View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

https://doi.org/10.20378/irbo-51575
provided by OPUS - Publikationsserver der Universität Bamberg

Supply Chain Performance Measurement – A Case Study

Jan Strahwald, Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eric Sucky

Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Lehrstuhl für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, insb.
Produktion und Logistik, Feldkirchenstraße 21, 96052 Bamberg,
[email protected]

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6
2 Supply Chain Performance Measurement ................................................................. 7
3 Supply Chain Performance within an Electrical Industry Enterprise ..................... 22
4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 28
5 Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 29

Abstract:

Today, organizations are confronted with numerous changes in the business environment, such as
increasing levels of global competition, rising customer requirements, shrinking product lifecycles,
and the fast pace of technological change. To meet these environmental changes, organizations
need to expand outside their legal boundaries and form competitive networks. This includes the
development of strategically aligned capabilities among all organizations that are part of their val-
ue-adding networks. Increased networking with suppliers, sales partners, and customers requires
active management to guarantee optimization of the entire supply chain. Supply chain management
(SCM) has therefore evolved into a strategic factor of differentiation and competitiveness in many
business segments. However, many companies have not succeeded in maximizing their supply
chain’s potential. The lacking implementation of the SCM concept in practice is one common rea-
son. Another widespread reason is the deficiency of performance measures and metrics to fully
integrate the supply chain. Performance measurement and metrics play an important role in setting
objectives, evaluating performance, and determining future courses of action. In this case study, an
electrical industry enterprise will be considered. The company offers a wide spectrum of products,
systems, solutions, software and services. To create transparency, identify performance gaps, and
come up with improvements to close these gaps, this contribution aims to answer the following
questions:
How can supply chain performance be measured in general?
What is an appropriate approach to meet the requirements of the considered company’s daily oper-
ations to create transparency?
What is the enterprise’s performance? What are the recommendations for actions to overcome per-
formance gaps?

JEL Classification: M21

Keywords: Supply chain management, performance measurement, maturity models
6 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

1 Introduction

Today, organizations are confronted with numerous changes in the business envi-
ronment, such as increasing levels of global competition, rising customer require-
ments, shrinking product lifecycles, and the fast pace of technological change. 1 To
meet these environmental changes, organizations need to expand outside their legal
boundaries and form competitive networks. This includes the development of strate-
gically aligned capabilities among all organizations that are part of its value-adding
networks. Increased networking with suppliers, sales partners, and customers re-
quires active management to guarantee the optimization of the entire supply chain.2
Supply chain management (SCM) has therefore evolved into a strategic factor of
differentiation and competitiveness in many business segments. 3 However, many
companies have not succeeded in maximizing their supply chain’s potential. 4 The
lacking implementation of the SCM concept in practice is one common reason. 5 An-
other widespread reason is the deficiency of performance measures and metrics to
fully integrate the supply chain. 6 Performance measurement and metrics play an im-
portant role in setting objectives, evaluating performance, and determining future
courses of action. Therefore, it is doubtful whether managers have actual and specif-
ic information about their deficits related to SCM performance and the ability to
make the right decisions to overcome these gaps. 7 Due to the increasing level of
complexity, supply chain visibility is becoming an increasingly important criterion
in the long-term competitiveness of the supply chain.8 It ensures accurate and fast
delivery of relevant information and thus represents a critical basis for decision mak-
ing. 9 The more accurate the information shared within a supply chain network, the
higher the transparency. 10 According to Enslow (2006), a lack of critical supply
chain process visibility is the top concern of most companies for maintaining their
supply chain operations. 11 Companies are therefore prioritizing visibility programs to
enhance customer satisfaction and operational efficiency.
In this case study, an electrical industry enterprise will be considered. The company
offers a wide spectrum of products, systems, solutions, software and sevices. In or-
der to create transparency, identify performance gaps, and come up with improve-
ments to close these gaps, this contribution aims to answer the following questions:

1
Cf. Lockamy III/McCormack (2004), p. 272; Arndt (2008), pp. 8–26; Handfield/Bechtel (2002), pp. 368-
369.
2
Cf. Corsten/Gabriel (2004), p. 4.
3
Cf. Staberhofer/Rohrhofer (2007), pp. 37-38.
4
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), p. 335.
5
Cf. Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 99.
6
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), p. 335.
7
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), p. 333; Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 99.
8
Cf. Bartlett et al. (2007), p. 294.
9
Cf. Chan (2003), p. 540.
10
Cf. Svensson (2004), p. 743.
11
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 1-2.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 7

 How can supply chain performance be measured in general?

 What is an appropriate approach to meet the requirements taken from the con-
sidered company’s daily operations to create transparency?
 Which performance metrics exist in the field of SCM and which are most suita-
ble for measuring the company’s performance?
 What is the enterprise’s performance? What are the recommendations for ac-
tions to overcome performance gaps?
This paper is therefore organized as follows. Chapter 2 presents maturity models as
a method of measuring SCM performance. The examination of different maturity
models helps identify an approach that meets the requirements of the practical ex-
ample. Chapter 2 also provides an overview of existing performance measurements
and metrics in the context of SCM. Chapter 3 demonstrates the approach and the
results of the performance study for the examined company. This includes the per-
formance analysis as well as the recommendations for action. Chapter 4 summarizes
the findings and arrives at a conclusion regarding the importance of supply chain
performance measurement and the creation of transparency.

2 Supply Chain Performance Measurement

In this chapter, we describe how SCM performance can be measured and why com-
panies should address SCM and its performance measurement. In the first instance,
this requires an explanation of the term and importance of SCM. Subsequently, ma-
turity models are introduced as a method of measuring SCM performance. The in-
troduction includes the characterization of maturity models in general, the definition
of SCM maturity models in particular, and the analysis of existing SCM maturity
models in the literature. The analysis is based on the literature review of Jording and
Sucky (2016) and intends to find an approach that meets the requirements of the
practical example as described in the introduction. Finally, chapter 2 explains the
crucial aspects of effective performance measurement and provides an overview of
performance metrics in the context of SCM.

2.1 Supply Chain Management

A supply chain can be defined as a network of several business entities collectively

responsible for product or service-related value creation, linked by a flow of goods,
information, and funds. 12 Ideally, the supply chain includes all business processes
cutting across all organizations, from the initial supplier to the ultimate point of con-
sumption. 13 Then, supply chain management describes the integrated, coordinated

12
Cf. Asdecker (2014), p. 37; Swaminathan et al. (1998), p. 607; Tsay et al. (1999), p. 301; Sucky (2004), p.
18.
13
Cf. Cooper et al. (1997), p. 5; Asdecker (2014), pp. 37-38.
8 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

planning, implementing, and controlling of value creation networks, comprising

several business entities that are linked by a flow of goods, information, and funds. 14
Cost reduction and the continuous improvement of competitiveness and customer
service are the main objectives of SCM.15
The considered company defines supply chain management for itself as integrated,
process-oriented planning, controlling, execution and monitoring of the processes of
the value chain—within and across companies—to fulfill customer orders and sus-
tainably improve performance and costs. The enterprise refers to the Supply Chain
Operations Reference (SCOR) Model, developed by the Supply Chain Council, an
independent, not-for-profit, global corporation. 16 The SCOR Model is a cross-
functional framework for evaluating and improving enterprise-wide supply chain
performance. It is structured in four levels and focuses on the six supply chain pro-
cesses: plan, source, make, deliver, return, and enable. This framework enables the
considered company to model their processes and benchmark their performance
against other supply chains. 17 Then, the company can develop a roadmap to improve
their performance vis-à-vis the benchmarks.
The high level of effort necessary for the development of an efficient SCM as well
as the uncertainty and risk connected with this concept raise the question of why
SCM is seen as a key to success. 18 Would it not be easier to minimize the efforts for
communication, coordination, and exchange of information between companies in
order to save time and work? Would it not be beneficial for companies to focus on
themselves in order to reduce complexity? According to practical and scientific stud-
ies, the potential of SCM is significant. Studies show a reduction of inventory (up to
60 %), shorter lead times (up to 50 %), and improved forecasting accuracy (up to
80 %). 19 Eisenbarth (2003), for instance, conducted a survey with first-tier automo-
tive suppliers. The results show that approximately 70 % of the participants attach
high importance to SCM. 20 Approximately 90 % state that SCM will be especially
important in the future. 21 However, these findings do not correspond to the level of
practical SCM implementations. 22 A common way to illustrate this progress is the
use of maturity models, which classify companies into different stages depending on
their realization of SCM implementation. The “Global Survey of Supply Chain Pro-
gress” uses a five-stage maturity model: 23 The “Five Levels of Supply Chain Evolu-

14
Cf. Asdecker (2014), p. 39.
15
Cf. Cooper et al. (1997), p. 3; Heusler (2004), pp. 17-18.; Kotzab (2000), p. 33.
16
Cf. Stewart (1997), pp. 62–66; Stephens (2001), pp. 471–473; Bolstorff/Rosenbaum (2003), pp. 2–8;
Holmberg (2000), pp. 862-863; Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 416.
17
Cf. Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 416; Bolstorff/Rosenbaum (2003), pp. 2–8.
18
Cf. Staberhofer/Rohrhofer (2007), p. 29.
19
Cf. Beckmann (2004), pp.15–17; Staberhofer/Rohrhofer (2007), p. 29.
20
Cf. Eisenbarth (2003), p. 198.
21
Cf. Eisenbarth (2003), p. 198, Mayer et al. (2009), p. 26.
22
Cf. Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 98.
23
Cf. Poirier/Quinn (2006), pp. 19–24; Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 98.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 9

tion” begins with the basic level of enterprise integration (level 1) and ends with the
highest level of full network connectivity (level 5). It is shown that 57 % of the par-
ticipating companies are assigned to stage one or two. Although companies assign
high importance to SCM, the mentioned survey reveals a lack of implementation,
i.e., a gap between aspiration and reality. 24 Therefore, it is doubtful whether manag-
ers have up-to-date and specific information about their deficits related to SCM and
the ability to prioritize actions necessary to overcome this gap. Maturity models pro-
vide a common way to assess the implementation of concepts or to identify gaps.

2.2 Maturity Models to Measure Supply Chain Performance

Essentially, maturity models are intended to describe the typical behavior exhibited
by a company at a number of levels of “maturity”. 25 This allows companies to codify
what might be considered good practice (and, conversely, bad practice). In addition,
there are some intermediate or transitional stages. The concept applies to a range of
activities, including quality management, software development, supplier relation-
ships, and many more, both as a means of assessment and as part of a framework for
improvement. One of the earliest maturity approaches was Crosby’s Quality Man-
agement Maturity Grid (QMMG). 26 For this reason, most of the following approach-
es have their roots in the field of quality management. The QMMG expects compa-
nies to evolve through five levels of maturity before ascending to quality manage-
ment excellence: uncertainty, awakening, enlightenment, wisdom and certainty. At
each level, the performance of a number of key activities is described. For this pur-
pose, the approach provides a descriptive text for the characteristic traits of perfor-
mance for each level. The Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for Software, devel-
oped by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon, is perhaps the best-
known derivative from this line of work.27 “The Capability Maturity Model for
Software provides software organizations with guidance on how to gain control of
their processes for developing and maintaining software and how to evolve toward a
culture of software engineering and management excellence.” 28 The CMM for soft-
ware provides a framework consisting of five maturity levels that define the extent
to which a specific process is defined, managed, measured, controlled, and effec-
tive. 29 The fundamental assumption of this approach is that quality can be cultivated
through control. 30 Therefore, companies at higher maturity levels are better man-
aged, have less risk, and are more likely to deliver a quality product that meets the

24
Cf. Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 99.
25
Cf. Fraser et al. (2002), p. 244.
26
Cf. Fraser et al. (2002), pp. 244-245.
27
Cf. Fraser et al. (2002), p. 244; Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 416.
28
Paulk et al. (1993), p. 5.
29
Cf. Paulk et al. (1993), pp. 4–7.
30
Cf. Klimko (2001), p. 271; Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 416.
10 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

budget and schedule. The software CMM inspired the development of other frame-
works, such as the CMM for systems engineering (SE-CMM) and the CMM for in-
tegrated product and process development (IPD-CMM). 31 The most recent attempt to
consolidate the multiple models is the integrated CMM (CMM-I), which has moti-
vated the development of similar frameworks in other disciplines. 32 “Although a
number of different types of maturity models have been proposed […], they share
the common property of defining a number of dimensions or process areas at several
discrete stages of levels of maturity, with a description of characteristics perfor-
mance at various levels of granularity.” 33 Therefore, various components are the
same or similar in each model: 34
 A number of maturity levels (typically 3-6) to describe the development of a sin-
gle entity 35 in a simplified way
 A descriptor for each level (such as initial, repeatable, defined) to organize the
levels sequentially, from an initial level up to an ending level of perfection
 A generic explanation or summary of the characteristics of each level as a whole
 A number of dimensions or process areas, which in turn consist of a number of
elements or activities
 A description of each activity that the entity has to achieve on that level.
During development, the entity progresses from some initial state to some more ad-
vanced state. 36 “Some do it faster than others and with fewer detours, but fast or
slow, every company that gets to world class must evolve through theses stages to
get there.” 37 Therefore, no stages can be left out. In assessing performance (i.e., ma-
turity), a distinction is made between two types of models: 38 On the one hand, there
are models in which different activities may be scored at different levels. On the
other hand, there are models in which maturity levels are “inclusive”, where a cumu-
lative number of activities must all be performed. In practice, however, maturity
models are not primarily used as absolute measures of performance but rather as part
of an improvement process. 39 In this regard, the purpose of using a maturity model is
to identify a gap that can be closed by subsequent improvement actions.

31
Cf. Fraser et al. (2002), p. 245.
32
Cf. Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 416; Fraser et al. (2002), p. 245.
33
Fraser et al. (2002), p. 246.
34
Cf. Fraser et al. (2002), p. 246; Klimko (2001), p. 271.
35
This entity can be anything of interest like a human being, an organizational function etc.
36
Cf. Klimko (2001), p. 271.
37
Shapiro (1996), p. 147.
38
Cf. Fraser et al. (2002), p. 246.
39
Cf. Fraser et al. (2002), p. 248.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 11

2.2.1 Overview of SCM Maturity Models

Many of the aforementioned approaches and ideas of maturity have been adapted to
supply chains and their management. 40 To analyze the characteristics of maturity
models in the field of SCM, Jording and Sucky (2016) developed a design-based
characterization of SCM maturity models. The goal of their work is to provide the
reader with a purpose-driven design-based catalog that serves as a guideline for a
more efficient construction of maturity models. 41 For this reason, the authors per-
formed a literature review to analyze existing maturity models based on five differ-
ent core attributes:
 General attributes: all aspects related to the development of the model
 Conceptual attributes: all aspects that describe the formal content of the stages
 Operationalization attributes: all aspects that describe the evolution process
 Retention attributes: all aspects that describe the change process
 Survey attributes: all aspects related to the evaluation of the model itself
The analysis of these models and their shortcomings reveal quality attributes of
SCM maturity models, which then provide the basis of the purpose-driven catalog. 42
This catalog specifies the essential building blocks of SCM maturity models. For the
purpose of this paper, the literature review helped us preselect SCM maturity models
and find an appropriate approach that meets the requirements of the practical exam-
ple described in the introduction.

Figure 1: Maturity Model Differentiation. 43

Based on the components of the maturity models described above, the authors de-
veloped a definition of SCM maturity models necessary for the literature review
process: “A maturity model can be defined as a construction-based model which
consists of an anticipated, limited development path, separated into stages with de-
fined characteristics and dimensions. It has one or more objectives related to the
stage evaluation, gap identification and transformation. If a model of this kind fo-

40
Cf. Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 416.
41
Cf. Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 99.
42
Cf. Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 99.
43
Source: Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 105.
12 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

cuses [on] intercorporate collaboration, customer focus, management of flow of

goods and/or management of information flow, it is called a SCM maturity model.”44
The examination of the numerous models identified in the literature review reveals
that those models differ between the anticipated evolutionary content and the opera-
tionalization of the stages. 45 As depicted in Figure 1, some models prioritize the evo-
lutionary content, whereas others prioritize a complex operationalization without
having an anticipated stage-driven process. The three maturity models, “Maturity
description models”, “Maturity models without assessment” and “Maturity models
(Stages & Assessment)”, represent the review focus. Maturity description models
and maturity models without assessment both lack a substantial method of assessing
maturity, but they illustrate an anticipated development process. The authors sum-
marized these two categories under the notion of “general maturity models”. Maturi-
ty models providing an anticipated development process and a related assessment
method represent “specific maturity models”. For detailed information regarding the
literature review, see Jording and Sucky (2016).

2.2.2 Applicability of Selected Maturity Models to the Case Study

Following the literature review by Jording and Sucky (2016), eight general and eight
specific maturity models are identified, which have to be examined in order to find
an appropriate approach and framework for the practical example.

2.2.2.1 Applicability of General Maturity Models to the Case Study

The SCM focus area of the general maturity models most importantly narrows down
the choice of an appropriate model. The selection of appropriate maturity models
takes place according to the requirements of the case study, as described in the in-
troduction. Therefore, models with unsuitable focus areas are excluded. Ultimately,
only two general maturity models are worth considering: the “Global Supply Chain
Progress Framework” and the “Supply Chain Visibility Roadmap”. However, nei-
ther general maturity model turned out to be applicable to the practical example to
the same extent. For the considered general maturity models, the number of stages
varies between three and five, but both have in common that collaborative aspects
gain in significance with a rising maturity level. 46 The models can be criticized for
their insufficient documentation quality and absence of substantial assessment of
maturity. For this reason, none of the general maturity models are suitable for the
practical example in terms of SCM performance measurement. However, the Supply
Chain Visibility Roadmap provides an appropriate project approach for the practical

44
Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 104.
45
Cf. Jording/Sucky (2016), pp. 104-105.
46
Cf. Jording/Sucky (2016), pp. 105–107.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 13

example. Steps one and three of the roadmap especially serve as a valuable template
since they describe what needs to be considered when defining the strategy and the
rollout plan of such a project. Therefore, only the “Supply Chain Visibility
Roadmap” provides a helpful approach for the investigated company, which is why
this model is presented here.

Supply Chain Visibility Roadmap

The goal of this approach is to identify the necessary steps for a successful visibility
program that improves supply chain productivity, responsiveness, and reliability. 47
Companies must evolve through three levels of maturity when seeking operational
improvement and financial value from visibility technology. In the first level (Ship-
ment Tracking), the system provides shipment tracking to locate the product. This
information improves customer satisfaction and helps internal operations planning.
In the second level (Supply Chain Disruption Management), disruption management
is notified proactively if shipments deviate from planned milestones and assists in
problem resolution. 48 This information improves the on-time delivery performance
and lowers expediting costs. The greatest financial value comes in the third level
(Supply Chain Improvement), when visibility information helps identify and elimi-
nate root causes of delays. Effectiveness at this level has a positive impact on lead
time, inventory investment, and freight cost. The successful implementation of such
a supply chain visibility technology requires five critical steps, described in the
Roadmap for Supply Chain Visibility: First, it is important to devise a visibility
strategy. Since visibility develops over time, the strategy should focus on the highest
problem areas first and then expand from there. The creation of an “as is” assess-
ment of key metrics, targeted for improvement, is part of the strategy process. Key
metrics should include both cross-functional and department-based metrics, such as
cycle times, on-time delivery performance, or safety stock levels. The definition of
the visibility strategy also includes the identification of responsibilities for the im-
provement of each metric and the establishment of a cross-functional team with an
executive sponsor. Second, the company has to select a visibility technology that
meets their requirements. 49 There are different visibility technologies available.
These can be classified into three categories: internally developed systems, systems
provided by logistics providers and systems from commercial technology vendors.
The most important aspect of a visibility project is the creation of a rollout plan, de-
scribed in step three. 50 The project team has to determine which areas of the supply
chain to concentrate on first. This requires the identification of small, simple pro-
jects. Depending on the company, this can mean concentrating on certain regions,

47
Cf. Enslow (2006), p. I.
48
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 11-13.
49
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 13–16.
50
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 17–20.
14 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

shipments for key customers, or certain product lines, perhaps those with the highest
value or time sensitivity. Assessing the availability of quality status data is another
consideration for determining the scope. Therefore, it is beneficial to start with the
smallest data set possible that still drives value. “Successful pilot programs often
focus on areas in which better visibility will lead to significant improvements in lead
times and on-time delivery performance […].” 51 The fourth step deals with the im-
provement of disruption management. Many commercial visibility systems now in-
clude functionality to not only serve as a problem detector but also to provide reso-
lution insights and support. If necessary, these features help decide what actions
should be taken if the actual status deviates from the planned status. As a result, res-
olution functionality can help enforce corporate policies for expediting, rerouting,
reallocating inventory, etc. 52 This has positive effects on customer service capabili-
ties and delivery performance. Driving structural supply chain improvement, how-
ever, requires analytical discipline, as described in step five. Using visibility data to
measure actual lead times across the supply chain network is one quick opportunity
to update the inventory and customer service system with these times. Identifying
bottlenecks and recurring points of variability, analyzing their underlying causes,
and taking corrective actions, on the other hand, helps companies achieve the high-
est value from visibility technology.
The conceptual background of the model describes the maturity of supply chain
transparency with a special focus on the flow of goods 53. It therefore addresses the
topics relevant for the practical example: first, the goal of this approach is to create
transparency throughout the entire supply chain to increase customer satisfaction
and improve the supply chain performance sustainably. Second, on-time delivery
performance and lead time represent two very important parameters for measuring
and improving supply chain performance. Third, the Roadmap to Supply Chain Vis-
ibility provides an appropriate project approach for the practical example, although
it describes the necessary steps to successfully implement a visibility technology.
Steps one and three especially serve as valuable templates.

2.2.2.2 Applicability of Specific Maturity Models to the Case Study

The eight specific maturity models—identified by Jording and Sucky (2016)—focus

on a specific content, similar to the general maturity models. According to the SCM
focus, two of the models focus on process maturity. Since process maturity seems to
be the appropriate SCM focus in this case study, the following two models are worth
considering: “Supply Chain Management (SCM) Process Maturity Model” and
“Supply Chain Capability Maturity Model”, named S(CM)2. These specific maturity

51
Enslow (2006), p. 18.
52
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 20-21.
53
Cf. Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 107.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 15

models focus on more-collaborative aspects at higher stages as well. 54 For the “SCM
Process Maturity Model”, the SCOR Model serves as the basis for conceptualizing.
However, the S(CM)2 also divides its processes into several supply chain competen-
cy areas. In both models, the assessment of maturity takes place via self-assessment
by answering a questionnaire. Moreover, the “SCM Process Maturity Model” and
the S(CM)2 also have the capability to identify gaps and provide a roadmap to over-
come those gaps. After the examination of the specific maturity models, it turned out
that the “SCM Process Maturity Model” and the S(CM)2 provide especially relevant
frameworks for this case study. For this reason, the two models are presented in the
following.

SCM Process Maturity Model

The SCM Process Maturity Model shows the progression of activities toward effec-
tive SCM and process maturity based on five stages. 55 Each of the stages contains
characteristics associated with process maturity. These characteristics include pre-
dictability, capability, control, effectiveness, and efficiency. Due to its process orien-
tation and wide adoption by the supply chain academic and practitioner communi-
ties, the SCOR model serves as the basis to conceptualize the SCM Process Maturity
Model. The five stages describe the process maturity of four areas: plan, source,
make and deliver. In Stage 1 (Ad hoc), the supply chain and its processes are un-
structured without any process measures in place. Functional cooperation is low, and
the process performance is unpredictable. As a result, customer satisfaction is low.
In Stage 2 (Defined), basic SCM processes are defined and documented, and process
performance is more predictable. 56 The improvement of functional cooperation re-
quires considerable effort. Targets are defined but still missed most of the time. Cus-
tomer satisfaction has therefore improved but remains low. Stage 3 (Linked) repre-
sents the breakthrough, as broad SCM jobs and structures are put in place, and intra-
company functions, vendors and customers are cooperating. Process performance is
more predictable, and defined targets are often achieved. Increased customer satis-
faction begins to show market improvement. In Stage 4 (Integrated), organizational
structures and jobs are based on SCM procedures, and traditional functions begin to
disappear. Cooperation between the company, its vendors, and suppliers takes place
on a process level. Advanced collaboration with customers and suppliers helps pro-
cess performance become highly predictable. Targets are reliably achieved, SCM
costs are dramatically reduced, and customer satisfaction becomes a competitive
advantage. In the fifth stage (Extended), individual companies are no longer just
competing against each other but against entire supply chains. These supply chains
represent a horizontal, customer-focused, collaborative culture that shares common

54
Cf. Jording/Sucky (2016), p. 109.
55
Cf. Lockamy III/McCormack (2004), p. 275.
56
Cf. Lockamy III/McCormack (2004), pp. 276-278.
16 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

processes and goals, as well as joint investments in improving the system. In order
to investigate the relationship between SCM process maturity and overall SCM per-
formance, the authors created a survey instrument. 57 Their investigation revealed
significant relationships. Performance measured by each area of the SCOR Model is
the measurement of performance most related to SCM process maturity. An expla-
nation for this result is that the four areas of the SCOR Model provide a clear pro-
cess context. Delivery performance and order lead times are also significantly corre-
lated with SCM process maturity. Both describe process measures that clearly reflect
process performance.
Even though the authors conclude that their measures of business process maturity
might be too high-level to reveal correlations with business performance, their re-
search illustrates an important aspect relevant for the practical example: 58 Direct
process performance measures such as lead times are related to SCM maturity.

S(CM)2
The S(CM)2 consists of three dimensions: supply chain views, lifecycle maturity
levels, and abstraction levels. 59 To achieve the defined enterprise goals, a company
needs to successfully manage the following seven supply chain views:
 Supply chain management and logistics: functions, processes, activities, and
tasks related to the integration, collaboration and development of the suppliers
 Production systems: functions, processes, activities, and tasks regarding the
transformation of the product or service
 Inventory management: actions related to inventory management and control
 Customer relationship management: actions regarding meeting the customer’s
needs
 Human resource management: actions related to the enterprise’s employees, their
integration into the company, and the work environment
 Information systems and technology management: actions linked to the devel-
opment and implementation of information systems and the technology man-
agement process
 Performance measurement systems to measure the enterprise’s performance re-
garding processes, functions, and employees

57
Cf. Lockamy III/McCormack (2004), pp. 276–278.
58
Cf. Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 416; Lockamy III/McCormack (2004), p. 278.
59
Cf. Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 418-419.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 17

Table 1: Maturity Levels of the Supply Chain Maturity Model. 60

For detailed information regarding the supply chain views, see Reyes and Giachetti
(2010). Each of the seven competency areas develops through five supply chain ma-
turity levels, illustrated in Table 1. All enterprises are assumed to begin for each
view at the first level and develop from there. 61 Based on the current maturity levels
for each view, the model provides actions that need to be addressed to reach the pro-
ceeding levels.
The S(CM)2 is designed to evaluate the maturity level of a company’s supply chain
practices for different views. Theses seven supply chain views address topics rele-
vant for the practical example. Furthermore, the model helps identify possible ac-
tions to improve the processes and define an appropriate roadmap. This model pro-
vides a beneficial framework, since it indicates, similar to the SCM Process Maturity
Model, which process maturity refers to several different viewpoints. Furthermore, it
is the first model that considers a performance measurement system, which is a cen-
tral aspect in this case study.

2.3 Performance Measurement and Metrics in SCM

In practice, maturity models are not primarily used as absolute measures of perfor-
mance but rather as part of an improvement process. 62 Furthermore, the maturity
levels of an enterprise can differ depending on the different model views or process
areas. 63 Consequently, there are two ways of measuring SCM performance based on
a company’s maturity level: on the one hand, by assessing a company’s overall ma-
turity level based on a framework that describes an anticipated development path; on
the other hand, by assessing the company’s maturity levels for different supply chain
views or process areas.
The goal of the practical example is to enhance supply chain processes and expand
knowledge concerning customer expectations and market trends. This includes the

60
Source: Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 419.
61
Cf. Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 418.
62
Cf. Fraser et al. (2002), p. 248.
63
Cf. Reyes/Giachetti (2010), p. 418.
18 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

creation of transparency from both an internal and external point of view. The crea-
tion of transparency from an internal point of view requires performance metrics that
describe the current SCM performance of these processes appropriately. The crea-
tion of transparency from an external point of view requires the feedback of the cus-
tomer to understand their expectations and how they perceive the company’s SCM
performance.
The considered maturity models contain valuable concepts and solutions to structure
and address those topics. The Supply Chain Visibility Roadmap provides an appro-
priate project approach, especially by describing the necessary steps of defining a
visibility strategy and creating the rollout plan. According to the Visibility
Roadmap, the following elements are important when defining a strategy that aims
to create transparency: 64
 Focusing on the main problem areas first and then expanding from there
 Creating “as is” assessment of key metrics, targeted for improvement
 Including both cross-functional and department-based metrics
 Establishing a cross-functional team with an executive sponsor
When creating the rollout-plan, the Visibility Roadmap recommends: 65
 Determining which areas of the supply chain to concentrate on first
 Identifying small, simple projects
 Assessing the availability of quality status data
 Starting with the smallest data set possible that still drives value
The specific maturity models use different supply chain views to analyze the process
performance of each viewpoint. This is especially important, since the practical ex-
ample considers processes that are cross-functional. The SCM Process Maturity
Model uses the SCOR Model as a conceptual basis to describe the process maturity
of the supply chain activities plan, source, make, and deliver. Since the regarded
company’s definition of SCM is based on the SCOR processes, the SCOR Model
hereinafter also represents the conceptual framework for measuring the SCM per-
formance. However, this mainly represents the internal perspective on SCM perfor-
mance. It is also important to consider other viewpoints, such as those presented in
the S(CM)2: customer relationship management, for instance, assesses performance
in terms of meeting the customers’ expectations. According to the SCM definition,
all SCM activities focus on the needs and expectations of customers. 66 Therefore, the
customer’s viewpoint is indispensable to finding out about how SCM performance is
perceived and how they measure their supplier’s SCM performance.
Performance measurement systems represent an important viewpoint, since they de-
termine the performance metrics to measure the enterprise’s performance regarding
processes, functions, and employees. Some of the maturity models considered al-

64
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 12-13.
65
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 17–20.
66
Cf. Staberhofer/Rohrhofer (2007), p. 39.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 19

ready emphasize the importance of direct process performance measures, such as

delivery performance and lead times. 67 This chapter aims to analyze the importance
of performance measures and metrics in each of the four basic supply chain process-
es (plan, source, make, and deliver).
The following four aspects are crucial for effective performance measurement and
improvement. First, measurement goals must represent organizational goals. This
allows measuring the achievement of those targets and evaluating the effectiveness
of the strategy employed. Second, selected metrics should reflect a balance between
financial and non-financial measures. Financial performance measurements are im-
portant for strategic decisions and external reporting, whereas non-financial
measures support the day-to-day control of manufacturing and distribution opera-
tions. Third, metrics should be related to strategic, tactical, and operational levels of
decision making and control. The decisions of top-level management are based on
the strategic level and, thus, mainly on financial measures. The tactical-level
measures deal with the allocation of resources and the achievement of the results
specified at the strategic level. Operational-level measurements and metrics assess
the results of the decisions of low-level managers in order to achieve the tactical ob-
jectives. Finally, performance assessment can be better addressed by using a few
performance measures that are critical to success and truly capture the essence of
organizational performance.
Gunasekaran et al. (2004) reviewed the literature on SCM performance measure-
ments and metrics in the context of the following activities/processes: (1) plan, (2)
source, (3) make/assemble, and (4) delivery/customer. 68 Furthermore, the authors
developed a survey to study SCM performance measures and metrics that are used in
the environment of those four activities/processes. The purpose of the literature re-
view was to identify metrics for the individual activity/process, whereas the purpose
of the study was to weight these metrics according to their importance. The perfor-
mance metrics identified in the literature review serve as the basis for the importance
rating survey. The authors used three categories to prioritize the metrics (highly im-
portant, moderately important, and less important). The following subchapters espe-
cially focus on the highly and, to a certain extent, moderately important metrics of
each activity area. For more-detailed information about all metrics, see Gunasekaran
et al. (2004).

Planning Performance Evaluation Metrics

The survey distinguishes between strategic planning and order planning. According
to the survey, the level of customer-perceived value of the product is highly im-
portant. 69 This clearly indicates that customer satisfaction is of the utmost im-

67
Cf. Lockamy III/McCormack (2004), p. 278.
68
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), pp. 335–340.
69
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), pp. 340-341.
20 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

portance in increasing competiveness. The measures considered within the moder-

ately important category include three financial and three non-financial measures,
which reflect the importance of a balance between financial and non-financial
measures in strategic planning. Variances against budget represent the highest-rated
financial metric, whereas order lead time represents the highest-rated non-financial
metric. At the order planning level, the customer query time is highly important,
whereas the product development cycle time is moderately important. Both metrics
are related to meeting customer needs by performing in a timely fashion, which
again emphasizes the importance of customer service. At the bottom line, customer
satisfaction and service is most important at the planning level.

Sourcing Performance Evaluation Metrics

The sourcing process includes purchasing and supplier management activities. 70 In
their literature review, the authors identified six metrics related to the sourcing pro-
cess. The participants of the survey clearly rated supplier delivery performance as
highly important. Supplier lead time against industry norm and supplier pricing
against market are two of the moderately important metrics. Most notable is that
firms regard delivery performance as more important than price.

Production Performance Evaluation Metrics

The importance rating survey identified three metrics as highly important for the
production performance evaluation: 71 percentage of defects, cost per operation hour,
and capacity utilization. The first metric measures product quality, whereas the latter
two are fundamentally measures of efficiency regarding the utilization of resources.
Efficiency of operations translates into lower costs per unit to manufactured prod-
ucts/provided services. The range of products and services is the only moderately
important measure. In short, product quality and manufacturing efficiency seem to
be more important when evaluating production performance.

Delivery Performance Evaluation Metrics

Similarly to the production performance metrics, there are three delivery perfor-
mance metrics that are highly important. 72 The first two measures, quality of deliv-
ered goods and on-time delivery of goods, have nearly the same rating. Flexibility of
service systems to meet customer needs represents the third highly important metric.
The authors assume that these three metrics influence the perceived customer value
of the product. The following sentence describes the overall goal of the delivery ac-
tivities, basically summarizing the highly important delivery performance evaluation
metrics. “Providing the customer with a quality product in a timely fashion, and

70
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), p. 342.
71
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), pp. 342-344.
72
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), pp. 343-345.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 21

maintaining customer satisfaction with a service system designed to flexibly respond

to customer needs are key in producing value for the customer”. 73
Gunasekaran et al. (2004) aimed to create a framework to promote a better under-
standing of the importance of SCM performance measures and metrics that helps
organizations in developing a performance measurement program for SCM. 74 The
framework, presented in Table 2, considers the four major supply chain activities
(plan, source, make/assemble, and deliver), as well as the three management levels
(strategic, tactical, and operational). The measures are therefore grouped in cells at
the intersection of these two axes, listed in order of importance. Since some
measures are appropriate at more than one management level, they appear in more
than one cell. It seems that customer satisfaction is paramount in importance in in-
creasing competitiveness, especially for the planning and delivery activities: each
first-mentioned metric, at least on the tactical or strategic level, in some way deals
with meeting the customers’ needs. Companies can use this framework to identify
the supply chain activity to be measured, the appropriate metric, and the level of
management to which the measure should be applied. However, not all supply
chains are identical, and the company will certainly have individual performance
measurement needs that reflect the unique operations of their business. In terms of
the practical example, it is necessary to first devise a strategy and create a rollout
plan to determine which areas of the supply chain to focus on. This allows for the
selection of performance measures reflecting the operations of the respective supply
chain areas.

73
Gunasekaran et al. (2004), p. 343.
74
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), pp. 344-345.
22 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

Table 2: Supply Chain Performance Metrics Framework. 75

3 Supply Chain Performance within an Electrical Industry Enterprise

The company in this case-study offers a wide spectrum of products, systems, solu-
tions, software and services. The current situation and challenges result in the need
for action: first, improvement of transparency regarding logistics and SCM perfor-
mance is paramount. Furthermore, the company needs to be aware of the latest ex-
pectations and trends from the market it is operating in with regards to logistics and
SCM performance. Finally, in order to identify best practices and gaps, a compari-
son of the current performance, customer expectations, and market trends is re-
quired. The performance component represents the internal point of view and aims
to create transparency by analyzing the logistics and SCM performance using appro-
priate performance metrics.
According to the Visibility Roadmap, it is crucial to establish a cross-functional
team with defined responsibilities. 76 For this reason, in the practical example, the
study used a cross-functional approach. For the visibility strategy, as well as for the
rollout plan, it is important to focus on the main problem areas first and then expand
from there. 77 Consequently, the project team, which was driving the study, had to
determine which areas of the supply chain to concentrate on first. The objectives

75
Source: Gunasekaran et al. (2004), p. 345.
76
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 12-13.
77
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 12 and 17.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 23

include the enhancement of supply chain processes by improving lead times and be-
ing a more reliable supplier. This clearly emphasizes the delivery perspective of
SCM and thus determines the supply chain focus area. Delivery performance direct-
ly impacts customer satisfaction. 78 As a result, it is the key to supply chain excel-
lence. Customer satisfaction is one of the main goals of SCM, which is why measur-
ing and improving delivery performance is always desirable in order to increase
competitiveness.
According to the Visibility Roadmap, it is important to create an “as is” assessment
of key metrics targeted for improvement. 79 The objectives of the company already
determine one cross-functional metric, lead time, to increase transparency along the
supply chain processes. Reducing lead times is one way of improving delivery per-
formance and customer satisfaction, especially because there is continuing pressure
from the marketplace to shorten lead times. 80 For this reason, the objective of this
study was to measure the SCM performance by analyzing the lead times: on the one
hand, to identify average lead times and deviations from this lead time; on the other
hand, to compare the actual lead times with those requested by the customer. The
Visibility Roadmap suggests starting with the smallest data set possible that still
drives value. 81 In this case, the timeframe from order entry to delivery at the custom-
er site represented the smallest data set possible that still drives value. Deviations
from the overall average and requested lead time then required a detailed investiga-
tion to find possible bottlenecks.

3.1 The Company’s Supply Network

The supply chain depicted in Figure 2 describes the simplified processes up through
delivery to customer via various sales channels, either of raw materials being trans-
formed into final products or of final products being purchased directly from con-
tract manufacturers. The supply chain contains four levels: supply, manufacturing or
purchasing, distribution, and customers. Each level of the supply chain comprises
numerous facilities. There are a variety of external suppliers that are not part of this
analysis and are therefore illustrated in a simplified manner. The manufacturing or
purchasing level in Figure 2, described as make or purchase, comprises basically
seven facilities: A, B, C, and D represent national plants, while E and F represent
international plants. Furthermore, the company has a large international DC and
some contract manufacturers. The third level contains the national DCs, in this case,
G and H. Finally, there are customers who obtain their products through different
sales channels. In this case, the study focuses on five sales channels.

78
Cf. Stewart (1995), p. 41; Gunasekaran et al. (2004), p. 337.
79
Cf. Enslow (2006), p. 12.
80
Cf. Stewart (1995), p. 41.
81
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 18-19.
24 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

Five customer types are in scope, representing 92 % of the total volume. Distributors
represent the major customer type. The retail business is separated into retail and
online retailing. Although online retailing represents only a small percentage of the
total business, the company attaches great importance to it, since it is the enterprise’s
fastest-growing branch. Besides exports, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
embody the fifth customer type. The remaining eight percent of the business volume
is depicted as “Others”.

Figure 2: The Company’s Supply Chain Network

According to the legend at the bottom of Figure 2, there are three types of standard
material flows. Internal replenishment describes the process of refilling the DC’s
shelves with finished goods, basically from the plants. A sales order causes the de-
livery of a finished good from either a DC or directly from the plant to the customer.

3.2 Lead Time Analysis

The sequence of presenting the results of the lead time analysis is the same for all
customer channels: a graph visualizes the actual (blue line) and requested (red line)
lead times by displaying the days on the x-axis and the percentage of the total vol-
ume on the y-axis. Furthermore, two vertical bars mark the actual average (brown
solid line) and average requested lead time (green dotted line). The average numbers
represent fiscal year 2015.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 25

Results for Distributors

The lead time analysis for Distributors yielded the results depicted in Figure 3. It
shows a higher volume requested for a dispatch within one and two days than was
actually performed. The volume for orders requested with a lead time longer than
two days drops sharply, whereas the actual volume decreases more slowly.
Actual Lead Time Requested Lead Time
60%
Percentage of total Volume

40%

20%

0%
1 2 4 8 16 32
Days

Figure 3: Lead Time Analysis for Distributor

This indicates that the DCs are making up for those shipments requested within two
days. On average, customers request a lead time of 1.9 days, while the company per-
forms within 3.2 days. The project team evaluates those results as a significant gap
between customer expectation and own performance. For the replenishment of the
distributor’s shelves, those differences in lead time might not be critical. Delayed
deliveries to a job site, however, are critical. Currently, the DCs cannot distinguish
between shipments going to the customer site or replenishing the Distributor’s
shelves.

Results for OEMs

Figure 4 describes the results of the lead time analysis for OEMs. Most of the order
volume is requested within one or two days, although the volume already decreases
heavily between one and two days. After two days, the volume drops from approxi-
mately 25 % to roughly 2 %, where it levels out with some smaller oscillations later
on.
The actual volume increases continuously until it reaches its peak at nearly three
days and a volume of 28 %. Subsequently, the actual volume decreases almost in
parallel to the red line. The graph indicates again that the DCs are making up for the
shipments requested for a delivery within two days by dispatching them one or two
days later. The comparison of the average lead times shows a similar picture. On
average, the customer requests a lead time of 3.5 days, whereas the DCs perform, on
average, within 5.1 days—a delta of 1.6 days.
26 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

Actual Lead Time Requested Lead Time

40%

Percentage of total Volume 30%

20%

10%

0%
1 2 4 8 16 32
Days

Figure 4: Lead Time Analysis for OEM

The project team understands the results as a significant gap between customer ex-
pectation and own performance. The huge differences between the lead times for
Distributors and OEMs are especially conspicuous. From a logistics perspective, the
lead times should be very similar. Therefore, the next steps are to analyze the differ-
ent lead times for Distributors and OEMs.

Results for traditional Retail

Contrary to Distributors and OEMs, the requested and actual performances for Re-
tail are nearly identical. According to Figure 5, both the blue and red lines reach
their peak at approximately three days and a volume of 60 %. The course of the two
lines before and after reaching the peak is similar as well.
Actual Lead Time Requested Lead Time
80%
Percentage of total Volume

60%

40%

20%

0%
1 2 4 8 16 32
Days

Figure 5: Lead Time Analysis for Retail Classic

Thus, the average actual (3.9 days) and average requested lead times (3.8 days) are
nearly identical. Since the current performance matches the customer’s expectations,
the project team evaluates the current status as uncritical. Nevertheless, the company
needs to expand awareness of market trends in order to remain stable for the future.
Results for online retailing
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 27

Online retailing is special, since it requires a fast lead time, as depicted in Figure 6.
While the highest volume is requested within one day, there is no volume requested
for shipments within two days. Eventually, there is a demand for shipments within 4
days. However, the DCs ship most of their volume between one and three days.
Actual Lead Time Requested Lead Time
80%
Percentage of total Volume

60%

40%

20%

0%
1 2 4 8 16 32
Days

Figure 6: Lead Time Analysis for Retail Alternative

On average, the customer expects a shipment of 1.9 days, whereas the DCs perform,
on average, in 2.4 days. Currently, there is an agreement upon lead time of three
days with most of the retailers for the online business. Nevertheless, the analysis
shows that the customer requests a shorter lead time if possible. For that reason, the
project team evaluates the results as an area of concern, not necessarily because of
the current status but because of potential market trends that might cause a reduction
of lead time.

3.3 Definition of Actions

The main focus in this study is performance. This chapter presented the company’s
SCM performance by analyzing the requested and actual lead times from order entry
until the product is ready to ship. This analysis gave a first impression of how the
enterprise is performing from an internal point of view. As a result of the study, the
following three actions have been defined:

Lead time improvement for shelf products out of the DCs

It has to be examined whether the DCs are able to meet a 24 hour pick/pack time for
all customers and what are the costs associated with this. This requires a detailed
analysis of the lead times and system setup in order management per busi-
ness/customer.

Value proposition for different shipping modes out of the DCs to meet specific
customer demands
28 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

To provide the customer with additional services, the action aims to define different
options for expedited shipments of goods out of the DCs to specific customers.

Additional performance measurement of the Supply Chain to add customer

view
Delivery compliance and customer-specific performance criteria, like the number of
shipments and the fill rate, have to be integrated into the company’s performance
measurement with the intention of incorporating the customer’s perspective.
The first action especially focuses on the improvement of delivery performance in
terms of lead times and on-time performance. According to the framework of Gun-
asekaran et al. (2004), however, these metrics are limited to the operational level.82
The value proposition for different shipping modes out of the DCs aims to improve
the flexibility of service systems to meet customer needs. This represents the most
important metric within the context of delivery activities on both the tactical and
strategic levels. The first two actions, therefore, affect metrics from all three abstrac-
tion levels (operational, tactical and strategic) in the context of delivery perfor-
mance, which is the driver of customer satisfaction and the first key to supply chain
excellence. 83 The last action strives to incorporate the customer’s perspective by in-
cluding customer-specific performance criteria in the company’s performance meas-
urement reports. Using the same performance measurement standards is paramount
to focus all activities on the needs and expectations of the customers.

4 Conclusion

Maturity models have been introduced as a common way to assess the implementa-
tion of concepts, measure SCM performance, and identify gaps. The examination of
different SCM maturity models helped find an approach that meets the requirements
of the practical example. The Supply Chain Visibility Roadmap provides an appro-
priate project approach, especially by describing the necessary steps of defining a
visibility strategy and creating the rollout plan. According to this general maturity
model, it is especially important to focus on one supply chain area first and expand
from there. 84 The specific maturity models considered all use different supply chain
views to analyze the performance from each viewpoint. The SCM Process Maturity
Model uses the SCOR Model as a conceptual basis to describe the process maturity
of the supply chain activities plan, source, make, and deliver. Since the company’s
definition of SCM is based on the SCOR processes, the SCOR Model represented
the conceptual framework for measuring the SCM performance. However, in prac-
tice, maturity models are not primarily used as absolute measures of performance

82
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), p. 345.
83
Cf. Stewart (1995), p. 41.
84
Cf. Enslow (2006), pp. 17–20.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 29

but rather as part of an improvement process. 85 The measurement of performance

requires respective measures and metrics. The inability of performance measures
and metrics to fully integrate the supply chain is a widespread reason why compa-
nies have not succeeded in maximizing their supply chain’s potential. 86 For that rea-
son, this contribution examined performance metrics within the context of SCOR
activities. The selection of appropriate metrics and the definition of the project ap-
proach required the determination of a supply chain focus area for the practical ex-
ample. The study is part of a strategic program that aims to enhance the supply chain
processes by improving lead times and becoming a more reliable supplier. This re-
quires the creation of transparency to identify performance gaps and develop im-
provement ideas to close these gaps. The program already determined a cross-
functional metric, i.e., lead time, to increase transparency along the supply chain
processes.
The contribution presented the approach and results of the study. The performance
assessment from an internal point of view already indicated some potential bottle-
necks in terms of lead times. The study highlighted the importance of supply chain
performance measurement in order to create visibility and therefore to generate the
basis for correct decision-making in order to overcome performance gaps.

5 Bibliography

Arndt, H. (2008): Supply Chain Management: Optimierung logistischer Prozesse,

4th Edition, Wiesbaden.
Asdecker, B.H. (2014): Retourenmanagement im Versandhandel: Theoretische und
empirisch fundierte Gestaltungsalternativen für das Management von
Retouren, Vol. 10, Bamberg.
Bartlett, P.A./Julien, D.M./Baines, T.S. (2007): Improving supply chain
performance through improved visibility, in: The International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 18, No. 2 , pp. 294–313.
Beckmann, H. (2004): Supply Chain Management: Grundlagen, Konzept und
Strategien, in: Beckmann, H. (Eds.): Supply Chain Management: Strategien
und Entwicklungstendenzen in Spitzenunternehmen, Berlin i.a., pp 1–97.
Bolstorff, P./Rosenbaum, R. (2003): Supply Chain Excellence: A Handbook for
Dramatic Improvement Using the SCOR Model, New York i.a.
Chan, F.T.S. (2003): Performance Measurement in a Supply Chain, in: International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 21, No. 7, pp. 534–
548.

85
Cf. Fraser et al. (2002), p. 248.
86
Cf. Gunasekaran et al. (2004), p. 335.
30 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

Cooper, M.C./Lambert, D.M./Pagh, J.D. (1997): Supply Chain Management: More

Than a New Name for Logistics, in: The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 1–14.
Corsten, D./Gabriel, C. (2004): Supply Chain Management erfolgreich umsetzen:
Grundlagen, Realisierung und Fallstudien, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Eisenbarth, M. (2003): Erfolgsfaktoren des Supply Chain Managements in der
Automobilindustrie, Frankfurt am Main.
Enslow, B. (2006): The Supply Chain Visibility Roadmap: Moving from Vision to
True Business Value, Boston. Available at: ftp://public.dhe.ibm.com/
software/commerce/The_Supply_Chain_Visibility_Roadmap.pdf, accessed:
18.06.2016.
Fraser, P./Moultrie, J./Gregory, M. (2002): The use of maturity models/grids as a
tool in assessing product development capability, paper presented at: IEEE
International Engeneering Management Conference 2002, pp. 244–249.
Gunasekaran, A./Patel, C./McGaughey, R.E. (2004): A framework for supply chain
performance measurement, in: International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 333–347.
Handfield, R.B./Bechtel, C. (2002): The role of trust and relationship structure in
improving supply chain responsiveness, in: Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 367–382.
Heusler, K.F. (2004): Implementierung von Supply Chain Managment:
Kompetenzorientierte Analyse aus der Perspektive eines Netzwerkakteurs,
Wiesbaden.
Holmberg, S. (2000): A systems perspective on supply chain measurements, in:
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol.
20, No. 10, pp. 847–868.
Jording, T./Sucky, E. (2016): Improving the Development of Supply Chain
Management Maturity Models by Analysing Design Characteristics, in:
Bogaschewsky, R./Eßig, M./Lasch, R./Stölzle, W. (Eds.): Supply Chain
Management Research: Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse 2015, Wiesbaden, pp.
97–119.
Klimko, G. (2001): Knowledge Management and Maturity Models: Building
Common Understanding, in: Remenyi, D. (Eds.): Second European
Conference on Knowledge Management, Bled, pp. 269–278.
 Supply Chain Performance Measurement - A Case Study 31

Kotzab, H. (2000): Zum Wesen von Supply Chain Management vor dem
Hintergrund der betriebswirtschaftlichen Logistikkonzeption: erweiterte
Überlegungen, in: Wildemann, H. (Eds.): Supply Chain Management,
München, pp. 21–47.
Lockamy III, A./McCormack, K. (2004): The development of a supply chain
management process maturity model using the conceps of business process
orientation, in: Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9,
No. 4, pp. 272–278.
Mayer, S./Thiry, E./Frank, C.-B. (2009): 6. Europäische A.T. Kearney-/ELA-
Logistik-Studie 2008/2009: Supply-Chain-Excellence in der globalen
Wirtschaftskrise, pp. 1–38.
Paulk, M.C./Curtis, B./Chrissis, M.B./Weber, C.V. (1993): Capability Maturity
Model SM for Software, Version 1.1., Pittsburgh. Available at:
https://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/93tr024.pdf, accessed: 29.06.2016.
Poirier, C.C., Quinn, F.J. (2006): Survey of Supply Chain Progress: Still Waiting for
the Breaktrough, in: Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 8, pp.
18–26.
Reyes, H.G./Giachetti, R. (2010): Using experts to develop a supply chain maturity
model in Mexico, in: Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 415–424.
Shapiro, A.R. (1996): Stages in the Evolution of the Product Development Process,
in: McGrath, M.E. (Eds.): Setting the Pace in Product Development: A Guide
to Product and And Cycle-Time Excellence, Boston, pp. 147–159.
Staberhofer, F./Rohrhofer, E. (2007): Ganzheitliches Supply Chain Management:
Das Steyr Netzwerk Modell (SNM) als neuer Managementansatz, in: Klaus,
P./Staberhofer, F./Rothböck, M. (Eds.): Steuerung von Supply Chains:
Strategien - Methoden - Beispiele, Wiesbaden, pp. 27–72.
Stephens, S. (2001): Supply Chain Operations Reference Model Version 5.0: A New
Tool to Improve Supply Chain Efficiency and Achieve Best Practice, in:
Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 471–476.
Stewart, G. (1995): Supply chain performance benchmarking study reveals key to
supply chain excellence, in: Logistics Information Management, Vol. 8, No.
2, pp. 38–44.
Stewart, G. (1997): Supply-chain operations reference model (SCOR): the first
cross-industry framework for integrated supply-chain management, in:
Logistics Information Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 62–67.
32 Jan Strahwald, Eric Sucky

Sucky, E. (2004): Koordination in Supply Chains: Spieltheoretische Ansätze zur

Ermittlung integrierter Bestell- und Produktionspolitiken, Wiesbaden.
Svensson, G. (2004): Key areas, causes and contingency planning of corporate
vulnerability in supply chains, in: International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 728–748.
Swaminathan, J.M./Smith, S.F./Sadeh, N.M. (1998): Modeling Supply Chain
Dynamics: A Multiagent Approach, in: Decision Sciences, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.
607–632.
Tsay, A.A./Nahmias, S./Agrawal, N. (1999): Modeling Supply Chain Contracts: A
Review, in: Tayur, S./Ganeshan, R./Magazine, M. (Eds.): Quantitative
Models for Supply Chain Management, New York, pp. 299–336.