding rising issues and
the way they should be dealt with. In this respect, it is claimed that the concept of strategic
compatibility could aid in the alleviation of benchmarking issues; therefore, it should be expressed on
the basis of representative indicators. To sum up:
Regarding the fifth central topic or else the flexibility of SCOR Model, it cannot lead to the extraction of
a non-shallow design guideline. That is, indeed SCOR Model should by all means retain its flexibility.
However, this is more of a design constraint than a design guideline. Therefore, the corresponding
design principles can only be seen and used as constraints to the already extracted design guidelines.
This observation brings this paragraph to an end and prepares the ground for the next, vital one, where
Third Design Guideline
The updated version of SCOR Model should somehow exclude benchmarking on strategically
incompatible companies.
Second Design Guideline
The updated version of SCOR Model should reinforce the current incomplete capture of the
term Business Strategy.
First Design Guideline
The updated version of SCOR Model should deal with the lack of direct connection to the
Business Strategy of the implementing company.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 100 -
the extracted design guidelines are used towards the conceptual design of an updated version of the
model.
5.4. Conceptual Design
Once the design guidelines have been derived, it is now time to step into the essence of this section and
the conceptualization of a potential updated version of the model. This updated version attempts to
take into account and deal with the problems and the opportunities for improvement located by the
interviewees, in a format that does not contradict pertinent criteria and constraints. The presentation of
the conceptual design runs in parallel with a description of the current SCOR Model design, in an
attempt to illustrate the directions of improvement. Specifically, there are two aspects examined and
compared, i.e. the functioning approach of both designs and their interference with the corresponding
decision making process.
In this direction, the first important step is to examine the current version of SCOR Model and assess the
pertinent functioning approach and decision-making interference. Regarding the functioning approach,
it can be said that there are four steps between the initial strategic assessment of the implementing
company’s supply chain and the actual location of corresponding supply chain solutions. First of all, the
“Superior-Advantage-Parity” tool is used to determine the current and future desired strategic
positioning of the implementing company. This process occurs on the basis of the five performance
attributes, i.e. SC Responsiveness, SC Reliability, SC Flexibility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency. The
second step refers to the selection of metrics, representative of each one of the targeted performance
categories. Then, the third step benchmarks the performance of the implementing company on the
selected metrics to the analogous of the pertinent best-in-class companies. Depending on the strategic
targets set, the metrics selected and the corresponding distance from these targets and on these
metrics -in performance terms-, the competitive gap is determined. The final step is used to present a
number of supply chain operations, as solutions towards the elimination of the located distances. The
functioning approach of this version is also depicted on the following figure.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 101 -
1st
Step:
Using the Competitive Positioning Chart (or “Superior-Parity-Advantage” Tool) to determine the current and desired future positioning, on the basis of the five Performance Attributes
SC Responsiveness
SC Assets Efficiency
SC Costs
SC Agility
SC Reliability
Current Positioning Future Positioning
Superior
Advantage
Parity
SC Responsiveness
SC Assets Efficiency
SC Costs
SC Agility
SC Reliability
Perfect Order Fulfillment
Return on Fixed Assets
SC Management Cost
Upside SC Flexibility
Order Fulfillment Cycle Time
2nd
Step:
Selection of the metrics considered to be vital and representative for each one of the targeted performance categories
Perfect Order Fulfillment
Return on Fixed Assets
SC Management Cost
Upside SC Flexibility
Order Fulfillment Cycle Time
98%
289%
2,1%
62 days
14 days
Company
Performance
96%
100%
2,8%
62 days
4 days
Industry
Average
-2%
-189%
-0,7%
0 days
10 days
Competitive
Gap
Competitive
GapSelection of Appropriate
Best Practices
3rd
Step:
Benchmarking the performance of the implementing company on the selected metrics to the analogous of the pertinent best-in-class companies; Depending on the targets set, the metrics selected and the corresponding distance from these targets and on these metrics -in performance terms-, the competitive gap is determined
4th
Step:
A number of supply chain operations can be proposed as solutions towards the elimination of the located distances
Figure 5-3 SCOR Model Current Functioning Approach
According to the results of this research, there are three main issues regarding the current approach of
SCOR Model, also expressed by the design guidelines. The first one is the lack of direct connection to
the Business Strategy of the implementing company, as it is set by the top management. The second is
the incomplete capture of the term Business Strategy in supply chain terms. The third is the
benchmarking on, perhaps, strategically incompatible companies, since the characterization best-in-
class may be nothing more than impressive. Unlikely the second and the third issues, which were
already recorded by the literature review, the first issue came up during the interview sessions. As a
result, although the second and third issues have already been described and confronted, the case is not
the same for the first one. In fact, this issue is mainly related to the second SCOR aspect examined here,
i.e. the decision making interference. The following figure is revealing in this direction.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 102 -
SCM Strategic Decisions
Strategic/ Operational
Translation Inteface
1stFunctioning Step:
Setting Operational Targets
2ndFunctioning Step:
Selecting Metrics
3rdFunctioning Step:
Benchmarking
4thFunctioning Step:
Opting for Solutions
Decision
Making in SCMSCOR Model Involvement
√
?
√
√
√
√
√
√
-
-
-
Cheklist Status Bar
Figure 5-4 SCOR Model Current Decision-Making Involvement
This figure presents a rough estimation of the decision-making process taking place within the Supply
Chain Management domain, and puts it next to SCOR Model features as an indication of the model’s
involvement. In specific, in a bottom-up perspective, SCOR Model does cover all the functioning steps
and the connections between them, and, as a matter of fact, in a rather effective manner. However, as
the second issue describes, the notion of Business Strategy is not captured effectively by the model. In
other words, the connection between the strategic/operational translation interface and the first
functioning step is problematic, as the question mark symbol also witnesses. Returning now to the first
issue, SCOR Model involvement in the decision making process is completed somewhere here, with this
question mark. The model does not take a step further to monitor the connection between supply chain
strategy and business strategy. As a consequence, although directly related, these two types of
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 103 -
strategies appear to be independent within SCOR Model boundaries. Regarding now the consequences
of this irregularity, they have already been recorded and mainly hover around the conclusion that
strategy is somehow demoted by SCOR Model.
Following the reexamination of SCOR Model current version, it is now time to present the updated
version and inspect how it deals with the functioning-approach and decision-making-interference
aspects. With respect to the functioning approach, there are two main advancements from the current
version, both filling the room for improvement as it is described by the design guidelines. The first one
refers to the enrichment of the “Superior-Advantage-Parity” tool with additional SC operational
variables. That is, although kept as the first step in this functioning approach, used to determine the
current and future desired strategic positioning of the implementing company, the tool no longer
consists merely of the five performance attributes. Instead, extra variables are added, such as
geographic location, new product development and so on, as well as Acuity and Innovativeness, derived
from the interviews and from the literature respectively. This advancement deals primarily with the
second issue, or else the incomplete capture of the term Business Strategy in supply chain terms.
The second step of the updated functioning approach remains the same, with the difference that some
extra metrics should be added to describe the potentially added performance attributes. This brings the
discussion to the second advancement, or else to the addition of an intermediate step in this functioning
approach. In detail, this step firstly defines strategic compatibility on the basis of the located variables,
that is, Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility, and perhaps a number of
additional. Then, it filters the benchmarking database so that it excludes strategically incompatible
companies from the comparison. This step is analyzed in deep later on. The essence of this
advancement is that it deals with the third issue, or else the benchmarking on, perhaps, strategically
incompatible companies, by replacing the comparison to the industry average with a comparison to
peer, strategically compatible companies. The third and fourth steps change slightly, they are simply
adjusted to follow from the described advancements. The updated functioning approach is depicted on
the following figure.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 104 -
Figure 5-5 SCOR Model Updated Functioning Approach
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 105 -
Before continuing with the analysis of the updated version and how it deals with the second aspect
under examination, it is useful to focus on the intermediate step, the way it functions and the added
value it yields. Basically, the intermediate step consists of two sub-steps, two filtering processes, as it is
illustrated on the following figure.
Figure 5-6 Focusing on the Intermediate Step of the SCOR Model Updated Functioning Approach
First of all, the benchmarking data goes through the Power Structure Positioning (PSP) filter. Here, all
the companies of the database are positioned on the PSP spectrum, a spectrum indicating the relative
position of each company in the power structure of the industry it belongs. Apparently, the power
structure positions of the particular companies need to be weighted before put in the same spectrum,
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 106 -
weighted so as they take into account the type of the industry they belong to. For example, number
three in the Electronics Industry might not be proportional to number three in the Constructions
Industry and so on. There are various ways to attach such weights, e.g. by dividing the position of a
company with the number of the companies in the pertinent industry, or else by using the percentile
Power Structure Position. Following the positioning of the companies of the database on this spectrum,
those companies positioned in proximity to the power structure position of the implementing company
are labeled as compatible companies and make it through the PSP filter. The rest is excluded.
Again, the term proximity has to be practically defined. This is a simple task. Since the power structure
positions are weighted before put in the spectrum, they are already expressed in the same scale. Thus,
locating companies in proximity becomes straightforward. In the specific example, where percentile
power structure positions are used, the implementing company can set an absolute percentage to
define proximity, or else the Zone of strategically compatible companies. As it is depicted on the figure,
the value of 10% has been chosen here for the PSP filter. It is mentioned at this point that the possibility
offered to the implementing company to manually set the percentage of PSP compatibility adds a great
deal of versatility in the updated version. That is, it provides practitioners with the possibility to make
use of their own professional experience and practical wisdom, always in accordance with what is
indicated by the design principles.
The PSP-filtered database is ready now to go through the Value Creation Compatibility (VCC) Filter. The
idea here is exactly the same. Regarding the process of putting the companies of the database on the
VCC spectrum, there are again various ways of weighting the channels through which companies create
value. For example, profit margin is a quick and satisfying estimator of value creation. Dividing now the
profit margin of a company with the average profit margin of the industry it belongs to indicates how
VCC values can be turned into percentages, and let the implementing company determine the width of
the pertinent Zone of strategic compatible companies. As it is presented on the figure, a 20% value has
been selected here. Once now the database is both PSP- and VCC-filtered, it is ready to be used in the
SCOR Model benchmarking process, without compromising the strategic context of the implementing
company.
To bring on a simple, yet illustrative example, if it was for Dell to implement SCOR Model and in specific
this proposed benchmarking filtering process, HP would expectedly pass through the PSP filter, since
both companies have a comparable position in the Electronics Industry. However, since these
companies have different SC strategies, it would not be strategically wise for each one of them to
imitate the other. Here is where the VCC filter intervenes, to exclude HP from Dell’s benchmarking
process, since these two companies have a completely different way of creating value for themselves. It
is not considered necessary to dig into details about the SC strategies of these two companies. This is
more of a rough qualitative example, illustrating the functioning of the proposed benchmarking filtering
process. In other words, the brand names used could be considered to be imaginary.
With respect now to the involvement of the updated version with the decision-making process taking
place within the Supply Chain Management domain, it is definitely enhanced. Comparing to the same
rough estimation of decision-making process, the updated version increases the involvement of SCOR
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 107 -
Model by three levels. The enrichment of the performance attributes, along with the examination of
strategically similar companies, facilitates the strategic/ operational translation interface in both
directions; in a top-down pattern, it offers more ways to express and translate strategic decisions in
performance terms and supply chain operations; in a bottom-up pattern, it promotes the extraction of
strategic conclusions from operational subjects, since supply chain performance is now directly related
to strategic orientation. As a result, the third located issue, or else the lack of direct connection to the
Business Strategy of the implementing company, is also dealt with. The following figure illustrates the
added value deriving from the new version, as opposed to the value of the current version.
Figure 5-7 SCOR Model Updated Decision-Making Involvement
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 108 -
5.5. Design Evaluation
As it has been described several times, the output of this endeavor is put under the evaluation of a SC
expert, capable of weighing the contribution of this research and substantially commenting on the
corresponding progress made. This SC expert is Ir. Marcel Wolfs, Corporate Manager in the Supply Chain
Management of DSM N.V., from 1995 up to now. Apart from his rich experience in the Supply Chain
Management domain, as his deep background indicates, Mr. Wolfs is also well acquainted with SCOR
Model, since he has served the European Chapter of the Supply Chain Council as a Leadership Team
Member for three consecutive years, i.e. from 2006 to and including 2008. Furthermore, as it has
already been stated by the early beginning, Mr. Wolfs is also familiar with the orientation of this
research, since he was initially asked to evaluate the selected research scope and direction. Overall, the
relation of Mr. Wolfs to this research endeavor is apparent and it is an honor for the researcher to have
his work evaluated by a SCC expert of Mr. Wolfs’ caliber. It is noted that Mr. Wolfs is asked to reflect
merely on the Business Strategy part, since improvement regarding the Business Sustainability part were
found to be outside the scope of this research.
Generally speaking, Mr. Wolfs is rather fond of the selected approach on the subject. He claims that a
systematic endeavor is what is needed to deal with the essence of the specific problem, and this is what
renders the quality of this research high. Indeed, there is room for improvement regarding the approach
of SCOR Model and there should be solutions proposed, aiming to fill this room. Indeed again, strategic
compatibility can be a solution and yes, it should be examined whether it can be implemented in real
terms. Whether now such an approach is sufficient to lead to an overall solution, Mr. Wolfs expresses
his doubts. The output of this research could at best be the introduction of a customizable solution,
adjusted by the implementing companies on their own corresponding standards. Mainly though, this
research should be confronted as an academic stamp, noticing the limits of SCOR model, illustrating the
way it should be used in real terms and guiding accordingly the actual practitioners.
Specifically now, with respect to the approach of the model on Business Strategy, Mr. Wolfs agrees that
there are more aspects to examine when it comes to strategic context. The elements used in the
approach of SCOR Model are necessary but not sufficient to fully capture the concept of Business
Strategy. In this respect, he understands and supports the intuition of this research that the five
Performance Attributes are not sufficient and that a potential enrichment of this set would be a
reasonable alternative. In fact, he witnesses examples of companies that use SCOR Model as a rough
initial basis of Supply Chain Management, a basis critically enriched to deal with the specific
organizational demands of the implementing companies. That is, a customizable enrichment of the
Performance Attributes set would not only be reasonable, but also it is already out there.
Furthermore, Mr. Wolfs identifies the existence of the SCOR Model benchmarking issues recorded in
this research. He claims that the main reason of falling into the described benchmarking pitfalls is the
difficulty of defining the benchmarking sample properly. Specifically, on the basis of his experience, he
recognizes two potential explanations regarding the weakness of implementing companies to properly
define the benchmarking sample. First of all, it takes time to get acquainted with the philosophy of SCOR
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 109 -
Model, to effectively define the relationships among the various indicators, KPIs, figures and
improvement actions. Thus, difficulties in properly defining the benchmarking sample are logically
expected during this time. As precaution, Mr. Wolfs proposes internal benchmarking as a first step,
against the own performance of the implementing company. Once this reaches an acceptable level, the
implementing company can start benchmarking externally, against the performance of other companies.
The second explanation, regarding the weakness of implementing companies to properly define the
benchmarking sample, coincides with the one identified in this research. That is, the approach of the
model itself can be misleading. While being part of the SCC, Mr. Wolfs remembers of incidents, where
his group members were expressing similar worries, i.e. regarding the effectiveness of the
benchmarking approach of SCOR Model. Either assuming that the current version confronts or leaves
out these worries, proposals for improvement in this direction are more than justified. In this respect,
Mr. Wolfs considers the concept of strategic compatibility -as it is defined here- a potentially prosperous
advancement in the SCOR Model benchmarking process.
Specifically, he understands the need for benchmarking to companies with similar capabilities and
supports the action taken here. Indeed, filtering out companies that have no relation to the
implementing one can lead to the extraction of more substantial results. However, he adds a new
variable in this equation, a perspective that has not been taken into account as seriously as Mr. Wolfs
considers it should have been. He claims that benchmarking to strategically compatible companies can
only lead to incremental and not radical improvements. The reason is that strategically compatible
companies stand most of the times at the same spot; their performance does not differ greatly.
Therefore, if it is to achieve real progress and radical improvements, strategic compatibility is not what
should be primarily sought for; it is innovativeness instead.
The example that is brought on in this direction describes two hypothetical companies, one presenting a
negative cash-to-cash cycle, apparently due to the utilization of innovative solutions, and another
presenting a respectable cash-to-cash cycle of 2-3 months. Now, it may be the case that these two
companies are completely different, both in strategic and operational terms, and that there is no
conclusion to be drawn from their comparison. Nevertheless, the second company would obviously die
to -at least- find out how they do it in the first company. Then, they could examine whether the
corresponding solutions are applicable in their case. According to Mr. Wolfs, this is the only path of
achieving real progress through benchmarking practices, i.e. by putting innovative companies in the
center of analysis.
The concept of innovativeness is not something new for the solutions proposed here. Actually, this
concept was introduced as one of the attributes that could potentially enrich the Performance
Attributes set. Which solution now is most appropriate is something to be explored. The important
remark here is that, one way or another, innovativeness should be brought in the center of SCOR Model,
if it is to lead in radical advancements. This remark can be used as the overall conclusion of this
evaluation. That is, the solutions proposed here are sound and succinct, as it is the impact of this
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 110 -
research endeavor. If now radical advancements are expected by the implementation of SCOR Model,
innovativeness should be brought in the center of the attention.
5.6. Summary
This section is occupied with the accumulation of the interview results, the extraction of design
guidelines and the conceptual design of an updated SCOR Model version that fills the located room for
improvement. In this respect, the interview results are gathered and assessed. This process leads to the
extraction of a number of design principles. It is found that the interview results on Business
Sustainability are not capable of producing design principles, since they are mostly proposing solutions
that fall out of the model’s scope. Thus, the design principles produced are referring to the Business
Strategy aspect of this research. These design principles are subsequently assessed and lead to the
extraction of design guidelines. These guidelines are used for the conceptualization of an updated
version of the model. In fact, two basic advancements are proposed; one suggesting the enrichment of
the Performance Attributes and one the filtering of the benchmarking database so as to leave
strategically incompatible companies out. It is argued that the updated version is capable of dealing with
the primary issues of the current version, as they are described by the design guidelines, without
contradicting any of the design principles. This section is completed with an evaluation of the proposed
solutions, an evaluation by a supply chain expert, former member of the SCC and experienced with the
SCOR Model. Overall, the solutions are found to be sound and to the point, although extra focus on
innovation could be seen as a missing part of this SCOR Model improvement puzzle. The following table
summarizes the key elements of this chapter.
Topic Description
Design
Principles
A. Business Strategy Approach
DP1: SCOR Model should confront Business Strategy as the first element to examine and
start from.
DP2: SCOR Model should enrich the set of the five Performance Attributes with extra
dimensions, if it is to holistically capture the concept of Business Strategy.
DP3: SCOR Model should keep central the role of and be complementary to the
professional experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners.
DP4: SCOR Model should remain an operational tool and use the concept of Business
Strategy merely to translate strategic decisions and business Concepts in Supply Chain
Management terms and processes, and vice versa.
DP5: SCOR Model should retain this bidirectional transparency when it comes to Business
Strategy, allowing the quick and easy transition from business to operational concepts and
vice versa.
B. Benchmarking Process
DP6: SCOR Model should strive to promote the occurrence of benchmarking between
companies with similar capabilities.
DP7: SCOR Model should take into consideration that practitioners do not need to be
different in every competitive aspect.
DP8: SCOR Model should not abandon its benchmarking character, simply because the
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 111 -
utilization of standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally
and externally common, operational language in Supply Chain Management.
C. Strategic Compatibility
DP9: SCOR Model should somehow capture the concept of strategic compatibility, since it
can contribute in overcoming the recorded benchmarking pitfalls.
DP10: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a level that it
does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners, who are not always
fond of business notions.
DP11: SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a way that it does not violate
the model’s bidirectional transparency, in a way that it allows business people deal with
operational concepts, in the way it happens in the opposite direction.
D. Indicators
DP12: SCOR Model could use the indicators derived from the literature or any other
relevant indicator to practically, but perhaps partially, define strategic compatibility, always
though with the necessary and sufficient condition that they can be efficiently defined and
measured.
E. Flexibility
DP13: SCOR Model should be as flexible as possible, leaving room for maneuver and
initiative.
DP14: SCOR Model should add new solutions horizontally and complementarily, so as to
avoid rendering the function rigid, or else the funnel slow-flowing, and eliminating
opportunities for improvement.
Design
Guidelines
1) The updated version of SCOR Model should deal with the lack of direct connection to the Business Strategy of the implementing company. 2) The updated version of SCOR Model should reinforce the current incomplete capture of the term Business Strategy. 3) The updated version of SCOR Model should somehow exclude benchmarking on strategically incompatible companies.
Performance
Attributes
Enrichment
Regarding the improvement of SCOR Model’s Business Strategy approach, an enrichment of the Performance Attributes Set is considered to be a simple, yet constructive move. First of all, there are numerous examples of such attributes, able to contribute in the described direction. Additionally, this proposal also complies with the pertinent improving constraints, since it merely builds upon the already established approach of the model. That is, it keeps the role of the model complementary to the professional experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners, and it does not alter the operational character of the model, an alteration that could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners.
Filtering
Benchmarking
Database
As far as the SCOR Model benchmarking process is concerned, the inclusion of an intermediate step, which filters out strategically incompatible companies, is considered a substantial step in the described direction, or else towards the promotion of benchmarking occurrence merely between companies with similar capabilities. This step could intervene in the functioning approach of SCOR Model just before the benchmarking process takes place. The recommended solution comes also in compliance with the constraints characterizing this direction of improvement, since it builds upon and does not alter dramatically the current approach of the model. First of all, it provides practitioners with the possibility to choose the attributes they want to be strategically different at. Secondly, it
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 112 -
retains the central role of benchmarking in SCOR Model, although in a more selective sense. After all, what this step does is to remove strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking database.
Design
Evaluation
The approach is rather systematic; it responsibly and effectively confronts the located room for improvement. The solutions proposed here are sound and succinct, as it is the impact of this research endeavor. If now radical advancements are sought for, innovativeness should be brought on in the center of the attention.
Table 5-10 Summarizing key elements of the chapter
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 113 -
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
The purpose of this section is to gather and present the conclusions derived so far, in order to
systematically answer the research questions posed from the early beginning of this endeavor.
Specifically, these questions were:
There were two areas to be explored before answering these questions,
those related to Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. The
distinction between these two areas of exploration guided the entire
research endeavor, and has been the basic classification factor
throughout the presentation of all the results. As a consequence, the
same format will be followed in this section as well, with all the
conclusions being classified under the Business Strategy and Business
Sustainability categories.
Another important element to keep in mind while reading this section is
the objective of this research. Quickly, this was the following:
1. a) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Strategy concept to the alleviation
of benchmarking effects, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model
b) To explore the potential contribution of the Business Sustainability concept to the
successful incorporation of sustainable solutions, towards the enhancement of SCOR Model
2. To set the design criteria and conceptualize an updated version of the model that can effectively
incorporate the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability concepts
General Research Questions:
a) “How can Business Strategy practically contribute to the
alleviation of benchmarking effects, towards the
enhancement of SCOR Model?”
b) “How can Business Sustainability practically contribute to
the successful incorporation of sustainable solutions,
towards the enhancement of SCOR Model?”
Figure 6-1 Structure
Outline: Conclusions and
Recommendations
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 114 -
That is, the objective here has been always two-fold. Regarding the first part, it is satisfied by the
derived conclusions, which primarily answer these questions. Since though the purpose of this endeavor
has been not only to evaluate and criticize, but also to propose solutions, this second part of the
research objective needs to be satisfied as well. In this direction, a number of recommendations have
been produced, on the basis of the derived conclusions and of the author’s critical thinking. There is no
classification under the Business Strategy and Business Sustainability categories here, simply because
the character of the results did not allow the extraction of direct recommendations referring to Business
Sustainability. However, recommendations for future research are given for both these categories.
6.1. Conclusions
Business Strategy
SCOR Model Business Strategy Approach
The approach of SCOR Model on Business Strategy, although systematic, straightforward and concise,
fails to capture the essence of the concept and does not elevate it in the central position it should be
when it comes to Supply Chain Management. It was found that action should be taken in this direction,
however within some constraints. In specific, there are two elements to be kept in mind when
reassessing the Business Strategy approach of SCOR Model. The first is the necessity to keep the role of
the model complementary to the professional experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners;
otherwise it may lose its flexibility, inhibit creativity and become unrealistic and useless. The second is to
keep in mind the perception of several practitioners that Supply Chain Management is mainly an
operational domain; thus, if SCOR Model contradicted this perception and exceeded the role of the
operational/ strategic translation interface, it could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners. After
all, the bidirectional transparency of the model when it comes to Business Strategy has been its basic
advantage and is not to be wasted.
SCOR Model Benchmarking Process
With regard to the benchmarking process taking place within SCOR Model, it was found that it needs to
be altered if it is to substantially contribute in the location of solutions compatible with the core
capabilities of the implementing company. In this direction, SCOR Model needs to, somehow, promote
the occurrence of benchmarking only between companies with similar capabilities. There are two
constraints framing this direction for improvement. On one hand, it should be taken into consideration
that practitioners do not need to be different in every competitive aspect. On the other hand, the
benchmarking character of the model should not be -by any means- compromised. The utilization of
standard definitions and performance indicators provides a valuable, internally and externally common,
operational language in Supply Chain Management, a language that needs to be not only retained, but
also promoted.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 115 -
SCOR Model and Strategic Compatibility
The concept of strategic compatibility, as it has been described in this research, needs to be taken into
account by SCOR Model, as an ideal remedy against the recorded benchmarking pitfalls. There are two
elements to keep in mind here. The first refers to the occasional denial of several practitioners to
interfere with business notions. In this respect, SCOR Model should capture strategic compatibility in a
pattern and at a level that it does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners.
Secondly, the incorporation of strategic compatibility in SCOR Model should comply with the model’s
bidirectional transparency. That is, it should promote the interference of business people with
operational concepts, just as it happens in the opposite direction; it should not violate what has already
been effectively established.
Strategic Compatibility Indicators and Metrics
Regarding the subject of defining and measuring strategic compatibility, extra attention needs to be
placed on the selection of the corresponding indicators. There have been located many alternative
indicators and probably there could be found several more. In any case, though, the necessary and
sufficient condition for the selected indicators is that they can be efficiently defined and measured.
Additionally, it should be kept in mind that strategic compatibility is more of a subjective concept than
an objective value. Therefore, it may not be possible to end up with a set of indicators that can be
universally applied. A customizable solution is needed, since it seems to be more suitable in this case.
SCOR Model and Flexibility
Above all, when it comes to the incorporation of new features and concepts, preserving the level of
flexibility characterizing SCOR Model is a prominent prerequisite. It has already been witnessed by
several practitioners that SCOR Model gets complex and rigid, especially as the level of analysis
increases. Apparently, this perception should at least not deteriorate. Therefore, new features have to
be added horizontally and complementarily, so as to avoid rendering the function of the model rigid.
Business Sustainability
Factors Inhibiting the Promotion of Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain
The SCC perception, presenting corporate disputes between supply chain managers and
environmentalists as the main factor inhibiting the utilization of SCOR Model’s “green” features, is
falsified. Instead, there are several alternative arguments rising to explain corporate resistance to
sustainability. The indifference of the customers, the uncoordinated spasmodic actions of the actors
involved and the fact that sustainability is still out of the corporate agenda are the main ones. Overall,
the common denominator is that the involved parties should act jointly and accordingly so as to
establish the concept of sustainability in Supply Chain Management. With regard now to who should
undertake the responsibility of coordinating the actors and promoting Business Sustainability, SCC and
SCOR Model are not even close.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 116 -
Actors Responsible for Promoting Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management Domain
Broader organizations are the ones responsible to promote sustainable over conventional solutions. The
contribution of companies in this direction is also considered bound to be limited, bound by the concept
of profitability. As long as there are no economic incentives involved, companies will never care about
sustainability in essence. Therefore, substantial solutions in the sustainability domain can only be
expected from governmental initiatives. Governmental bodies are the only one able, and thus
responsible, to promote sustainability, either through economic incentives or by imposing regulations.
SCOR Model: Equalizing Sustainability with Eco-efficiency
The approach of the SCC on Business Sustainability and the way it is captured by SCOR Model are
considered to be more than sufficient, since there is no room for improvement in this direction and
under their authority. Indeed, the inclusion of natural and societal sustainable aspects in Supply Chain
Management is important and urgent. Furthermore, the argument that eco-efficiency is not enough to
provide a company with the “green” stamp is also accurate. However, it would be unrealistic to expect
from the SCC to undertake the promotion of natural and societal sustainable aspects within the Supply
Chain Management domain. SCOR Model is still bound to assess sustainability on the carbon footprint
pattern.
6.2. Recommendations
Enriching the Performance Attributes Set
Regarding the improvement of SCOR Model’s Business Strategy approach, an enrichment of the
Performance Attributes Set is considered to be a simple, yet constructive move. First of all, there are
numerous examples of such attributes, able to contribute in the described direction. To illustrate,
Innovativeness and Acuity are two of them discovered in the literature, while Strategy, Geography,
Culture, Business Size, Tax, New Product Development and Organizational Structure are the ones
already added by Highlight Consulting B.V. for the same reasons. Additionally, this proposal also
complies with the pertinent improving constraints, since it merely builds upon the already established
approach of the model. That is, it keeps the role of the model complementary to the professional
experience and practical wisdom of its practitioners, and it does not alter the operational character of
the model, an alteration that could cause the dissatisfaction of these practitioners. An illustration of the
recommended solution, as it has been also visualized in the conceptual design section, is given below:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 117 -
Updated Version:
Enrichment of Performance
Attributes
Figure 6-2 Enrichment of the Performance Attributes Set
Intermediate Step: Filtering Out Strategically Incompatible Companies
As far as the SCOR Model benchmarking process is concerned, the inclusion of an intermediate step,
which filters out strategically incompatible companies, is considered a substantial step in the described
direction, or else towards the promotion of benchmarking occurrence merely between companies with
similar capabilities. This step could intervene in the functioning approach of SCOR Model just before the
benchmarking process takes place. The recommended solution comes also in compliance with the
constraints characterizing this direction of improvement, since it builds upon and does not alter
dramatically the current approach of the model. First of all, it provides practitioners with the possibility
to choose the attributes they want to be strategically different at. Secondly, it retains the central role of
benchmarking in SCOR Model, although in a more selective sense. After all, what this step does is to
remove strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking database. The recommended
solution is depicted on the following figure, as it has been also visualized in the conceptual design
section:
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 118 -
Figure 6-3 Intermediate Step: Filtering Out Strategically Incompatible Companies
Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility
In respect of describing and defining strategic compatibility within SCOR Model, there are two main
indicators recommended, derived from the literature and supported by the interviews. These are Power
Structure Positioning (PSP) and Value Creation Compatibility (VCC), defined as:
Power Structure Positioning indicates the positioning of a company in the power structure of the
pertinent industry. Thus, the imitating company can weigh its strategic compatibility to a company,
simply by comparing their positions in the pertinent industry power structure.
Value Creation Compatibility indicates the way a company accumulates value for itself. That is, some
companies are obliged by competition to give out much value to their customers, while others have the
possibility to retain much of this value for themselves. As a result, the imitating company can again
determine its strategic compatibility to a company, simply by comparing their ways of creating and
capturing value.
These indicators, along with the proposed way for their introduction in the model, appear capable of
capturing and applying the concept of strategic compatibility, while remaining in compliance with the
corresponding constraints. First of all, this solution captures strategic compatibility in a pattern and at a
level that it does not directly interfere with the operational tasks of practitioners. Secondly, it does
comply with the bidirectional transparency of the model. Thirdly, it allows the customized use of the
added features and offers several degrees of freedom.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 119 -
Strategic Compatibility Indicators and Metrics
Having in mind the necessary and sufficient condition that selected indicators have to be not only
defined, but also measured efficiently, this research has already provided examples of metrics that could
accompany the PSP and VCC indicators. In fact, industrial power structures and profit margins were
recommended respectively, as concepts that can be turned into scales and thereby measure their
corresponding indicators. Apparently, the proposed metrics satisfy the pertinent condition.
Recommendations for Future Research
With respect to the Business Strategy part, recommendations for future research are mainly related to
the assessment of the proposed solutions. There are two basic solutions proposed in this research, them
being the enrichment of the Performance Attributes set and the incorporation of an intermediate step
that filters out strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking database. Both these
solutions should be assessed on the basis of four steps. First of all, the assessment of their actual
contribution and the evaluation of their overall impact should be explored. Secondly, their compatibility
with the characteristics of the current SCOR Model version should be investigated. Thirdly, the located
attributes and indicators respectively should be assessed and, if possible, enriched with other
compatible concepts. Finally, corresponding metrics should be identified and evaluated in both cases. In
general, priority should be given to quantitative approaches, since the next step of performing a
qualitative research is to come up with tangible facts and practical solutions. Whether and how the
concept of innovativeness could be brought in the center of the SCOR Model approach is another topic
to be explored in the Business Strategy direction.
In regard of the Business Sustainability part, the first recommendation is to explore whether the
confrontation of sustainability as a strategic issue can boost the promotion of the concept in the Supply
Chain Management domain. Secondly, the industry factor appears to influence strongly the translation
of sustainability in supply chain terms. Therefore, a second direction for future research is the
examination of the same issue, i.e. the diffusion of sustainability in the Supply Chain Management
domain, but within the borders of a specific industry, e.g. the pharmaceutical or the electronics industry.
Last but not least, since governmental bodies appear to be the most appropriate for promoting the
concept of sustainability in the Supply Chain Management domain, research on how these bodies can be
motivated, how cooperation between them can be stimulated and how tangible and overall solutions
can be produced and diffused is strongly recommended.
Overall, it is the personal belief of the author that it is about time for SCOR Model to take the leap into
the business world. As it is indicated by the literature and as it is supported by the decision of SCC to add
a risk management section in the latest, 10.0, version of the model, the odds are in favor of this leap.
Specifically, given that the Balanced ScoreCard (BSC) is probably the most dominant analytical tool when
it comes to business affairs, linking SCOR Model to BSC seems a rather prosperous move, able to solve
several of the strategic and sustainable issues located in SCOR Model. Whether now this connection is
straightforward or how it could be implemented in real terms, this is definitely an area to be explored.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 120 -
7. Reflection
The long path from the beginning of this research to the extraction of the corresponding conclusions has
finally come to an end. There have been numerous arguments expressed and various elements cited, in
such an extent that several of them that are of major importance might have lost their centrality in this
research. This section takes a step backwards and looks over and beyond this research, so as to connect
these diverse components and achieve an overall consensus that stresses 1) the contribution, 2) the
character, as well as 3) the limitations of this research endeavor.
Research Contribution
First of all, the course from the recognition of the research problem to the extraction of conclusions and
recommendations has become clear so far. Following the establishment of the research objective and
the corresponding research questions, a research framework is created and adopted, a framework that
predicts the utilization of the triangulation methodology so as to combine elements from various data
sources and come up with universal and spherical deductions. There are three data sources exploited,
the first being a SC expert, former member of the SCC, the second literature and relevant publications
and the third a group of SC professionals, familiar with SCOR Model. This course has led to the
completion of this research endeavor in a rather systematic manner. What has been not yet examined is
how this adopted approach responds to the contribution of this research, as it is already expressed from
the early beginning. That is:
Indeed, guidelines and design solutions have been extracted, while it has been mentioned how this
endeavor can inspire and motivate future research. In other words, the contribution of this research is
clear and straightforward. There is not much to be said in this direction. What should be, though,
examined is the weight of this contribution, the actual importance of the final outcome. In this respect,
the character and the limitations of this research need to be discussed in deep.
Research Contribution:
1. Extraction of guidelines regarding the effective utilization of SCOR Model, when it comes to
topics related to the concepts of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
2. Extraction of design solutions regarding the implementation of the derived conclusions, so
that they can either become part of the model or be used peripherally, in a customized and per-
case basis
3. Inspiration and motivation of individuals and groups of people, willing and authorized to
undertake the continuation of this endeavor on the recognized research directions, towards the
establishment of substantial conclusions and solutions
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 121 -
Research Character
There are certain points that need to be stressed regarding the character of this research, that is, a) how
it is related to its core element, i.e. SCOR Model, b) whether the adopted scope is appropriate, c) how
the derived conclusions are supported by the examined literature and d) why this research can, after all,
draw the attention of the recognized clients.
a) Relation of this Research to SCOR Model
With respect to the relation of this research to its core element, SCOR Model, the initial statement, as it
is reproduced below, still expresses the character of this approach:
“There is no intention of questioning or invalidating the contribution of the SCOR Model in the Supply
Chain Management domain. This does not mean, though, that there is no room for improvement. That is,
a potential successful expansion of the model’s horizons, towards the Business Strategy and Business
Sustainability directions, would substantially improve the significance and the effectiveness of this
already established approach. Either seen as a heavy responsibility or as a generous inheritance,
research on this field is from justified to essential”.
In other words, the dynamo behind the development of this thesis is not even close to questioning the
quality and weight of SCOR Model. After all, the presence of SCOR Model in the Supply Chain
Management domain is indubitably dominant and well-respected. Therefore, a wise next step would be
to seek for ways to increase the impact of SCOR Model, to locate and fill the room for further
improvement of the model. And this is the idea here; to record the opinion of a SC expert, explore the
literature and ask SC professionals on how SCOR Model could be improved, what would be the next step
towards the improvement of the model. In this manner, value can be added in the already established
and effective approach of SCOR Model. The line of reasoning presented here is also evident in the
nature of the recommendations. That is, the recommended solutions are incremental, they do not, by
any means, question the systematic approach of SCOR Model. They merely propose a number of
additions, either peripheral or to the core of the model, which may improve the model in certain
directions. Overall, the relation of this research to SCOR Model is clearly complementary, parallel and
incrementally reinforcing.
b) Appropriateness of Adopted Scope
The second element, regarding the character of this research, is the selection of its scope. That is, why
focusing on SCOR Model, why selecting Business Strategy and Business Sustainability perspectives, and
why in the specific manner. Although a lot of discussion has been made on this topic in the introductory
section, it is important to maturely summarize these arguments while concluding. On one hand, focusing
on SCOR Model is logical, considering that this report is the outcome of a master thesis in the Supply
Chain Management domain, where the role of SCOR Model, as a managerial tool, is central. On the
other hand, the examination of notions such as Business Strategy and Business Sustainability is again
expected, since this thesis has been developed for the master program “Management of Technology”.
Whether now the selection of these two concepts to examine the potential improvement of SCOR
Model is justified, there is a number of supporting arguments. Apart from the intuition of the researcher
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 122 -
who has been specializing in the Supply Chain Management domain, the SCC itself attempts to enrich
SCOR Model in the selected here directions. Regarding Business Strategy, the SCC has included in its
latest, 10.0, release a risk management section that clearly attempts to reinforce the model by adding
strategic elements. Regarding Business Sustainability, “green” features have been added to the model
already by the 9.0 release. Furthermore, support to the potential contribution of these two concepts is
also provided by relevant literature, as well as from the interviewed here SC professionals, apparently in
an ex post pattern.
With respect now to the selection of these two concepts exclusively, it can be accounted to contextual
constraints and to the assumptions that need to be made so as to move from theory to reality. That is, it
has been claimed from the early beginning that, although there are more, and perhaps better,
opportunities for improvement, Business Strategy and Business Sustainability are the ones to be
emphasized upon and exploited here, since this report is the outcome of a master thesis and is followed
by pertinent time and budget constraints. The same goes for the prism through which these concepts
are exploited. It might not be as holistic as it should or can be, but it is a respectable initial approach. To
illustrate this latest argument, it has been claimed in several parts of this research that the examination
of Business Sustainability through the concept of Business Strategy might be the most prosperous
approach for the confrontation of both these concepts within SCOR Model, in specific, and the Supply
Chain Management domain, in general. However, such an approach requires the examination of these
concepts separately and in deep before they can be seen in positive feedback relationship. Therefore,
the boundaries of this research were set on the exploration of how these concepts interrelate with SCOR
Model, building this way the foundations for a future research that can emphasize on their mutually
reinforcing relationship.
To sum up, regarding the scope of this research and the extent up to which it affects its character, it is
noted that there are several assumptions and selections leading to the formulation of the specific topic.
These assumptions and selections allow the realization of this research in a master thesis context, and
do not compromise either the conclusions derived on the specific subject, or the conclusions that could
be derived from a similar one but based on different premises.
c) Literature Support on the Derived Conclusions
The third element, regarding the character of this research, is how the examined literature supports the
derived conclusions. With respect to the Business Strategy part, there were four main articles leading to
the creation of the interview framework and the continuation of the research, all of them, more or less,
of great importance to the outcome of this endeavor. Above all, the approach of Porter (1996) on
Business Strategy has defined and directed the entire reconsideration of this concept and the way it is
captured by SCOR Model. This approach is used from the early beginning to stress the problems of SCOR
Model benchmarking process and point out the appropriate mindset to deal with them. Statements
such as “strategy is about being different” and “strategy should be above operations and not vice versa”
are representative. Furthermore, the work of Stalk, Evans and Shulman (1992) indicates the prominence
of capabilities-based competition and the advantages enjoyed by those companies that decide to follow
this example. In this respect, they identify five main dimensions of advantages deriving from
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 123 -
capabilities-based competition, them being Speed, Consistency, Acuity, Agility and Innovativeness.
These dimensions constitute the inspiration behind one of the two main recommendations of this
research, that is, the enrichment of the performance attributes set. In the end, only Acuity and
Innovativeness are found not to coincide with the already established Performance Attributes of SCOR
Model. Nevertheless, the contribution of this literature finding is apparent.
On the other hand, the direction provided by the latter literature findings that strategic fit among the
operations of a company is a vital component, is strongly supported by the work of Smith and Reece
(1999). Their argument that strategic fit has a significant positive and direct effect on business
performance, as well as that the accomplishment of strategic fit appears to have greater significance
than the selection of the strategy itself, sets the line straight regarding the importance of strategic fit
and guides the emergence of the strategic compatibility concept, as it is herewith defined. One step
further, the work of Cox (1999) is rather substantial and helpful in the direction of defining the concept
of strategic compatibility. That is, the strategic factors of Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation
Compatibility appear to be representative variables of strategic compatibility, and for that reason
constitute the basis of the second main recommendation of this research, i.e., the addition of an
intermediate step that filters out strategically incompatible companies from the benchmarking
database.
Regarding now the support of literature to the Business Sustainability part, again, there are four
endeavors substantially contributing to the adopted line of reasoning. First of all, the framework
developed by the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production (2009) legitimizes the close relation between
Supply Chain Management and Sustainability, as well as it indicates that the former does not pay much
attention to the latter. One step further, the work of Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) has a rather central
position in this research, since it provides an explanation to the research problem of SCOR practitioners
not making use of the “green” features of the model. In this respect, Dyllick and Hockerts support that
the main reason such attempts usually fail is that they frequently and mistakenly equalize sustainability
with eco-efficiency, with the latter comprising only one out of the six dimensions of the former.
Moreover, the work of Waage et al (2005) and Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001) stress the necessity for
sustainability approaches to be systematic and comprising of distinct steps that facilitate the
implementation of corresponding solutions. In this regard, SCOR Model appears to fulfill this
requirement, since the approach of the model on sustainable solutions is rather straightforward. This
generates the question, why then SCOR Model presents the described problem. The answer is partially
given by Salzmann, Ionescu-Somers and Steger (2005), who claim that the reason that this effort, as well
as many other similar efforts during the last 15 years, does not produce impressive results is the refusal
of managers to espouse the business logic for adopting corporate sustainability strategies. This
argument has formed the basis for exploring further the described research problem and coming up
with the conclusion that further improvement on the sustainability approach of SCOR Model falls out of
the SCC authority.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 124 -
d) Drawing the Attention of Prospective Clients
The fourth element, regarding the character of this research, is why this research can, after all, draw the
attention of the recognized clients. It is reminded at this point that this research refers to the SCC,
companies and consultancies making use of SCOR model, researchers from the Supply Chain
Management domain and governmental and (non-)governmental organizations responsible for the
promotion of sustainable solutions. The answer to this question is strongly related to the contribution of
this research, as it is described in the beginning of this section. That is, extraction of guidelines and
design solutions, as well as inspiration and motivation for future research. It is now important to reflect
on how each of these solutions can draw the interest of the recognized prospective clients.
In regard of the SCC, the conclusions and recommendations on how the concepts of Business Strategy
and Business Sustainability can be recaptured so as to increase the effectiveness of SCOR Model can be
used towards one main direction: to increase the value of SCOR Model as a product. In other words, the
essence of the current version of the product is indubitable; however, there is, as there will always be,
room for further improvement. Apart from the literature and the other elements supporting the
existence of this room, most of the interviewees admitted that they already enrich SCOR Model with
strategic context while using it for their activities. That is, the “market” for the proposed enrichments
already exists and is currently dealing with the located room for improvement by itself. Therefore, the
SCC should be logically interested to fill this room and correspondingly increase the value of its product.
After all, it can be seen that the developing steps of the model over the years, point out to the located
directions for improvement.
Whether now the outcome of this research is compatible with the nature of SCOR Model and capable of
producing the aspired solutions, this is something the SCC has to decide. That is, the outcome of this
research consists of guidelines and design solutions that point out to certain directions. Whether the
SCC should retain, alter, adjust or ignore this output, this is a decision falling out the authority of this
research. What has been underlined several times here is that any solution adopted in the located
directions should be offered in a customizable way, so as to provide certain degrees of freedom and
allow practitioners to adjust it on their own demands and standards, as well as it should, in any case, not
deteriorate the level of flexibility of SCOR Model, a level that has been found to be quite low and should
at least be kept where it stands right now.
Supposing that this research falls out of the SCC’s interest, companies using the model are the next to be
concerned about the outcome of this endeavor. That is, assuming that most of them already adjust
SCOR Model so as to comply with and reinforce their Supply Chain Management, this research proposes
certain guidelines and design solutions of improving such approaches, or at least it sets the grounds on
how to confront the model and indicates the extent up to which it should be trusted. Apparently, the
amount of interest placed on the outcome of this research depends strongly on the type of the company
the discussion is about. For example, companies having the strategy of a leader would be more
interested in solutions that promote strategy above operations and allow for strategic differentiation.
On the other hand, companies that act as followers would not mind imitating practices of their best-in-
class competitors, since they do not aim for long-term competitive advantage. This is, after all, the
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 125 -
reason that this research has underlined the necessity for customizable solutions; because what is good
for one company can be bad for another and vice versa. In this respect, benchmarking can be the best
approach for a follower and the worst for a leader. Therefore, benchmarking should, by no means, be
removed from SCOR Model. There should just be an option for companies more interested in strategic
context to use it in a more strategically sound manner.
Overall, it is the idea of the researcher here that when dealing with strategy, the examination of all the
possible options and paths should be available at any time; because what seems right now might be
wrong the next moment; for example, being a follower for a long time may very well lead to becoming
redundant. Therefore, companies using SCOR Model for their Supply Chain Management can benefit
from the proposed guidelines and design solutions, in the sense that they can, at least, get a deeper
insight on the way Business Strategy interferes with the domain of Supply Chain Management. It is
noted that the argumentation used here for companies applies also to the case of consultancies, with
the difference that they mainly use SCOR Model to produce advice for their clients.
Apart from the guidelines and design solutions that mainly refer to the SCC, companies and
consultancies, this research also aspires to inspire and motivate researchers to build upon this endeavor
and explore this subject on the located directions. These directions are presented under the
recommendations for future research, and are mainly related with issues and elements that, although
not covered within this report, are directly related with the subject. The necessity to support the derived
conclusions with quantitative results is a characteristic example. Another is the urgency to explore the
proposed solutions and check whether they can be further enriched, e.g. adding more filters next to PSP
and VCC.
Aside from researchers, governmental and (non-)governmental organizations, especially those
responsible for the promotion of sustainable solutions, can be also inspired to explore ways of
promoting sustainability in business environments and in the Supply Chain Management domain. It has
been underlined that not only supply chains account for most of the environmental pollution, not only
most of the companies do not have a policy regarding such issues, but also governmental bodies appear
to be inert and merely observing the –by definition- limited efforts of companies and individuals to
come up with substantial solutions. Therefore, there is definitely a market asking for systematic,
responsible, integrated solutions promoting Business Sustainability in the Supply Chain Management
domain. The problem is that the customers of this market do not appear willing to pay for these
solutions; and here is where the necessity for governmental intervention becomes apparent.
Research Limitations
Following the discussion about the contribution and the character of this research, the last topic to
discuss is the limitations of this research and how they appear to influence the final output. As any type
of research, this endeavor here presents some limitations, it has been based on some assumptions and
is framed by a number of constraints that affect the magnitude of its impact. These limitations have
been already recognized, as well as their mitigators. It has been claimed that, whether these limitations
have a major or minor impact on this research, this is to be decided individually, by the actual reader.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 126 -
The purpose of recognizing and enlisting these limitations, is to declare knowledge of their existence
and, thereby, reduce their effect.
Regarding the first limitation, or else the qualitative nature of this research and how it affects the
extraction of tangible solutions, it has been claimed that a systematic and constructive research
approach and a step-by-step confrontation of the research problem are considered sufficient to direct
the collection, organization, analysis and synthesis of data towards valuable conclusions and tangible
solutions. Indeed, it is the belief of the researcher that the adopted approach keeps up with the
characteristics of qualitative research and manages to produce tangible guidelines and design solutions.
Whether now these are to be adusted or not upon implementation, this is to be decided by the
recognized clients of this research.
Other limitations that have been recognized are related with decisions that have been made during the
pertinent research set-up. The sample selection criteria, the sample size, the quality and
appropriateness of the respondents, even the ability of the researcher to conduct the interviews can be
seen as inhibiting factors. However, as it has been claimed under the research methodology paragraph,
when it comes to qualitative research, trustworthiness on the results is translated as trust on the ability
of the researcher to run the research. There are no objective criteria such as the reliability and validity
ones in quantitative research. The only relevant action that can be taken is the assessment of
corresponding literature so as to gather and comply with already established approaches and practices.
Among the various decisions that have been made in this research set-up, the size of the sample is,
perhaps, the only one that may be problematic and needs to be discussed. It has been found that, using
a critical case/ criterion/ homogeneous/ convenience sampling strategy, a sample of four interviewees
can be sufficient in this research context. On one hand, the fast convergence of the results supports and
justifies this decision. On the same track, the successful implementation of the triangulation
methodology, where data from three different sources appears to point at the same direction, is also
supporting.
On the other hand though, the assumption of homogeneous sample is somehow invalidated, since
additional criteria appear to influence the opinions of the repondents, such as the industry their
companies belong to and the organizational structure of their companies. In this respect, homogeneity
might not be a valid assumption when looking backwards, and as a result there may have been needed
more respondents to reassure qualified results. However, this argument is by no means sufficient to
justify the invalidation of the entire research. The evidence supporting the derived conclusions is clear
and, again, always sided by the other methods of the triangulation methodology. Overall, the opinion of
the researcher is that the endeavor here is merely an initial attempt. Further research and quantitative
results are necessary for the production of safe, concrete and specific solutions. Therefore, this research
can be still and always used as an initial approach on the described subject, an approach that can be
always furthered and supported by analogous attempts. After all, qualitative research is about the
production of hypotheses.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 127 -
The final issue found to be limiting the effectiveness of this research, is the overall context within which
this researh is taking place. That is, as an MSc dissertation, this research is seriously limited by time and
budget constraints. Along with the unpredictable and hard to schedule nature of qualitative research, it
has been claimed that there could be a problem created at this point. However, dedicated work and
well-structured planning have been considered to be dynamos, sufficient to confront this limitation.
Additionally, another key mitigator of this constraint has been claimed to be the careful selection of the
boundaries between the teritorries of current and future research. Overall, it is the view of the
researcher that this constraint has been effectively dealt with and that the final outcome is of high-
quality and beyond the limits of an MSc dissertation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the research endeavor that has led to the creation of this report manages to keep up with
the initial objective and the aspired contribution. The relation of this research to its core element, i.e.
SCOR Model, is clear and complementary, while the scope of this research is sensibly selective.
Additionally, the connection of the literature to the results of this research is clear and unquestionable.
As a result, the extracted guidelines and design solutions, as well as the inspiration and motivation for
future research, respond responsibly to the demands of their prospective clients, as they have been
recognized in the specific research context. On the other hand, this research is found to respond
successfully to most of the recognized limitations, in a manner that does not allow the invalidation of
the pertinent results.
Overall, the research problem has been responsibly explored and the research questions have been
systematically confronted. The foundations of the interrelation between SCOR Model and the concepts
of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability have been dismantled and reset. The one, large and
vague, question mark set in the beginning of this research has been replaced by many more, small and
definite. Thus, the purpose of the qualitative research has been accomplished and the academic stamp
has been put, regarding the establishment and continuation of this research topic. It is now to be seen,
whether each one of the engendered question marks would ultimately draw the required attention.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 128 -
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 129 -
References
Electronic Sources (alphabetically ordered):
1. Bryman, A. (2008). Triangulation. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from: http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf
2. Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). (2009). Official Web Site: https://www.cdproject.net
3. Enders, A, & König, A. (2009). Social Proof, Benchmarking and Incumbent Failure. Retrieved, June 15, 2009, from IMD, A Leading Global Business School Web site:
http://www.imd.ch/research/challenges/upload/TC023_social_proof_benchmarking_and_incumbent_failure.pdf
4. Environmental Leader. (2009). Official Web Site: http://www.environmentalleader.com
5. Francis, J. (2007). Managing BPM. Retrieved, May 4, 2009, from BPM, Business Process Trends Web site: http://www.bptrends.com/publicationfiles/NINE-03-07-COL-ITSupplyChainSCORcard-Managing%20BPM-Francis-Final.pdf
6. International Finance Corporation (IFC). (2004). Official Web Site: http://www.ifc.org
7. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. (2009). Official Web Site: http://sustainableproduction.org
8. Mongabay. (2009). Official Web Site: http://www.mongabay.com
9. Supply Chain Council (SCC). (2009). Official Web Site: http://www.supply-chain.org
Print Sources (alphabetically ordered):
1. Abell, D. (1993). Managing with dual strategies. New York, NY: The Free Press (Macmillan Inc.).
2. Anderson, D. R. (2006). The critical importance of sustainability risk management. Risk Management, 53, (4), 66-71.
3. Andrews K. (1980). The Concept of Corporate Strategy (2nd ed.). Homewood, IL: Dow-Jones Irwin.
4. Bogdan, R. B., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and
Methods (3rd ed.) Allyn & Bacon.
5. Brundtland, G.H. (1987). Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development: Brussels
6. Camp, R.C. (1989). Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior
Performance. Milwaukee, WI; Quality Press, p.12.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 130 -
7. Cialdini, R. (1993). Influence: Science and practice. New York, NY: Harper Collins, pp. 131-132.
8. Cooper, M.C., & Ellram, L.M. (1993). Characteristics of Supply Chain Management and the Implication for Purchasing and Logistics Strategy. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 4, (2), 13-24.
9. Cooper, M., Ellram, L.M., Gardner, J.T., & Hanks A.M. (1997). Meshing Multiple Alliances. Journal of
Business Logistics, 18, (1), 67-89.
10. Cox, A. (1998). Clarifying complexity, Supply Management, 28 January.
11. Cox, A. (1999). Power, value and supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 4, (4), 167-175.
12. David, F. (1989). Strategic Management. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company
13. DeSimone, L., & Popoff, F. (1997). Eco-Efficiency: the Business Link to Sustainable Development. Cambridge: MIT Press.
14. Diekmann, J. (1999). Okologischer Strukturwandel als vergessene Komponente des essourcenverbrauchs,
Zwischen Effizienz und Suffizienz. Okologisches Wirtschaften 3, 25–26.
15. Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainablity. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 11, (2), 130-141.
16. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone: Oxford.
17. Figge, F., Hahn, T., Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2002). The Sustainability Balanced ScoreCard-Linking
Sustainability Management to Business Strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment, 11, (5), 269-284.
18. Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J., & Krause, T.S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review 20, (4), 874–907.
19. Goven, J. (2003). Deploying the Consensus Conference in New Zealand: Democracy and
Deproblematization. Public Understanding of Science, 12, (4), 423–40.
20. Grant, J.H., & King, W.R. (1982). The logic of strategic planning. Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
21. Hammer, M., & Champy, J. Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. London: Nicholas Brealey.
22. Harris, B. (1995). Best Practices Emerge from the Synergy of Technology, Processes, and People.
Emerging Technologies, Supplement to Government Technology, October, p.16.
23. Hax, A.C., & Majluf, N.S. (1984). Strategic Management: An Integrative Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24. Hecht, J.E. (2005). National Environmental Accounting: Bridging the Gap between Ecology and Economy.
RFF Press.
25. Hockerts, K. (1996). The SusTainAbility Radar (STAR∗), a Step towards Corporate Sustainability
Accounting, discussion paper. London: New Economics Foundation.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 131 -
26. Hockerts, K. (1999). The sustainability radar – a tool for the innovation of sustainable products and services. Greener Management International, (25), 29–49.
27. Hofer, C., & Schendel, D. (1978). Strategy Formulation: Analytical Concepts. St. Paul, MN: West.
28. Horton K.S. (2003). Strategy, Practice and the Dynamics of Power. Journal of Business Research, 56, (2),
121-126.
29. Houlihan, J.B. (1988). International Supply Chains: A New Approach. Management Decision, 26, (3), 13-19.
30. Hitt, M.A., Freeman, R.E., & Harrison, J.S. (2001). The Blackwell handbook of strategic management (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
31. Huang, S.H., Sheoran, S.K., & Wang, G. (2004). A Review and Analysis of Supply Chain Operations
Reference (SCOR) Model. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9, (1), 23-29.
32. Huang, X. & Zhang, R. (2007).The art of value creation strategy: Evidence from a Chinese state-owned enterprise. Chinese Management Studies, 1, (3), 180-197.
33. IISD (1992). Business Strategy for Sustainable Development: Leadership and Accountability for the 90s.
The International Institute for Sustainable Development, Deloitte & Touche and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
34. Jeston, J., & Nelis, J. (2008). Management by Process: A Practical Road-map to Sustainable Business
Process Management. Butterworth-Heinemann.
35. Jones, T., & Riley, D.W. (1985). Using Inventory for Competitive Advantage through Supply Chain Management. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, 15, (5),16-26.
36. Kaplan, R.S. (2005). The Limits of Benchmarking. Balanced Scorecard Report, 7, (6).
37. Kaplan, R.S., & Norton, D.P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard - Measures that Drive Performance. Harvard
Business Review, January February, 71-79.
38. Kearns, G.S., & Lederer, A.L. (2000). The effect of strategic alignment on the use of IS-based resources for competitive advantage. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, (4), 265-293.
39. Klein, N. (2000). No Logo: Taking Aim at Brand Bullies. London: Picador.
40. Kreibich R, (1997). Nachhaltige Entwicklung, Leitbild für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft.
UmweltWirtschaftsForum, 3, (2).
41. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42. Lambert, D.M., Stock, J.R., & Ellram, L.M. (1998). Fundamentals of Logistics Management. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Ch. 14.
43. La Londe, B.J., & Masters, J.M. (1994). Emerging Logistics Strategies: Blueprints for the Next Century.
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 24, (7), 35-47.
44. Luftman, J.N., Papp, R., & Brier, T. (1999). Enablers and Inhibitors of Business-IT Alignment. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 11, (3), 1-33.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 132 -
45. Mentzer, J.T, Witt, W., De, Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., & Zacharia, Z.G. (2001). Defining Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business Logistics, 22, (2),17.
46. Mintzberg, H., (1994). The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Basic Books.
47. Monczka, R., Trent, R., & Handfield, R. (1998). Purchasing and Supply Chain Management. Cincinnati, OH:
South-Western College Publishing, Ch. 8.
48. Nagurney, A. (2006). Supply Chain Network Economics: Dynamics of Prices, Flows, and Profits. Edward Elgar Publishing.
49. O'Donoghue, T., & Punch, K. (2003). Qualitative Educational Research in Action: Doing and Reflecting.
Routledge, p.78.
50. O'Malley, P. (1998). Value Creation and Business Success. The Systems Thinker, 9, (2).
51. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton R.I. (2006). “Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from
Evidence-Based Management”, Harvard Business School Press.
52. Poluha, R.G. (2007). Application of the SCOR Model in Supply Chain Management. Cambria Press.
53. Porter, M.E. (1996). What is Strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74, (6), 61-78.
54. Ren, T. (2008). Application of Supply Chain Performance Measurement Based on SCOR Model. Wireless
Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, October, 1-4.
55. Robert, M. (1993). Strategy: Pure and Simple. McGraw-Hill.
56. Sachs, W. (1993). Die vier E’s. Merkposten fur einen maßvollen Wirtschaftstil. Politische Okologie Special Issue ’Lebensstil oder Stilleben’ Sept/Oct: 69–72.
57. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability:
literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23, (1), 27-36.
58. Schumacher, E.F. (1974). Small is Beautiful. Abacus: London. Schweizerische Bundesverfassung vom
18.4.1999. Bundesrat: Bern.
59. Schwan, C., & Spady, W. (1998). Total leaders: Applying the best future-focused change strategies to
education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Education.
60. Smith, T.M., & Reece, J.S. (1999). The relationship of strategy, fit, productivity, and business performance in a services setting. American Production and Inventory Control Society Inc., Journal of Operations
Management, 17, (2), 145-161.
61. Stalk, G., Evans, P., & Shulman, L. E. (1992). Competing on capabilities: The new rules of corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review, 70, (2), 57-69.
62. Steiner, G. (1979). Strategic Planning. Free Press.
63. Stevens, G.C. (1989). Integrating the Supply Chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Materials Management, 8, (8), 3-8.
64. Swiatek, R. (2005). The Importance of Strategic Alignment in Small to Medium Sized Businesses. University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
- 133 -
65. Treacy, M., Wiersema, F. (1994). The Discipline of Market Leaders. Addison-Wesley.
66. Tregoe, B., & Zimmerman, J. (1980). Top Management Strategy. Simon and Schuster.
67. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic
Management Journal, 18, (7), 509-533.
68. Umweltbundesamt. (1997). Nachhaltiges Deutschland, Wege zu einer dauerhaft-umweltgerechten
Entwicklung. Schmidt: Berlin.
69. Velde, van der M., Jansen, P., & Anderson, N. (2007). Guide to Management Research Methods (3rd ed.). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
70. Veleva, V. & Ellenbecker, M. (2001). Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology.
Journal of Cleaner Production 9, (6), 519-549.
71. Venkatraman, N., Henderson, J.C. & Olbach, S., Continuous Strategic Alignment: Exploiting Information Technology Capabilities for Competitive Success. European Management Journal, 11, (2), 139-149.
72. Waage, S.A., Geiser, K., Irwin, F., Weissman, A.B., Bertolucci, M.D., Fisk, P., Basile, G., Cowan, S., Cauley,
H., & McPherson, A. (2005). Fitting together the building blocks for sustainability: a revised model for integrating ecological, social, and financial factors into business decision-making. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 13, (12), 1145-1163.
73. Zavestovski, S. (2001). Environmental concern and anticonsumerism in the self-concept: do they share the same basis? In M.J., Cohen, & J., Murphy (eds.), Exploring Sustainable Consumption (pp.173-190). Amsterdam: Pergamon
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
134
Appendices
Appendix A: Qualitative Research Characteristics
With regard to Qualitative Research, there can be found numerous pertinent definitions, the citation of
which is considered to be redundant. A generic but representative one, developed by Denzin and Lincoln
(2005)1, states that:
This condensed explanation primarily aims to underline the explorative nature of qualitative research.
The purpose is to get a general understanding about the research object, a conceptual theory that
provides an initial explanation to the pertinent field of investigation. This is the reason qualitative
research attempts to answer questions starting with How and Why, rather than What, Where, When
that are more of a quantitative nature. In other words, it is a naturalistic approach pursuing to
investigate research problems within their context-specific circumstances, i.e. "real world setting
[where] the researcher does not attempt to manipulate the phenomenon of interest" (Patton, 1990)2.
An alternative broad definition describes qualitative research as "any kind of research that produces
findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of quantification" (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990)3. Instead, the purpose of this research paradigm is to come up with findings strongly
related with the real world, where the "phenomenon of interest unfolds naturally" (Patton, 1990)2.
According to Hoepfl (1997)4, qualitative research seeks for illumination, understanding, and
extrapolation to similar situations, unlike the quantitative paradigm that emphasizes on causal
determination, prediction, and generalization of findings.
1 Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 1-32). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
2 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
3 Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
4 Hoepfl, M. C. (1997). Choosing qualitative research: A primer for technology education researchers. Journal of
Technology Education, 9, (1), 47-63.
“Qualitative research is a field of inquiry that crosscuts disciplines and subject matters”.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
135
The approach of van der Velde, Jansen and Anderson (2007)5 provides more details about qualitative
research. First of all, being of explorative nature, qualitative research investigates possible causes or
influencing factors for attributes or objects. In this sense, it attempts to tentatively formulate
relationships between phenomena, with the purpose of developing more precise hypotheses and
theory. In other words, it seeks for plausible explanations of certain facts, in theoretical areas that are
unclear, dynamic and not well-established. The output of a qualitative research is usually a set of
hypotheses, which can be subsequently used as the input of a quantitative research. Therefore, it needs
to be quite open to grasp the opinions of expert interviewees and to analyze the conclusions of multiple
and diverse literature. In parallel though, it also needs to be clear and systematic so as to avoid
becoming impressionistic. Another characteristic of this paradigm is the use of small samples of
individuals with expertise, since the purpose is to come up with an explanatory theory, not with
abundant statistical data.
The following table unifies these qualitative research characteristics under universal research elements:
Research
Type
Research
Question
Research Aim Research
Theory
Research Strategies Data Collection
Explorative How?
Why?
Development
of Hypotheses
Not Well-
Established
Qualitative (Case
Studies or Theoretical
Research)
Mostly Interviews
(Unstructured &
Semi-structured)
Table A-1: Explorative Research Elements
5 Velde, van der M., Jansen, P., & Anderson, N. (2007). Guide to Management Research Methods (3rd ed.).
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
136
Appendix B: Triangulation Method and Qualitative Research
Before rushing into the examination of the appropriateness of this method in the context of this
research, it is important to provide a substantive definition and description of its basic characteristics.
Triangulation is a typical representative of multi-method research principles. The idea behind the
method is derived by the field of Surveying, i.e. “the technique and science of accurately determining the
terrestrial or three-dimensional space position of points and the distances and angles between them”
(Genovese, 2005)6. In this context, triangulation basically uses a series of triangles to map out an area. In
research context, Cohen and Manion (1986)7 define triangulation as “an attempt to map out, or explain
more fully, the richness and complexity of human behavior by studying it from more than one
standpoint“. The connection is apparent.
Webb et al. (1966)8 pointed out three important benefits associated with the triangulation method and
its utilization in research. The first is that “once a proposition has been confirmed by two or more
independent measurement processes, the uncertainty of its interpretation is greatly reduced. The most
persuasive evidence comes through a triangulation of measurement processes”. The second comes as a
response to the criticism of triangulation, stating that it does not reassure consistency between the
results of the various research methods used. In this respect, they claim that this argument is by itself
illustrating the problem of relying on one single research method. The third is that such an absence of
convergence can generate new research questions, more precise and appropriate to explore the
research topic. This third argument should be always kept in mind, since even the occurrence of
convergence between the results of two methods may simply mean that both methods are flawed.
There are four types of triangulation, as they were recognized by Denzin (1970)9, who attempted and
managed to systemize this notion and its various applications. These four types are enlisted and
described on the following table:
Types Description
Data Triangulation
Gathering data through several sampling strategies, so that slices of
data at different times and social situations, as well as on a variety of
people, are gathered
Investigator Triangulation Using more than one researcher in the field to gather and interpret
data
Theoretical Triangulation Using more than one theoretical position in interpreting data
Methodological Triangulation Using more than one method for gathering data
Table B-1: Types of Triangulation
6 Genovese, I. (2005). Definitions of Surveying and Associated Terms. ACSM.
7 Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (2000). Research methods in education (5
th ed.). Routledge, p. 254.
8 Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Measures
in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.
9 Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
137
The fourth type recognized, i.e. Methodological Triangulation, is the most representative of the
triangulation method and the one that is adopted in this research. There is an extra classification of
Methodological Triangulation, the one distinguishing between within-method and between-method
approach (Denzin, 1970)10. The former refers to the case where varieties of the same method are used
during the investigation, i.e. contrasting scales of the same variable. The latter refers to the utilization of
contrasting research methods, i.e. interviews and questionnaires. The between-method approach is the
one followed in this research. Details about the research methods that are used in this direction are
provided later on. Namely, unstructured interviews, semi-structured interviews and archiving data are
the three adopted methods.
As it becomes apparent by the definition of triangulation and its analysis by Webb et al. (1966)11, the
method attempts to enhance confidence in the ensuing findings by approaching the research topic from
various angles. There are two main directions of criticism against triangulation (Alan Bryman, 2008)12.
The first refers to the strong assumption of the method that results deriving from different methods can
be unequivocally taken into account, compared and combined. However, as it was logically advocated
by Webb et al., this lack of universality between research methods is merely indicating how narrow and
questionable can a single-method research approach be.
The second direction of criticism is deeper and requires extra attention. It is mainly associated with the
notion of Constructionism (Alan Bryman, 2008)12, the supporters of which claim that research findings
should not be confronted as the only one and absolute plausible explanation and answer to the research
question. They merely represent one potential solution, one perspective. However, the aggregative
approach of triangulation that accumulates the results of different methods appears to subscribe to a
naïve Realism, to a doubtful principle that there is a single definitive account of the world. This is the
objection of Constructionists to the method of triangulation. However, they themselves recognize that,
apart from this debatable approach, triangulation shows great potential when it comes to the
enhancement of the credibility and persuasiveness of a research account. In this regard, the criticism of
Constructionists can be alleviated by using triangulation carefully and systematically. In order to achieve
such an optimal use of triangulation, it is necessary to understand the way it enhances the quality of a
research.
To efficiently dismantle the mechanism through which triangulation can enhance confidence in research
findings, it is necessary to define first what “confidence” means in the context of qualitative research.
10 Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldine.
11 Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Measures
in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally. 12 Bryman, A. (2008). Triangulation. Retrieved April 29, 2009, from:
http://www.referenceworld.com/sage/socialscience/triangulation.pdf
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
138
According to Golafshani (2003)13, the so far referred concepts of confidence, credibility and
persuasiveness are used in qualitative research (naturalistic approach) to describe in analogy the terms
of validity and reliability that are used in quantitative research (positivist approach). In this respect, it is
important to carefully perform this redefining process for the cases of reliability and validity, so as to
“reflect the multiple ways of establishing truth” and realize in deep how triangulation enhances the
quality of the research.
In regard of reliability and validity in quantitative research terms, their meaning is quite clear. Reliability
is the concept examining “whether the result of the research is replicable”, while Validity examines
“whether the means of measurement are accurate and whether they are actually measuring what they
are intended to measure” (Golafshani, 2003)13.
In qualitative terms now, the replicability of the results is not a matter of concern (Glesne & Peshkin,
1992)14. The reason is that qualitative research refers to quality, not to quantity that can be
reproducible. Correspondingly, “the concept of reliability is even misleading in qualitative research. If a
qualitative study is discussed with reliability as a criterion, the consequence is rather that the study is no
good” (Stenbacka, 2001)15. However, the question “how can an inquirer persuade his or her audiences
that the research findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to?" (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)16
remains. As an answer to this question, Healy and Perry (2000)17 claim that the quality of a study in each
paradigm should be judged by its own paradigm's terms (Golafshani, 2003)13. In this respect, the
concepts of Credibility, Neutrality or Confirmability, Consistency or Dependability, and Applicability or
Transferability are considered to be essential indicators of quality in qualitative research (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985)16. Trustworthiness is added next to these concepts by Seale (1999)18. The question now is
whether the approach of Lincoln and Guba (1985)16 or Stenbacka (2001)15 is the most appropriate; that
is, whether replacing the quantitative term of reliability with these five qualitative terms is a better
approach than simply overruling the applicability of reliability in qualitative research. The answer to this
question is subjective. However, in a Solomon Judgment pattern, Lincoln and Guba (1985)16
autonomously state that "since there can be no validity without reliability, a demonstration of the former
13 Golafshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8,
(4).
14 Glesne, C., & Peshkin, P. (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. New York, NY: Longman.
15 Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39, (7),
551-555.
16 Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. New York, NY: Sage.
17 Healy, M., & Perry, C. (2000). Comprehensive criteria to judge validity and reliability of qualitative research
within the realism paradigm. Qualitative Market Research – An International Journal, 3, (3), 118-126.
18 Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, (4), 465-478.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
139
is sufficient to establish the latter". Credit to this general rule, that reliability is essential but not
sufficient to demonstrate validity, is also given by Patton (1990)19.
The next logical step is to examine how the quantitative term of validity is translated in qualitative
terms. Then, ways to reassure this qualitative validity can be sought for, while, as it was argued, the
qualitative sense of reliability is indirectly but automatically satisfied. In qualitative research, the
concept of validity is neither single nor universal, it is “a contingent construct, inescapably grounded in
the processes and intentions of particular research methodologies and projects” (Winter, 2000)20. In
other words, researchers usually formulate their own definition of validity, depending on their choice of
paradigm assumption (Creswell & Miller, 2000)21. As a consequence, an abundance of relevant terms
have been produced, such as quality, rigor and trustworthiness (Davies & Dodd, 2002; Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Mishler, 2000; Seale, 1999; Stenbacka, 2001)22 23 24 25 26. However, it can be generally claimed that,
in qualitative terms, “the idea of discovering truth through measures of reliability and validity is replaced
by the idea of trustworthiness, which is defensible and establishing confidence in the findings”
(Golafshani, 2003)27.
This differentiation indicates the divergence between the approaches of the two paradigms,
quantitative and qualitative (Kuhn, 1970)28. However, both paradigms end up with the need to test
and demonstrate the credibility of their findings. And here is the essential difference between the
two paradigms; on one hand, quantitative research reassures credibility through the construction of
effective research instruments; on the other hand, in qualitative research, “the researcher is the
19 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2
nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc. 20 Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of validity in qualitative and quantitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 4, (3&4), 1. Retrieved July 26, 2009, from:
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html
21 Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, (3),
124-131.
22 Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health research, 12, (2),
279-289.
23 Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. New York, NY: Sage.
24 Mishler, E.G. (2000). Validation in inquiry-guided research. The role of explemplars in narrative studies. In B. M.,
Brizuela, J. P., Stewart. R. G., Carrillo, & J. G., Berger (Eds.), Acts of inquiry in qualitative research (pp. 119-146).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review.
25 Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, (4), 465-478.
26 Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39, (7),
551-555.
27 Golafshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8,
(4).
28 Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
140
instrument" (Patton, 1990)19
. In other words, quantitative research develops instruments to assess
reliability and validity and thereby establish credibility, while qualitative research relies on the
ability and effort of the researcher to establish credibility.
As it was explained before, to increase credibility in the findings of a qualitative research, one needs
to increase trustworthiness. Increasing trustworthiness can increase generalizability (and vice
versa), which is a prominent concept when it comes to increasing the quality of qualitative research
(Stenbacka, 2001)29
. And how generalizibility in qualitative research increases? This happens
through the triangulation method. As Mathison (1988)30
supports, “Triangulation has risen an
important methodological issue in naturalistic and qualitative approaches to evaluation [in order to]
control bias and establishing valid propositions because traditional scientific techniques are incompatible
with this alternate epistemology”.
In this appendix, the research methodology was established. The triangulation method was selected,
defined and described. The advantages and criticisms of this method were analyzed. It was shown how
the criticism of the method can be countered by redefining reliability and validity in qualitative terms. It
was logically concluded that, in qualitative terms, reliability, if relevant, can be satisfied through validity,
which, in the qualitative paradigm, is translated in the term trustworthiness. Then, trustworthiness was
claimed to be analogously related to generalizability, which can be increased by using the triangulation
method. Triangulation method was described to be a flexible method that can be adjusted, depending
on the criteria of the researcher. After all, qualitative research relies on the ability and effort of the
researcher to establish credibility.
29 Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39, (7),
551-555.
30 Mathison, S. (1988). Why Triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17, (2), 13-17.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
141
Appendix C: Determining the Sample Size
In order to systematically determine the sample size, it is necessary to take a step back and reexamine
the adopted sampling strategy as a whole. In qualitative terms, the responsibility of the researcher is to
provide sufficient information regarding the context of the sample. This way, other people will be able
to evaluate the ensuing findings and the extent up to which they apply to their own situation.
Apparently, this approach leaves room for future research. However, it is capable of providing the
reader with increased understanding of the research topic. The realization of this responsibility
illustrates the role and the limits of the sample strategy in qualitative research.
The key factor in selecting a qualitative sample is the purpose of the research. There are numerous
sampling practices and different reasons to choose between them. Hence, a sample is chosen
purposefully and can be a result of many sampling strategies (Patton, 1990; Coyne 1997)31 32. The
typology of the available sampling strategies, developed by Patton (1990)31, and the various purposes
they serve are depicted on the following table:
Type of Sampling Purpose
Maximum variation Documents diverse variations and identifies
important common patterns
Homogeneous Focuses, reduces, simplifies; facilitates group
interviewing
Critical case Permits logical generalization and maximum
application of information to other cases
Theoretical Finding examples of a theoretical construct and
thereby elaborating and examining it
Confirming/ disconfirming Elaborating initial analysis, seeking exceptions,
looking for variation
Snowball or chain Identifies cases of interest from people who know
people who know what cases are information rich
Extreme or deviant case Learning from highly unusual manifestations of the
phenomenon of interest
Typical case Highlights what is normal or average
Intensity Information-rich cases that manifest the
phenomenon intensely but not extremely
Politically important cases Attracts desired attention or avoids attracting
31 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2
nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
32 Coyne, I.T. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research: Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear
boundaries. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, (3), 623-630.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
142
undesired attention
Random purposeful Adds credibility to sample when potential
purposeful is too large
Stratified purposeful Illustrates subgroups; facilitates comparisons
Criterion All cases meet some criterion; useful for quality
assurance
Opportunistic Follow new leads; taking advantage of unexpected
Combination or mixed Triangulation, flexibility, meets multiple interests/
needs
Convenience Saves time, money and effort but at expense of
information and credibility
Table C-1: Typology of Sampling Strategies in Qualitative Inquiry (Patton, 1990)33
In the research conducted here, several of the enlisted strategies are used towards the sample
definition. The first of these strategies is the critical case sampling strategy. According to Maxwell
(1996)34, “If the purpose is to illuminate theory through well-chosen examples, then critical case
sampling is appropriate”. Indeed, the purpose of this research is to illuminate the way Business Strategy
and Business Sustainability interrelate to Supply Chain Management, in general, and SCOR Model, in
specific, through well-chosen interviews. This sampling strategy “permits logical generalization and
maximum application of information to other cases because if it’s true of this one case it’s likely to be
true of all other [‘similar’] cases” (Patton, 1990)33. In other words, the focus of the researcher is to come
up with a good story that illuminates the questions under study (Crabtree and Miller, 1999)35.
The second sampling strategy is derived by the approach of Creswell (1998)36, who, in a similar manner,
suggests that “certain kinds of qualitative research tend to favor certain kinds of sampling”. In this
respect he argues that when the qualitative tradition is phenomenological, the commonly used sampling
strategy is to set a criterion. Indeed, the “phenomenon” here is SCOR Model and, in order to understand
the functionality of this phenomenon, a number of experts are interviewed, fulfilling a number of
criteria, which have already been described, used to accomplish quality assurance.
The sample selection criteria, already set, promote the consistency among the selected respondents.
This consistency can also be seen as the third, or else the homogeneous sampling strategy. This strategy,
like all fixed sampling strategies, is rather helpful in small, exploratory researches (Crabtree & Miller,
1999)35. The reason is it focuses, reduces, simplifies, it helps in understanding a particular part of the
33 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2
nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
34 Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative Research Design. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35 Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (Eds.) (1999). Doing Qualitative Research (2
nd ed.). London: Sage.
36 Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design; Choosing Among Five Traditions. London, New Delhi
and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 372 p. + notes, index.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
143
general context, while admitting the existence of unrecorded diversity and suggesting relevant
directions for future study (Crabtree & Miller, 1999)37.
As it is implicated here, there are some constraints in this research that promote the emergence of the
homogeneous sampling strategy. That is, instead of examining all the relevant aspects, the research
topic focuses on specific areas. The reasons that inhibit the utilization of such a “maximum variation”
strategy are the time and budget constraints related to a Master of Science thesis project. Hopefully,
this compromise occurs at the minimum expense of information and credibility. Parenthetically, this is
the fourth strategy used here, or else the convenience sampling strategy.
Summarizing, the sampling strategy used here is a critical case/ criterion/ homogeneous/ convenience
strategy. The purpose of this strategy, like all sampling strategies, is that of that of “theoretical
saturation” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967)38, or sampling to the point of redundancy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
Morse, 1995)39 40. That is, when data resulting from the interviews starts repeating itself, it is a good
point in time to stop the sampling process. The contribution of this saturation technique is two-fold; on
one hand, it increases the credibility of the developed theory; on the other hand, it answers the
question, “when can the sampling process stop (Crabtree & Miller, 1999)37”?
Although there are no fast and hard rules, experience has shown that five to eight data sources or
sampling units often suffice for a homogeneous sample (Crabtree & Miller, 1999)37. In the specific
research, this repetition of data started from the second interview already, while the fourth interview
was very similar to the third. Thereby, it was decided that four interviews are sufficient for data
convergence and towards reaching theoretical consensus (details about the respondents are given in the
interview results section, up to the extent that the pertinent requests for secrecy and anonymity are not
violated). This confidence for the sufficiency of the four interviews is based on two facts. Firstly, the fast
convergence of the results is a strong indication of the credibility of the developed theory. Secondly, the
interviews constitute only one part of the triangulation method adopted in this research. That is, the
parallel contribution of the unstructured interview and of the data archives increases the confidence in
these results critically.
Although recognized as one of the main stakeholders, the participation of the SCC has not yet been
discussed. The SCC appears to be the most direct stakeholder of this research, since the research topic
refers to its main product, i.e. the SCOR Model. In this respect, the need for SCC’s participation is
unquestionable. However, considering the qualitative nature of this research, extra attention should be
placed on the degree of activeness of this participation. That is, this research aims to be as unbiased as
possible; it aspires to approach SCOR Model from a totally neutral angle. In this respect, developing this
37 Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (Eds.) (1999). Doing Qualitative Research (2
nd ed.). London: Sage.
38 Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
39 Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. New York, NY: Sage.
40 Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5, (2), 147-149.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
144
research hand in hand with the SCC could only lock the innovative aspiration of this research to the
already established approach of the SCC. Therefore, the SCC’s point of view is taken into account only in
the early beginning and the very end of this research, not during the development phase. Specifically, an
unstructured interview is conducted in the early beginning to grasp the SCC idea on the research subject
and the way it is positioned, and a semi-structured interview in the end, as a way to capture the SCC
perception of the results. This way, the relevance of the topic and of the results is validated, without
compromising the equitability of the results. One step further, a former administrative member of the
SCC is chosen to participate in the described research phases, so as to avoid any kind of bind to the SCC
perspective (details about this person are given in the conceptual design section). It has to be
mentioned that the decision to run this research in parallel to the work of the SCC is not - in any case -
an attempt of reduction or negligence. On the contrary, it is a modest initiative, aiming to think out of
the box so as to potentially enrich the already ingenious contribution of the SCC in the Supply Chain
Management domain, as it is expressed by the creation and establishment of the SCOR Model.
This contribution of this appendix is two-fold. On one hand, it takes a look on the adopted sampling
strategy and systematically concludes on the semi-structured interviews sample size. On the other hand,
it examines and clarifies the type of the SCC participation in this research.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
145
Appendix D: From Literature Research Questions to Interview Questionnaire
Regarding the literature research questions, they are organized here under general representative
themes, considered to capture the entire spectrum of the research topic. There are separate themes for
Business Strategy and Business Sustainability. Now, each of the literature research questions is used in
the questionnaire either unchanged or slightly changed to become more neutral, more flexible, and in
general more appropriate for a semi-structured interview question, always according to the standards of
the researcher. Sometimes, questions are combined, when they are considered to overlap. Overall, the
idea is to retain the essence of the themes and correspondingly adjust the questions from the literature,
so as they represent the theme they belong to appropriately, as well as they comply with the
unstructured interview character they mean to serve. The tables below present in detail this transition
process:
Themes Literature Research Questions Questionnaire Questions
General
• At what extent are Acuity and Innovativeness relevant to the Supply Chain Management domain and capable of contributing to the alleviation of benchmarking effects?
• At what extent do Acuity and Innovativeness
overlap with the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model?
• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the
inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR Model? • How could they be measured? What could be
potential corresponding Metrics?
• At what extent are these variables capable of capturing Business Strategy?
• At what extent do they overlap with the
Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model? • How straightforward and/ or realistic would
be the inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR Model?
• How could they be measured? What could be
potential corresponding Metrics?
Benchmar
king
Character • How likely is it for an implementing company to fall
into the recorded benchmarking pitfalls? • How likely is SCOR Model, as a typical
benchmarking process, to lead in this pitfall and prevent companies from becoming best in their class?
The Concept
of Strategic
Fit
• At what extent does the “Superior”, “Advantage” or “Parity” tool promote Strategy above Operations?
• At what extent do the “Superior”, “Advantage” or
“Parity” tool and the Five Performance Attributes manage to capture the concept of strategic fit?
• At what extent does SCOR Model manage to capture the concept of strategic fit, as it is described by Porter, and promote strategy above operations?
Capturing Strategic
Compatibility to
Promote Strategic Fit • How straightforward and/ or realistic would it be to
assess strategic fit through an analytical tool, such as the SCOR Model?
• What could be the indicators to define and
measure strategic fit?
• Do you think the Five Performance Attributes are sufficient to capture this strategic compatibility and promote internal strategic fit? Why?
• If not, should they be enriched with additional
attributes? What would be your suggestions? Or Strategic Compatibility should be an attribute by itself?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
146
Strategic Concepts from the
Literature
• How important can be the contribution of Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility, when it comes to strategic positioning and benchmarking effects’ confrontation within the domain of Supply Chain Management?
• What would be the indicators to define and
measure Power Structure Positioning and Value Creation Compatibility?
• What could be other variables to be included in the
strategic positioning process taking place within the SCOR Model? What would their indicators be?
• At what extent are these variables capable of measuring strategic compatibility?
• At what extent do they overlap with the
Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model? • How straightforward and/ or realistic would
be the inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR Model? How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?
Rigid or
Flexible
Model
• At what extent can the concept of strategic fit be taken into consideration manually and through the comprehensive use of its practitioners?
• In this sense, should the concept of strategic fit be incorporated in the model or it should just be confronted as an external factor, assessed manually by the practitioners? Why?
Table D-1: From Literature Research to Questionnaire Questions, regarding Business Strategy
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
147
Themes Literature Research Questions Questionnaire Questions
General
• What could be alternative scenarios regarding the effective implementation of Sustainability within the SCOR Model?
• How systematic is the sustainability approach of
SCOR Model? • At what extent does the sustainability approach of
SCOR Model capture and promote the idea of sustainability?
• How could the sustainability implementation
process within the SCOR Model be improved?
• Are you familiar with this endeavor? • If so, how appropriate is the approach of
SCC to capture and promote the notion of Sustainability?
• If not, what would be your suggestions to
improve this approach?
• How could your suggestions contribute in the improvement of this approach?
Corporate Culture
Resistance
• Why would corporate cultures resist to the diffusion of sustainable strategies or strategic elements?
• To what extent could this incompatibility be accounted to Supply Chain or Environmental actors?
• Apart from corporate culture, what could be other
factors inhibiting this diffusion (i.e. type of industry or type of operation etc. simply disguised under the visor of corporate culture)?
• What could be the reasons resulting in this situation? Why?
• To what extent do you think this is a plausible
explanation? • If not, what could be alternative
explanations? • What could be other examples of such
factors?
Lite
ratu
re R
ev
iew
: T
he
Su
sta
ina
bil
ity
Co
nce
pt
• At what extent would eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards Sustainability?
• What could be the input of the rest of the criteria, in
case they were included? • At what extent could the inclusion of the rest of the
criteria improve the implementation of sustainable solutions?
• How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include
the rest of the criteria? • At what extent is effective implementation of
Sustainability a responsibility of SCC?
• At what extent can eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards sustainability?
• At what extent could the inclusion of natural
and societal criteria improve the implementation of sustainable solutions?
• How realistic/ straightforward would that be? • At what extent is effective implementation of
sustainability a responsibility of SCC?
Rigid or Flexible
Model
• At what extent would such a holistic approach on Sustainability promote or restrain the emphasis of practitioners on supply chain sustainable solutions?
• In this sense, should the general concept of sustainability be incorporated in the model or it should just be confronted as an external factor, assessed manually by the practitioners? Why?
• How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to
include natural and societal criteria of sustainability in SCOR Model?
Table D-2: From Literature Research to Questionnaire Questions, regarding Business Sustainability
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
148
Appendix E: Semi-structured Interview Questionnaire Skeleton
Introduction
This research is about SCOR Model and the ways it can be improved. In general, SCOR Model, an
analytical tool developed by the SCC, has been claimed to have all the qualifications to gradually become
an industry standard. In brief, SCOR is as a process reference model that unifies well-known concepts of
business process reengineering, benchmarking and process measurement into a cross-functional
skeleton. It consists of three levels. Level One captures the “as-is” state of the implementing company
and derives the desired “to-be” future state on the basis of five strategic-related Performance
Attributes, them being SC Reliability, SC Responsiveness, SC Agility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency.
Level Two, depending on the targets of the company set at level one, compares the performance
between the implementing and the analogous best-in-class company. This comparison is a
benchmarking process, based on a set of predefined Metrics. Level Three, depending on the outcome of
the second level, distinguishes the management practices and software solutions that result in “best-in-
class” performance.
• What is your previous experience with SCOR Model?
• How positive or negative is your opinion about the applicability/ usefulness of the model?
• What would be the main opportunities for improvement you locate and suggest?
Business Strategy Potential Contribution
General
The first main direction of my approach is how the domain of Business Strategy can contribute in the
improvement of SCOR Model. So firstly, I would like to ask you about the current strategic approach of
the model. SCOR model attempts to capture Business/ Corporate Strategy using five Performance
Attributes, them being SC Responsiveness, SC Reliability, SC Agility, SC Costs and SC Assets Efficiency.
• At what degree do you think this approach is sufficient and capable of capturing strategic
context? Why?
• If not, what would be your suggestions to improve this approach?
• How could your suggestions contribute in the improvement of this approach?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
149
While reviewing the literature, I found two strategic concepts that are not included in the model, but
appear rather relevant in the direction of capturing Business Strategy. The first is Acuity, or else the
ability to see the competitive environment clearly and thus to anticipate and respond to customers’
evolving needs and wants. The second is Innovativeness, or else the ability to generate new ideas and to
combine existing elements to create new sources of value.
• At what extent are these variables capable of capturing Business Strategy?
• At what extent do they overlap with the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model?
• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR
Model?
• How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?
Benchmarking Character
SCOR Model presents strong benchmarking characteristics. According to various authors, a common
benchmarking pitfall is the achievement of, at best, equal and not superior performance.
• How likely is SCOR Model, as a typical benchmarking process, to lead in this pitfall and prevent
companies from becoming best in their class?
The Concept of Strategic Fit
According to Michael Porter, Strategy is about being different from your competitors. In this respect, he
underlines the importance of strategic fit, meaning that the operations that are adopted by a company
should be strategically compatible; they should serve the same strategic purpose. Therefore, strategy
should be above operations, it should define operations and not vice versa. By doing so, companies can
avoid the benchmarking pitfall of simply following their best-in-class competitors. Therefore, they can
have a clear image of who they imitate during the implementation of SCOR Model and why.
• At what extent does SCOR Model manage to capture the concept of strategic fit, as it is
described by Porter, and promote strategy above operations?
Capturing Strategic Compatibility to Promote Strategic Fit
In my view, this strategic alignment of a company’s operations is important and crucial to achieve. In
specific, when it comes to SCOR Model and its benchmarking process, it is crucial for the implementing
company to understand which of the operations to be adopted are strategically aligned with its overall
strategy. In this direction, the implementing company could compare its strategy with the one of its
best-in-class competitor who makes use of the operation to be adopted. Now, if the two companies are
strategically compatible, then the implementing company can consider the operation to be adopted as,
indeed, strategically aligned. Otherwise, it can exclude this operation and look for another field to
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
150
improve its SC performance (Example of Ford, choosing between Fiat and Mercedes). Given the
structure of SCOR Model, this comparison can only be performed on the basis of the Five Performance
Attributes.
• Do you think the Five Performance Attributes are sufficient to capture this strategic
compatibility and promote internal strategic fit? Why?
• If not, should they be enriched with additional attributes? What would be your suggestions?
Or Strategic Compatibility should be an attribute by itself?
Strategic Concepts from the Literature
While reviewing the literature, I found two strategic concepts that are not included in the model, but
appear rather relevant in the direction of capturing strategic compatibility. The first is Power Structure
Positioning, indicating the positioning of a company in the power structure of the pertinent industry.
This can indicate how strategically compatible is an operation, depending on the power structure
position of the best-in-class company it is derived from. The second is Value Creation Compatibility,
indicating the way a company accumulates value for itself, i.e. some companies have the possibility to
hold most value for themselves, such as Microsoft, while others realize that they have to appropriate
much of the created value to their customers, such as Toyota.
• At what extent are these variables capable of measuring strategic compatibility?
• At what extent do they overlap with the Performance Attributes of the SCOR Model?
• How straightforward and/ or realistic would be the inclusion of these parameters in the SCOR
Model? How could they be measured? What could be potential corresponding Metrics?
Rigid or Flexible Model
It is a subject for debate whether analytical tools, such as the SCOR Model, should be more rigid or more
flexible in order to achieve their goals. In other words, it is not certain whether all the discussed issues
should be incorporated in the model or they should be managed by the practical wisdom of the
practitioners.
• In this sense, should the concept of strategic fit be incorporated in the model or it should just
be confronted as an external factor, assessed manually by the practitioners? Why?
Advisory Examples
In case you were to use the strategic part of SCOR Model or advise another company on how to do it,
you would come up with a set of guidelines.
• Could you give some examples of such guidelines?
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
151
Business Sustainability Potential Contribution
General
The latest release of the SCOR Model has incorporated sustainability features, derived from the Green
version of the model.
• Are you familiar with this endeavor?
• If so, how appropriate is the approach of SCC to capture and promote the notion of
Sustainability?
• If not, what would be your suggestions to improve this approach?
• How could your suggestions contribute in the improvement of this approach?
Corporate Culture Resistance
There has been recorded a resistance of corporate cultures to foster and promote the incorporation of
sustainable elements in their supply chain practices.
• What could be the reasons resulting in this situation? Why?
This resistance has been accounted by the SCC to the diversity of priorities between supply chain
managers and environmentalists within a company.
• To what extent do you think this is a plausible explanation?
• If not, what could be alternative explanations?
Apart from corporate culture, there can be other factors influencing the diffusion of sustainability in
corporate environments, such the type of the industry.
• What could be other examples of such factors?
Literature Review: The Sustainability Concept
Several authors locate the problematic diffusion of sustainability on the way it is perceived by
companies. That is, companies mistakenly equalize sustainability with eco-efficiency, disregarding other
important aspects of sustainability related to nature (e.g. global warming) and society (e.g. traffic
congestion and creation of employment). SCOR Model appears to follow the same path.
Enriching SCOR Model: Recapturing the Notions of Business Strategy and Business Sustainability
152
• At what extent can eco-efficiency be a sufficient path towards sustainability?
• At what extent could the inclusion of natural and societal criteria improve the implementation
of sustainable solutions?
• How realistic/ straightforward would that be?
Looking at the general picture, there is a thin line between -let’s say- the “responsibilities” of SCC and
those of more generic societal organizations, such as governmental and non-governmental
organizations.
• At what extent is effective implementation of sustainability a responsibility of SCC?
Rigid or Flexible Model
It is a subject for debate whether analytical tools, such as the SCOR Model, should be more rigid or more
flexible in order to achieve their goals. In other words, it is not certain whether all the discussed issues
should be incorporated in the model or they should be managed by the practical wisdom of the
practitioners.
• In this sense, should the general concept of sustainability be incorporated in the model or it
should just be confronted as an external factor, assessed manually by the practitioners? Why?
• How realistic/ and or straightforward is it to include natural and societal criteria of
sustainability in SCOR Model?
Advisory Examples
In case you were to use the sustainable part of SCOR Model or advise another company on how to do it,
you would come up with a set of guidelines.
• Could you give some examples of such guidelines?
Conclusion
At this point, I would like to recap this interview and summarize your argumentation.
• Listening to this summary, would you like to add or reconsider an argument?