ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

The Indian Apparel Industry: A Critical Review of Supply Chains

A. Ramesh [email protected] National Institute of Technology Calicut, Kozhikode Bikram K. Bahinipati [email protected] Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, Kozhikode 1. Introduction
According to Panthaki (2008), the Garment Industry of India is a Rs. 1 Trillion industry. Almost 33 % of its knitwear production and about 20% of its woven-garment production, both by volume, enters export markets. Overall about 25 % of the volume of its garment production goes into export markets, leaving 75 % for domestic consumption. The Industry covers over l, 00,000 units and employs about 6 million workers, both directly and indirectly in almost equal proportion. The indirect portion helps to sustain the direct production sector in the shape of items associated with the garment industry production including sewing/embroidery thread, buttons, buckles, zippers, metal plates, cardboard sheets, plastic butterflies and packaging material. Organized sector of the garment industry is roughly 20% of the total industry, concentrating chiefly on exports. These are usually limited companies while the rest are proprietary or partnership companies. Geographically, men's garments are largely produced in western and southern India while production of ladies garments predominates in Northern India. Eastern part of India specializes in children garments. Fibre-wise, 80% of the production is of cotton garments, 15% of synthetic/mixed garments and the rest of silk and wool garments. The industry manufactures over a 100 different types of garments for men, women and children. These includes overcoats/raincoats, suits, ensembles, jackets, dresses, skirts, trousers, shirts, blouses, innergarments, T-shirts, jerseys/pullovers, babies garments as well as accessories like shawls/scarves, handkerchiefs, gloves and parts of garments (Panthaki, 2008). With respect to cost, fabric constitutes 65 to 70% of the cost of production with labor marking-up a further 15% and the rest go for overheads and manufacturer's profit. Government policies of economic liberalization have raised incomes, encouraged women entrepreneurs resulting in a steep rise in family incomes and making available increasing levels of disposable income in their hands. The benefit of economic reforms has percolated down to rural areas coupled with the spread of education. The apparel retail industry consists of the sale of all menswear, women wear and infants wear. The menswear sector includes all garments made for men and boys. It includes both outer and under garments. The womens wear sector consists of the retail sale of all women's and girls' garments including dresses, suits and coats, jackets, tops, shirts, skirts, blouses, sweatshirts, sweaters, underwear etc. The highly labor intensive nature of apparel manufacturing and its huge supply of cheap labor, India has emerged as a highly competitive producer of a wide variety of apparel products. The country's abundant domestic availability of cotton fabrics has led to a strong focus on cotton apparel items. Some of the major strengths of the Indian apparel export industry include: design skills; an ability to handle small orders; and the presence of experienced firms. Trends in Apparel Exports and Imports According to a report by Textile Outlook International (2007) the value of India's apparel exports was tiny in 1960s and just US$1.8 million in 1962. However, the value of exports crossed the US$30 million mark in 1970 and grew rapidly thereafter. In fact, it was as recent as the 1970s when India began exporting apparel on a substantial scale. Moreover, it took another decade for apparel exports to reach large volumes. From a mere US$39 million in 1970/71, Indian apparel exports rose to US$696 million in 1980/81. Since then they have grown in leaps and bounds. Exports shot up to US$ 2,236 million in 1990/91 and to US$ 5,586 million in 2000/01.Table 1.3 and Table 1.4 shows the Indias export trend in the year 2009. Destinations of Apparel Exports The USA and the EU are the dominant markets for Indian exports of clothing. Together, they accounted for as much as 70% in value of exports in this segment during the year 2004/05. Some of the strength of Indias apparel retail industry is abundant availability of cotton, its vertically integrated textile industry, local suppliers of yarns and fabrics, cheap labor, experience and entrepreneurship, strong design skills, and its flexibility in being able to cater to buyers' requirements for small customized orders as well as large orders. 1101

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

Status of Apparel Manufacturing in India India has approximately 30,000 ready-to-wear apparel manufacturing units, with a wide production range. India produces more than 100 garment product categories and is increasingly considered as a major supplier of highquality fashion apparel (Tait, 2001). Traditionally, the apparel industry has primarily been mass-production focused with limited use of technologies where high technology and R&D activities have been less prioritized actions. The industry runs on three basic operations: (1) cutting; (2) stitching; and (3) pressing/finishing. The typical process is a combined process of various general and/or specialized machines operated by manual or mechanical/electronic devices (Bhavani and Tendulkar, 2001). In many instances, production involves manual operations of machines and materials, because the materials need manual feeding through the machines and thus automation is limited (Bailey, 1993). A very less new product development activity is done in Indian apparel industry. The garments are manufactured as per the requirement of the foreign buyers. Hence India needs to invest in research and development to develop new products, reduce transaction costs, reduce per unit costs, and finally, improve its raw material base. With a view to encourage the R&D activities, Indian apparel manufacturers are allowed 150% of its expenses on Research and Development (www.textmin.ac.in).

2. Challenges to Apparel Retail Industry in India

India and China had been predicted to become the main beneficiaries of quota elimination. But Indian apparel exporters have faced strong competition from a number of other low costs countries like Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, Indonesia and Vietnam. The elimination of quotas has brought threats to Indian apparel exporters as well as opportunities. China has continued to make massive gains, except when its exports have been restrained by quotas, and new competitors have appeared like Vietnam. India has faced pressure to open its market to foreign suppliers under the WTO requirement hence the Indian apparel manufacturers increasingly encounter fierce competition from foreign suppliers who have long eyed the huge Indian market. Over the past few years the Indian apparel industry has been in a state of continuous restructuring. A combination of technological and socio-economic changes, production costs, liberalization, and the emergence of important international competitors are influencing the apparel supply chains. Apparel companies are facing increasing competition and cost pressures. Removal of quota system in India created tremendous pressure on Indian apparel industry to restructure their whole business operations. Apparel supply chain has to deal with long supply and manufacturing lead-times. On other hand it has a very short product life cycle. Hence supply chain collaboration is an important key factor for retailers and manufacturers to survive in this highly competitive market.

3. SCM in Apparel Industry

The apparel industry stands out as one of the most globalized industries in the world and it is a supply driven commodity chain led by a combination of retailers, contractors, subcontractors, merchandisers, buyers, and suppliers; each plays an important role in a network of supply chains which spans from fibers to yarn, to fabrics, to accessories, to garments, to trading and to marketing. The peculiar characteristics of apparel supply chain are short product life cycle, high volatility, low predictability and high impulsive purchasing. These factors bring high pressure to apparel retailers to manage their supply chains. Moreover in todays competitive environment, markets are becoming more international, dynamic, and customer-driven and customers are demanding more variety, better quality and service, including both reliability and faster delivery. In order to ensure growth it has become mandatory for apparel retail supply chain to be adaptive and anticipative. This would only be possible if the apparel companies are capable of responding quickly. Lam and Postle (2006) have reviewed the concept of supply chain management in textile and apparel supply chain management in Hong Kong. They discussed the strengths and problems faced by the Hong Kong textile apparel supply chains. They argued that Hong Kong apparel industry is generally not aware of the concept of supply chain management and industrial benchmark for both manufacturing and retailing industries in Hong Kong and the supply chain performance is below the world average. Lee and Kincade (2003) studied the level of SCM activities and examined the relationship of selected company characteristics for a set of US apparel manufacturer companies and identified six dimensions of SCM namely partnership, information technology, operational flexibility, performance measurement, management commitment, demand characterization. They advocate that apparel manufacturers have more partnership type relationship with their supply chain members. Chandra and Kumar (2000) described the application of a supply chain analysis methodology for managing waste due to inventory-related logistics in a garment supply chain of the US textile industry. 1102

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

4. Responsiveness of Supply Chain

In a rapidly changing competitive world, there is a need to develop organizations and supply chains that are significantly more responsive than the existing ones (Gould, 1997; James-Moore, 1996). Firms need to aptly respond to changing customer needs so as to succeed in todays uncertain environment (Gerwin, 1987; Huber, 1984; Narasimhan and Das, 1999; Ward et al., 1998) as well as any disruptions in supply (Germain, 1989; Lee, 2004; Christopher and Peck, 2004).The ability to respond to consumers requirement on a timely basis has always been a fundamental element of a good supply chain. The responsiveness of supply chain system is defined by the speed with which the system can adjust its output in response to an external stimulus, e.g. a customer order (Reichhart and Holweg, 2007). Apparel markets are synonymous with rapid change and as a result, commercial success or failure is largely determined by the organizations responsiveness. Responsiveness is characterized by short time-to-market, the ability to scale up (or down) quickly and the rapid incorporation of consumer preferences into the design process. Across industry sectors, such as fashion product (Christopher, 2000; Storey et al., 2005), personal computers (Kapuscinski et al., 2004), consumer electronics (Catalan and Kotzab, 2003), construction (Arbulu et al., 2003), and automobiles (Holweg and Pil, 2004), companies are contemplating strategies to increase their responsiveness to meet customer needs by offering high product variety with short lead-times. Gunasekaran (1998) studied the importance of responsiveness in supply chain. A recent survey by Hitachi Consulting and AMR Research (2009) reported that developing collaborative processes, both within their company and with partners and customers will improve the supply chain responsiveness. One of the strategies to improve responsiveness in apparel industry is to adopt quick responsive strategies. The term quick response (QR) was coined in USA in 1985 (Fernie, 1994; Hines, 2001) when Kurt Salman Associates (KSA) recognized deficiencies in the fashion supply chain. Its idea is to respond quickly to market changes and cut ordering lead times (Hammond, 1990) and it was implemented in the mid-1980s in the American apparel industry. QR has been widely applied in places all around the world with different names, for instance, it is called Sen-ko-te-hai in Japan (HKTDC, 1999). The impact of QR is reported to be especially substantial in the supply chains with products of short shelf-life and highly volatile demand (Fisher et al., 1994; 2001). A QR environment for a supply chain enables speed-to-market of products by moving them rapidly through the production and delivery cycle, from raw materials suppliers, to manufacturer, to retailer and finally to consumers (Perry et al., 1999). Perry and Sohal (2000) and McMichael et al. (2000) studied the importance of the adoption of QR practices and technologies in Australian textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry. Table 2.1 shows the benefits of quick response reported by various authors.
Table 1 Benefits of Quick Response (Kopsias, 2007) Authors Fiorito et al. (1995) McMichael et al. (2000) Benefits Quick deliveries, Faster inventory turns, Fewer Stock outs, Fewer markdowns, Lower inventory investment, Higher Profits, Better pricing to consumers Pipeline acceleration, Growth in sales, Reduction in inventory levels Reduction in costs Product availability and increased customer satisfaction, Increased Sales revenue, Lower inventories, Increase level of business with partners Fewer markdowns, Financial and competitive benefits to all partners Customer satisfaction, Increased sales, Faster merchandising flow and frequency of orders, Increased competitiveness and productivity Reduction of inventory, Reduction of costs Improved customer service, Increased stock turnover, Reduced stockholding, Reduced product development expenses, Maximized sales volume and margin, Shorter development cycle time Increased sales volume, Reduced-markdown, Reduced stock-out s Reduced costs and prices, Greater price validity at retailer Improved financial performance and, Competitiveness.

Perry and Sohal (2000)

Giunipero et al. (2001)

Birtwistle et al.(2003)

Al-Zubaidi and Tyler (2004)

5. Determinants of Successful Supply Chain Collaboration

Lau et al. (2005) studied the antecedents of collaboration between Asian manufacturer and their suppliers within a strategic network. In their conceptual framework they identified eight antecedents namely reputation, 1103

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

transaction costs, communication competence, cooperation, power, ability to handle conflict, continuity of relationship , and strategic networks that are applicable to successful networks for the Hong Kong clothing Industry. Cetindamar et al. (2005) studied the benefits, bridges, and barriers associated with supply chain collaboration in the Turkish textile supply chain. They conclude that benefits of SCC are customer-oriented benefits, productivity benefits, and innovation related benefits and determinants are trust, common goals for cooperation and existence of cooperation mechanisms and barriers are lack of trust, risk-benefit evaluation, and lack of common goals for co-operation. Tyler et al. (2006) studied the textiles and fashion clothing supply chain in UK companies with the objective of identifying factors that constrain company activities and inhibit competitiveness. They have identified seven significant blocks i.e. timing of fabric trade shows, lack of control of availability of fabric, forecasting, late stage product changes, geographical proximity to market, decision making decoupled from fashion trends, stock-outs and slow selling products to responsiveness that were apparent in the observed supply chains. Simatupang and Sridharan (2004) argued that interdependence, uncertainty, and inter functional conflict are important determinants of collaboration. Sheu et al. (2006) studied the social and technical factor contributing to successful collaboration and identified the necessary supply chain architecture for supplier-retailer collaboration, and demonstrate how it influences supply chain performance. Table 2: shows some determinants of SCC cited in literature.
Table 2 Determinants of Supply Chain Collaboration S. No 1 Determinant Top management commitment Reference Ireland and Bruce (2000); Min et al. (2005), Akkermans et al. (1999); Chen et al. (2004); Morgan and Hunt (1994); Sandberg (2007). Lambert and Cooper (2000); Lau and Lee (2000); Li et al. (2005); Min et al. (2005); Lee and Whang (2000); Zhao et al. (2002); Chroneer (2005); Faisal et al. (2006); Bowersox et al. (2002); Stank et al. (2001); Simatupang and Sridharan (2002); Yu et al. (2001); Xu and Dong (2004). Heikkila (2002); Handfield and Bechtel (2002); Kaur et al. (2006); Simatupang and Sridharan (2002);); (1992); Mentzer et al. (2000). Ellram and Cooper (1990); Larson (1994); Cooper et al. (1997). Nesheim (2001); Ireland and Bruce (2000); Kumar (1996); Agarwal and Shankar (2003); Sahay (2003); Johnston et al. (2004). Mentzer et al. (2000); Mohr and Spekman (1994); Ellram and Cooper (1990); Cooper et al. (1997); Chen et al. (2004); Heide and John (1990); Mohr and Spekman (1994); Ganesan (1994). McIvor and McHugh (2000); Cooper et al. (1997); Mentzer et al. (2000); Sahay and Maini (2002); Kaufman et al. (2000); Kotabe et al. (2003). Barrat (2004) Cox (1999) Ireland and Bruce(2000); Barratt and Green 2001);Barratt (2004). Sparks (1994);Ellram and Edis (1996); Ireland and Bruce (2000). Spekman et al.(1998); Hogarth-Scott (1999); Stank et al. (1999) Chen et al. (2004) Oliver (1990) Heide and John (1990) Mohr and Spekman (1994) Kogut (1988); Oliver (1990).

Information sharing

3 4 5

Interdependence Cooperation Trust among supply chain partners (external trust and internal trust) Long-term relationships

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Risk and Reward Sharing Joint Decision Making Technological Compatibility Collaborative Culture Mutuality Openness and Honesty Employees Involvement Transaction Costs Specific Investments Economic Satisfaction Joint Programmes

6. Comparative Analysis of Case Companies

To compare the enablers of supply chain collaboration which are discussed in section 5, it has been asked the four case companies how they rate on the following enablers of supply chain collaboration as shown in Table 3. Table 3 summarizes the findings of case comparison from our within-case analysis. Column no. 1 describes the measures used for the variables studied. 1104

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

Case Company A Company A is a Indias leading apparel company growing at 30% year on year with premium brands like Louis Philippe, Van Heusen, Allen Solly, Allen Solly womens wear, Peter England, Element, Byford, & SF Jeans. It has over 30% of the market share in the premium segment. Company manufactures primarily shirts and trousers with increasing focus on accessorization and located in Bangalore. Case Company B Company B was started in 1989 and started its commercial production in 1992 and opened a new facility in 2006. The turnover of the company is Rs.30 Crores. Company has strong corporate values. The products are fabrics range from cotton to cotton blends, polyester blends, lycra, etc. with knitting options like rib, interlock, jersey, fleece and so on. Case Company C Case company C is located at Nethaji Apparel Park Tiruppur and started its operation in the year 1993. Turnover of the company is Rs.15 Crores and it has 180 employees. The products are Mens wear, Ladies wear, kids wear, childrens wear, night wear, fabrics. Case Company D Case company D is manufacturer and exporter of woven garments and fabric which is established in 1999 and its turnover is Rs.9 Crores. Products are Workmens wear, Staff uniforms, Catering set, School uniforms, work overcoat, doctors/nurse coot, security set, boiler set, aprons, jackets etc.
Table 3 Case Study Results Profile of Case Companies Year of establishment Turnover (Rs. in Crores) No. Employees of Case Company A 1982 >500 >1500 22 Branded Shirts like Louis Philippe, Van Heusen, Allen Solly, Allen Solly womens wear, Peter England, Element, Byford, & SF Jeans Yes for Case Company B 1989 30 750 30 Case Company C 1993 15 180 45 Case Company D 1999 9 85 55

Avg. Lead time

Products

Fabrics range from cotton to cotton blends, polyester blends, lycra, etc. with knitting options like rib, interlock, jersey, fleece and so on.

Men's Wear, Ladies Wear, Kids Wear, Children Wear, Night Wear and Fabrics.

Woven fabrics and exporting woven garments, uniforms and professional work wear.

ERP System Critical Variable SCC

Yes

No

No

Interdependence among SC partners

Rating: Strongly Agree Case company 1 appreciates and understands the importance of business relationship with their suppliers.

Rating: Strongly agree Case company 2 appreciates and understands the importance of business relationship with their suppliers.

Rating: Agree Case Company 3 has more power since there are many alternative suppliers.

Rating: Disagree This company is critical to small suppliers and has more alternatives.

1105

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

Trust supplier

with

Rating: Strongly Agree Rarely breaks contractual agreement

Rating: Strongly agree Top management uses contract to establish mutual trust

Rating: Agree Top management uses contract to establish mutual trust

Rating: Disagree Experience of defective raw materials and pricing disagreement

Top Management Commitment

Rating: Strongly Agree Strong effort in developing long-term relationship. Improvements in production systems. Investing in education training.

Rating: Strongly Agree Strong effort in developing long-term relationship.

Rating: Disagree Lack of effort in developing long-term relationship.

Rating: DISAGREE Lack of effort in developing long-term relationship.

Information sharing

Rating: Strongly Agree Share future plans, new product development details and forecasting details. Rating: Strongly agree Has risk sharing plan.

Rating: Strongly Agree Share future plans and new product development details.

Rating: Agree Very little information sharing.

Rating: Strongly Disagree Lack of IT infrastructure. Very little information sharing.

Risk & reward Sharing

Rating: Strongly Agree Has risk sharing plan.

Rating: Agree No risk sharing plan.

Rating: Strongly Disagree No risk sharing plan. Rating: Strongly Disagree Average 2 years; very unstable Lack of effort in developing long-term relationship

Long term relationship

Rating: Strongly Agree Average 18 years; very stable

Rating: Strongly Agree Average 8 years; very stable

Rating: Agree Average 3years; stable

Joint decision making

Rating: Strongly Agree Joint decision making about cost improvements is regularly done with suppliers. Joint collaborative planning initiatives, is taken with their suppliers. Joint decision making regarding quality and process improvement initiatives has done monthly with suppliers.

Rating: Strongly Agree Joint collaborative planning initiatives are taken with their suppliers. Joint decision making regarding quality and process improvement initiatives has done monthly with suppliers.

Rating: Disagree No joint decision making

Rating: Disagree No joint making

Strongly decision

1106

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

Compatibility to technology changes

Rating: Strongly Agree This company has adopted SAP AFS (Apparel and Footwear Solution), RFID etc.

Rating: Strongly Agree This company has implemented SAP

Rating :Agree This company uses spread sheet, fax, phone to share the information.

Rating: Strongly Disagree This company uses spread sheet, fax, phone to share the information.

More frequent meeting

Rating: Strongly Agree This company visit the supplier every month to discuss about new technology and need for improvement of quality etc.

Rating: Strongly Agree This company visits the supplier every month and helps to solve their problems. Conduct common welfare programmes.

Rating: Agree No frequent meeting

Rating: Strongly Disagree No frequent meeting

Employee involvement

Rating: Strongly Agree Employee empowerment

Rating: Strongly Agree Employee empowerment

Rating: Agree No Employee empowerment

Rating: Strongly Disagree No Employee empowerment

Level of supply chain collaboration with partners (as per graph theoretic model developed in Chapter 6)

SCCI (000):246.952 Collaborative cordial working relationship. Realize the benefits of building good relationships with its customers and suppliers. SCCI (000):204.838 Collaborative relationship with suppliers. few SCCI (000):148.002 Transactional relationship. working SCCI (000):125.888 Transactional and somewhat adversarial working relationship

Performance index (PI) (Fulfillment, Inventory, Responsiveness, quality)

PI :48 Improved fulfillment, inventory performance, responsiveness and quality.

PI :39 Improved fulfillment, inventory performance, responsiveness and quality.

PI :18 Not pleased with the current relationship with suppliers

PI :11 Not pleased with the current relationship with suppliers

7. Conclusions
Fragmented industry structure is the major problem of Indian textile industry with a dominance of small scale. Getting skilled workers is a major challenge. Due to constant growth of the industry in the last few years, the industry is facing severe shortage of labour. People who are migrating from rural areas do not have any prior experience in the industry. Since, there is need for labour, they are asked to take up the work with any prior training (unlike in other garment cluster- Bangalore). Frequent power cuts, increasing pressure on road traffic have put considerable strain on the growth of this cluster. Declining market demand has made a negative impact in the last one year, in the growth of the cluster. In fact, exports from the cluster did not increase, in terms of units during the year 2008-09; in comparison to the previous year. However, the demand in domestic market is still positive. Compared to India, other developing countries like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka which are more productive, at the same time they are paying less wages. Time taken for adoption of new technologies is more in India. Lack of awareness about new technologies and reluctance to introduce them till they are adopted by other firms, Lack of capability to develop new technologies & equipments indigenously are some of weakness of Indian apparel 1107

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

industry. To manage threats from the foreign companies, Indian companies have to enhance their brand image and focus on domestic demand, improve labor skill by proper training. Four case studies of Indian apparel companies dealing with supply chain collaboration and management have been presented in this chapter. These case studies have provided some observations about the status of supply chain collaboration in the Indian context. Comparison of case companies increases the understanding of enablers which contributes to successful collaboration. It is observed that collaboration is critical for successful supply chain and organizational performance. It is also observed that collaboration index is positively associated with companys performance. The Indian apparel companies slowly and steadily following global trends of supply chain collaboration. The success of any organization will depend heavily on its ability to meet demands and respond quickly to fluctuations and change. Apparel products are characterized by volatile markets, short product lifecycles and high product variety. Therefore Indian companies in this sector have to be more responsive. It can be can be only achieved by having a high level of collaboration with other partners of the supply chain. Thus there is an urgent need to understand the importance of collaboration in a supply chain perspective and develop a set of strategies to manage them.

8. References
1. 2. 3. 4. Panthaki, M.K (2008), Overview of the Indian Garment Industry, available at (http://www.fibre2fashion.com). Textile Outlook International (2007), Sourcing Apparel from India, January. Tait, N. (2001), The far pavilions: Indias apparel industry, Bobbin, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 48-51. Bhavani, T.A. and Tendulkar, S.D. (2001), Determinants of firm-level export performance: a case study of Indian textile garments and apparel industry, The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 65-92. Bailey, T. (1993), Organizational innovation in the apparel industry, Industrial Relations, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 30-48. Lam, J.K.C. and Postle, R. (2006) Textile and apparel supply chain management in Hong Kong, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 265-277. Lee, Y. and Kincade, D. H (2003) US apparel manufacturers company characteristic differences based on SCM activities, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 31-48. Cetindamar, D., Catay, B. and Basmaci, O.S (2005), Competition through collaboration: insights from an initiative in the Turkish textile supply chain, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10/4, pp. 238-240. Chandra, C. and Kumar, S. (2000), An application of a system analysis methodology to manage logistics in a textile supply chain, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 234-244. Gould, P. (1997), What is Agility, Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 76, No. 1, pp. 28-31. James-Moore, S.M.R. (1996), Agility is Easy; But Effective Agile Manufacturing is not, IEE Colloquium (Digest), 179, pp. 4. Gerwin, D. (1987), An Agenda for Research on the Flexibility of Manufacturing Processes, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 38-49. Houlihan, J. (1985), International supply chain management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp 22-38. Huber, G.P. (1984), Nature and Design of Post Industrial Organizations, Management Science, Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 928-951. Narasimhan R. and Das, A. (2000), Manufacturing Agility and Supply Chain Management Practices, The Journal of Enterprise Resource Management- Australasian Production and Inventory Control Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 11-17. Ward, P., Mccreery, J., Ritzman, L., and Shamia, D. (1998), Competitive Priorities in Operations Management, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 1035-1046. Germain, R. (1989), Output Standardization and Logistical Strategy, Structure and Performance, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 21-29. Lee, H. L. (2004), The Triple-A Supply Chain, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 10, pp. 102112. Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), The Five Principles of Supply Chain Resilience, Logistics Europe, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 16-21. Reichhart, A. and Holweg, M. (2007), Creating the customer-responsive supply chain: a reconciliation of concepts, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 27, No. 11, pp. 1144-1172. 1108

5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

21. Christopher, M. (2000), The Agile Supply Chain: Competing in Volatile Markets, Industrial marketing Management, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 37-44. 22. Storey, J., Emberson, C. and Reade, D. (2005), The barriers to customer responsive supply chain management, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 242-260. 23. Kapuscinski, R., Zhang, R.Q., Carbonneau, P., Moore, R. and Reeves, B. (2004), Inventory decisions in Dells supply chain, Interfaces, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 191-205. 24. Catalan, M. and Kotzab, H. (2003), Assessing the responsiveness in the Danish mobile phone supply chain, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33, No. 8, pp. 668-685. 25. Arbulu, R.J., Tommelein, I.D., Walsh, K.D. and Hershauer, J.C. (2003), Value stream analysis of a reengineered construction supply chain, Building Research & Information, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 161-171. 26. Holweg, M. and Pil, F. K. (2004), Successful Build-To-Order Strategies Start with the Customer, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 74-84. 27. Gunasekaran, A. (1998), Agile manufacturing: enablers and an implementation framework, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 1223-1247. 28. Hines, T. (2001), From analogue to digital supply chain: implications for fashion marketing, in Hines, P., Bruce, M. (Eds), Fashion Marketing, Contemporary Issues, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. 29. Fernie, J. (1994), Quick response: an international perspective, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 38-46. 30. Hammond, J.H. (1990), Quick Response in the Apparel Industry, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Case 9, pp. 690-1038. 31. Fisher, M., Obermeyer, W., Hammond, J. and Raman, A. (1994), Accurate response: the key to profiting from QR, Bobbin, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.48-62. 32. Fisher, M., Rajaram, K. and Raman, A (2001), Optimizing inventory replenishment of retail fashion products, Manufacturing Service Operations Management, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 230-241. 33. Perry, M., Sohal, A.S. and Rumpf, P. (1999), Quick Response supply chain alliances in the Australian textiles, clothing and footwear industry, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62, pp. 1179-1132. 34. Perry, M. and Sohal, A.S. (2000), Quick response practices and technologies in developing supply chains, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30, Nos. 7/8, pp. 627-39. 35. McMichael, H., Mackay, D.R., Altmann, G.L. (2000), Quick response in the Australian TCF industry: a case study of supplier response, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 30, No. 7/8, pp. 611-626. 36. Kopsias, G. (2007) Supply Chain Agility: A Structure Literature Review, published thesis available at https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/2264/1/Kopsias-2007.pdf 37. Lau, M.M., Moon, K.L., Zhang, Z.M., and To, K.M. (2005), Antecedents of successful buyer-supplier relationships in strategic networks of the Hong Kong clothing Industry, Journal of Textile Institute, Vol. 96, No. 5, pp-329-338. 38. Cetindamar, D., Catay, B. and Basmaci, O.S (2005), Competition through collaboration: insights from an initiative in the Turkish textile supply chain, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10/4, pp. 238-240. 39. Tyler, D., Heeley, J. and Bhamra, T. (2006), Supply chain influences on new product development, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 316-28. 40. Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2004), A benchmarking scheme for supply chain collaboration, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 9-30. 41. Sheu, C., Yen, H.R. and Chae, B. (2006), International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 24-49. 42. Ireland, R. and Bruce, R. (2000), CPFR: only the beginning of collaboration, Supply Chain Management Review, pp. 80-88. 43. Min, S., Roath, A.S., Daugherty, P.J., Genchev, S.E., Chen, H. and Arndt, A.D. (2005) Supply chain collaboration: what is happening? International Journal Logistics Management, Vol. 16, pp. 237256. 44. Akkermans, H., Bogerd, P. and Vos, B. (1999), Virtuous and vicious cycles on the road towards international supply chain management, International Journal Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19, pp. 565581. 45. Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A. and Lado, A. (2004), Strategic purchasing, supply management and firm performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, pp. 505523. 1109

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

46. Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 20-38. 47. Sandberg, E. (2007), Logistics collaboration in supply chains: practice vs. theory, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 274-293. 48. Lambert, D. and Cooper, M. (2000), Issues in supply chain management, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 65-83. 49. Lau, H.C.W. and Lee, W.B. (2000), On a responsive supply chain information system, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 7/8, pp. 598-610. 50. Li, G., Yan, H., Wang, S. and Xia, Y. (2005), Comparative analysis on value of information sharing in supply chains, Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 3446. 51. Min, S., Roath, A.S., Daugherty, P.J., Genchev, S.E., Chen, H. and Arndt, A.D. (2005) Supply chain collaboration: what is happening? International Journal Logistics Management, Vol. 16, pp. 237256. 52. Lee, H.L. and Whang, S. (2000) Information sharing in a supply chain, International Journal Technology Management, Vol. 20, pp. 373383. 53. Zhao, X., Xie, J. and Zhang, W.J. (2002), The impact of information sharing and order-coordination on supply chain performance, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 24-40. 54. Chroneer, D. (2005), The impact of supply chain information and networking on product development in Swedish process industry, International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 127-148. 55. Faisal, M.N, Banwet, D. K. and Shankar, R. (2006), Mapping supply chains on risk and customer sensitivity dimensions, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106, No, 6, pp. 878-895. 56. Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Cooper, M.B. (2002), Supply Chain Logistics Management, McGrawHill. 57. Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B. and Daugherty, P.J. (2001), Supply chain collaboration and logistical service performance, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 29-48. 58. Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2002) The collaborative supply chain, International Journal Logistics Management, Vol. 13, pp. 1530. 59. Yu, Z., Yan, H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2001), Benefits of Information Sharing with Supply Chain Partners, Industrial Management & Systems, Vol. 101, No. 3, pp. 114-119. 60. Xu, K. and Van, D. (2004), Information Gaming in Demand Collaboration and Supply Chain Performance, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 121-144. 61. Heikkila, J. (2002) From supply to demand chain management: efficiency and customer satisfaction, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20, pp. 747767. 62. Handfield, R.B. and Bechtel, C. (2002), The role of trust and relationship structure in improving supply chain responsiveness, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 31, pp. 367-382. 63. Kaur, A., Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2006), A graph theoretic approach for supply chain coordination, International Journal Logistics Systems and Management, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 321341. 64. Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2002) The collaborative supply chain, International Journal Logistics Management, Vol. 13, pp. 1530. 65. Mentzer, J.T., Foggin, J.H. and Golicic, S.G. (2000) Supply chain collaboration: enablers, impediments, and benefits, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 5260. 66. Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1990) Supply chain management, partnerships, and the shipper thirdparty relationship, International Journal. Logistics Management, Vol. 1, pp. 110. 67. Larson, P.D. (1994), Buyer-supplier co-operation, product quality, and total costs, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 4-10. 68. Cooper, M.C., Douglas, M.L. and Janus, D.P. (1997) Supply chain management: more than a new name for logistics, International Journal Logistics Management, Vol. 8, pp. 114. 69. Nesheim, T. (2001), Externalization of the core: antecedents of collaborative relationships with suppliers, European Journal of Purchasing and Supply, Vol. 7 pp. 217-225. 70. Ireland, R. and Bruce, R. (2000), CPFR: only the beginning of collaboration, Supply Chain Management Review, pp. 80-88. 71. Kumar, N. (1996), The power of trust in manufacturerretailer relationships, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74, pp. 92106. 72. Agarwal, A. and Shankar, R. (2003), On-line trust building in e-enabled supplies chain, Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 324334. 73. Sahay, B.S. (2003), Understanding trust in supply chain relationships, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 103, pp. 553563. 74. Johnston R. and Lawrence P.R. (1988), Beyond vertical integrationthe rise of the value-adding partnership, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 94101. 1110

ICOQM-10

June 28-30, 2011

75. Mentzer, J.T., Foggin, J.H. and Golicic, S.L. (2000), Collaboration: the enablers, impediments, and benefits, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 52-58. 76. Mohr, J.J. and Spekman, R. (1994), Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 135152. 77. Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1990) Supply chain management, partnerships, and the shipper thirdparty relationship, International Journal. Logistics Management, Vol. 1, pp. 110. 78. Barratt, M. (2004), Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain, Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 3042. 79. Cox, A. (1999) Power, Value and Supply chain management, Supply Chain Management: An international Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 167-175. 80. Ireland, R. and Bruce, R. (2000), CPFR: only the beginning of collaboration, Supply Chain Management Review, pp. 80-88. 81. Barratt, M.A. and Green, M. (2001), The cultural shift: the need for a collaborative culture, Conference Proceedings of Supply Chain Knowledge 2001, Cranfield School of Management. 82. Sparks, L. (1994), The logistics transformation of British retailing: concepts and questions, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 53-62. 83. Ellram, L.M. and Edis, O.R.V. (1996), A case study of successful partnering implementation, International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 20-28. 84. Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, J.W. Jr. and Myhr, N. (1998) An empirical investigation of supply chain management: a perspective in partnerships, International Journal Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 28, pp. 630650. 85. Hogarth-Scott, S. (1999), Retailer-supplier partnerships: hostages to fortune or the way forward for the millennium, British Food Journal, Vol. 101, No. 9, pp. 668-682. 86. Stank, T.P., Crum, M. and Arango, M. (1999), Benefits of interfirm coordination in food industry supply chains, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 21-41. 87. Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A. and Lado, A. (2004), Strategic purchasing, supply management and firm performance, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22, pp. 505523. 88. Oliver C. (1990), Determinants of inter-organizational relationships: Integration and future directions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp 241-265. 89. Heide, J.B. and John, G.(1990), Alliances in industrial purchasing: the determinants of joint action in buyersupplier relationships, Journal of Marketing Research,Vol.27, No. 1, pp. 2436. 90. Mohr, J.J. and Spekman, R. (1994), Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, pp. 135152. 91. Kogut, B. (1988), Joint venture: Theoretical and empirical perspectives, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 319332. 92. Oliver C. (1990), Determinants of inter-organizational relationships: Integration and future directions, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp 241-265.

1111