The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

[Link]/[Link]

IJPPM
61,5 A review on supply chain
performance measures and
metrics: 2000-2011
518
P.R.C. Gopal and Jitesh Thakkar
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management,
Received 20 September 2011
Revised 2 January 2012 Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India
Accepted 3 January 2012

Abstract
Purpose – The paper reports a comprehensive review of supply chain performance measurement
systems and raises a set of research issues leading to selected research questions.
Design/methodology/approach – The articles which have been published in selected
peer-reviewed international journals in the last ten years were collected by using databases Scopus
and ISI Web of Knowledge. The articles were scrutinized based on authors’ perspective analysis (using
supply chain measures and metrics, and enhancing supply chain performance as the key perspectives).
The articles contributing significantly in the domain of supply chain measures and metrics were
selected for final review and various issues were identified.
Findings – The paper argues that, despite considerable evidence from the literature in supply chain
performance measurement in recent years, there is a large scope for research to address the issues in
supply chain performance measurement, including: characteristics of measures and metrics,
benchmarking of measures, use of management practices, integration and partnership and
socio-environmental relevance.
Research implications/limitations – The insights deduced in the paper are primarily based on 28
articles selected for critical review and analysis in the domain of supply chain measures and metrics
and hence should be interpreted only as key concerns in the area.
Originality/value – The paper reports an evaluation of 28 key articles reported in the domain of
supply chain performance measurement and indicates the research opportunities in the area.
Keywords Supply chain management, Performance measurement, Supply chain metrics,
Distribution and inventory management
Paper type Literature review

1. Introduction
In the last three decades, a plethora of literature has been generated in the area of
performance management. Researchers have focused initially on business performance
(Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1986), its importance, definitions of performance
measurement, measures and system (Neely, 1999), models and frameworks (Kaplan
and Norton, 1992; Fitzgerald et al., 1991; Heskett et al., 1994; Neely et al., 1996; Kanji,
1998; Bititci et al., 2000; Epstein and Westbrook, 2001; Neely et al., 2001; Ratnatunga
et al., 2004). Subsequently the perspective of performance management (PM) has been
expanded to various areas such as lean manufacturing, logistics and supply chain. The
International Journal of Productivity core purpose of a performance measurement system (PMS) is for quantifying the
and Performance Management
Vol. 61 No. 5, 2012
efficiency and/or effectiveness of action (Neely et al., 1995). A PMS can be analyzed by
pp. 518-547 asking questions such as “What performance measures are used? What are they used
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
for? How much do they cost? And what benefit do they provide?” (Neely et al., 1995). To
DOI 10.1108/17410401211232957 address these questions PMS can be seen to comprise key performance indicators
(KPIs), which may be seen as a representative set of measures, and logically establish Supply chain
interrelationships among those measures. These KPIs comprise a set of both financial
and non-financial measures (Kaplan and Norton, 1992). Initially the literature
performance
emphasized financial measures such as profit, return on investment, productivity, sales measures
and efficiency, as the cost accounting and management control systems were designed
based on these measures (Nudurupati et al., 2011). However, due to the changes in the
world market during the late 1980s and early 90s many academicians and practitioners 519
began to diagnose the problems with the traditional financial measures, which are
internal and historical based (Dixon et al., 1990; Johnson and Kaplan, 1987; Kaplan and
Norton, 1992; Keegan et al., 1989; Neely et al., 1995; Nudurupati et al., 2011).
Commentators believe performance measures and metrics will facilitate a more
open and transparent communication between people, leading to a co-operative
supported work environment and hence improved organizational performance
(Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2007). However, design, implementation, and use of a set
of performance measures are not a one-time effort; a firm should install processes that
ensure continuous review of the system (Beamon, 1998; Bourne et al., 2000; Medori and
Steeple, 2000). Performance measures and metrics are not just measuring objectively
the performance; they are also embedded with politics, emotions and several other
behavioral issues (Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2007). Shepherd and Gunter (2006)
highlighted the contemporary performance measurement issues such as, the factors
influencing the successful implementation of performance measurement systems
(Bourne et al., 2000), the forces which shape the evolution of performance measurement
systems (Kennerley and Neely, 2000, Waggoner et al., 1999) and how to maintain
performance measurement systems over time so they remain aligned with dynamic
environments and changing strategies (Bourne et al., 2000; Kennerley and Neely, 2003).
PMS in the context of a supply chain becomes more important. Many organizations are
endeavoring to capture the benefits of shorter lead times, flexibility in production, first
mover advantages (shorter product development time) and win-win approaches. Chow
et al. (1994) were probably the first to attempt to define supply chain (logistics)
performance and they presented some measures for measuring logistics performance
(Chia et al., 2009). The supply chain definition broadened due to factors such as
developments in information systems and technologies, businesses becoming
increasingly boundary-less (Puigjaner and Lainez, 2008), increased challenges of
globalization, increased use of outsourcing, vendor managed inventory, advanced
planning systems (APS) and increased demands of integration (Meixell and Gargeya,
2005). A supply chain measurement system is seen to be more than a disparate
assortment of individual metrics. It has to be valid, robust, integrative, economical and
compatible (Caplice and Sheffi, 1994). Designing the supply chain performance
measurement system is a challenging task; it needs practical guidelines. Brewer and
Speh (2000) recommend the following amendments to the performance tools and
models across the supply chain to counter the following issues:
.
Overcoming mistrust. Traditional SCM practices have been adversarial. Trust in
data sharing, acquisition and monitoring needs to be built.
.
Lack of understanding. Multi-organizational measures are difficult to understand
for managers focused on internal systems.
.
Lack of control. Managers and organizations wish to be evaluated on measures
they can control. Inter-organizational measures are difficult to manage and thus
control.
IJPPM .
Different goals and objectives. Differing organizations have different goals and
61,5 thus would argue for differing measures.
.
Information systems. Most corporate information systems are incapable of
gathering non-traditional information relating to supply chain performance.
.
Lack of standardized performance measures. Agreed upon measures in terms of
units to use, structure, format, etc. may not exist.
520 .
Difficulty in linking measures to customer value. Linkage to stakeholder value
(expanding to environmental issues) is becoming more complex. The definition
of who the customer may be inside a supply chain also is not clear.
.
Deciding where to begin. Developing supply chain-wide performance is difficult
since it is not always clear where boundaries exist.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence of systematic empirical research on the

implementation of performance measurement systems (Bourne et al., 2000; Neely et al.,
2000; Nudurupati et al., 2011). Most of the academic literature and practitioner activity
has focused on the early stages of the development of the performance measurement
system, the conceptual frameworks and processes for designing the performance
measures. But only a few longitudinal studies of the implementation and continuous
updating of performance measurement systems are available (Bourne et al., 2000).
Therefore, implementation as well as using and updating performance measurement
systems has received attention only in recent years (Bititci et al., 2005; Bourne et al.,
2000; Kennerley and Neely, 2003; Nudurupati and Bititci, 2005; Nudurupati et al., 2011).
It was found that much of the criticisms on measurement systems designed to evaluate
the performance of supply chains, match with those in the wider performance
management literature (see Neely et al., 1995; Shepherd and Gunter, 2006). The issues
include:
.
lack of connection with strategy (Beamon, 1999; Chan and Qi, 2003; Gunasekaran
et al., 2004);
.
focus on cost to the detriment of non-cost indicators (Beamon, 1999; De Toni and
Tonchia, 2001);
.
lack of a balanced approach (Beamon, 1999; Chan, 2003);
.
insufficient focus on customers and competitors (Beamon, 1999);
.
loss of supply chain context, thus encouraging local optimization (Beamon,
1999); and
.
lack of system thinking (Chan, 2003; Chan and Qi, 2003).

However, researchers have addressed some criticisms such as implementation issues

in PMS (Micheli and Neely, 2010); and balanced scorecard (Thakkar et al., 2009,
Gunasekaran et al. (2001). But the current research has not adequately addressed a
range of potential issues (Shepherd and Gunter, 2006). These include:
. less attention on systematic collation of measures for evaluation of supply chain
performance;
.
lack of addressing the integration issues of modern manufacturing practices and
performance measurement systems;
 .
ongoing management of performance measurement systems, or the forces Supply chain
affecting their evolution over time (Waggoner et al., 1999; Kennerley and Neely,
2002, 2003);
performance
.
few empirical studies of the factors influencing the success or failure of attempts
measures
to implement performance measurement systems; and
.
need of international benchmarking of supply chain performance.
521
Interestingly, authors have found that in addition to the above-mentioned list, some
other issues such as those related to socio-environment, integration and KPIs play a
key role in the development of a supply chain performance system. The literature
supporting these findings is presented in section 2.

1.1 Supply chain performance: measures and metrics

The first universal performance measures that were used in supply chain performance
measurement were generated by Pittiglio, Rabin, Todd and McGrath, widely known as
PRTM (Wong and Wong, 2008). Interest in performance measurement and
management has notably increased in the last 20 years (Taticchi et al., 2010). The
effects of globalization, technology and the growing need for environmental
responsibility and sustainability is forcing organizations and individuals to make
changes in the way they live, work and play (Bititci et al., 2008). Hence, it is critical to
develop an efficient (efficiency is a measure of how economically the firm’s resources
are utilized when providing a given level of customer satisfaction Neely et al., 2005)
supply chain performance measurement system. However, monitoring and
improvement of performance of a supply chain has become an increasingly complex
task (Cai et al., 2009). Practitioners should know about what measures they should use?
When to use? How to analyze the performance of supply chain by using suitable
measures? The reason for this complexity is performance measures differ from context
to context. The notion of a “right supply chain strategy” cannot be generalized. There
has to be synchronization between supply chain strategy (such as risk hedging,
efficient, responsive and agile) and characteristics of the product (functional vs.
innovative). The issue gets further complicated when it comes to evaluating supply
chain strategy for different structures of supply chain (such as liner, network,
amorphous). This demands a critical evaluation of a supply chain performance
measurement system before it can be generalized for a given industry. Further, the
composition (right mix of measures) of the supply chain performance measurement
system will differ in relation to desired competencies (agility-adaptability-alignment)
of a supply chain. This justifies the importance of developing, and improving the
supply chain measures from time to time.
Selection of supply chain measures is critical because managers have to evaluate
supply chain on various aspects as a whole entity rather than on an individual basis.
Decision-makers in supply chains focus on developing measurement metrics for
evaluating performance (Beamon, 1999; Gunasekaran et al., 2004). Gunasekaran
et al.(2001) have provided an overview of the various performance metrics across the
supply chain and have described sources using these performance metrics.
Researchers have associated the supply chain performance with measures in the
following diverse ways:
.
qualitative or quantitative (Beamon, 1999; Chan, 2003);
.
cost and non-cost (Gunasekaran et al., 2001; De Toni and Tonchia, 2001);
IJPPM .
quality, cost, delivery and flexibility (Schönsleben, 2004);
61,5 .
cost, quality, resource utilization, flexibility, visibility, trust and innovativeness
(Chan, 2003);
. resources, outputs and flexibility (Beamon, 1999);
.
supply chain collaboration efficiency; coordination efficiency and configuration
522 (Hieber, 2002);
.
input, output and composite measures (Chan and Qi, 2003);
. strategic, operational or tactical focus (Gunasekaran et al., 2001);
.
supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model (plan, source, make, deliver and
return or customer satisfaction); whether they measure cost, time, quality,
flexibility and innovativeness; and, whether they were quantitative or qualitative
(Shepherd and Gunter, 2006);
.
modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply chains (Agarwal et al.,
2006);
.
key performance measures and metrics in supply chain (Gunasekaran and Kobu,
2007);
.
scorecard approach (Brewer and Speh, 2000, 2001; Bullinger et al., 2002);
.
tangible/intangible (Park et al., 2005; Saad and Patel, 2006);
.
sustainability/green (Clift, 2003; Hervani et al., 2005); and
.
financial/non-financial (Beamon and Balcik, 2008; Gunasekaran et al., 2004;
Gunasekaran et al., 2001).
However, there are a limited number of articles that deal with performance measures and
metrics in a supply chain environment (Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2007). According to
Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz (2008), the majority of supply chain measures are economic
and quantitative (cost, customer, responsiveness, and productivity) rather than
qualitative. From the analysis of Chow et al. (1994) practitioners have assigned less
benefits and measures at strategic level compared to operations and individual
processes. There are not many review articles on performance measures and metrics in
logistics and supply chain (Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2007). From the above highlighted
points, authors can conclude that researchers have perceived supply chain performance
from various perspectives. The researchers’ perspective is a unique view of what Supply
chain management (SCM) is about. Researchers’ perspective can be described in terms of
the perceived nature of the supply chain (Otto and Kotzab, 2003). According to the
authors’ perspective, supply chain performance can be divided into two categories:
(1) Supply chain measures and metrics.
(2) Enhancing the supply chain performance.
The detailed analysis of the above two categories will be discussed in section 2 and 3.
Rapidly changing global economic environment, green concepts and social
responsibility pressures from governments shows the significant need to raise
critical questions such as: Do organizations need different set of measures for both
responsive and efficient supply chains? Do environmental measures fit for existing
supply chain performance models? Do safety-related measures impact on supply chain
performance? Are management practices having an impact on supply chain
performance of organizations? What measures are needed for more sustainable supply Supply chain
chains? These questions motivate the authors to conduct a review on supply chain
performance measurement, which will help academicians and practitioners to
performance
understand the existing gaps in the literature. measures
The organization of the paper is as follows: section 2 describes the review
methodology, section 3 covers the literature review and research issues, section 4
contains findings and conclusions, and section 5 mentions the agenda for future 523
research and ends with a few important suggestions to contemporary researchers.

2. Review methodology
Keywords searches are employed to identify articles published between 2000 and 2011
in specific management databases such as ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus. Initial
key word searches are performed using terms such as “supply chain measurement”,
“supply chain performance”, “supply chain measures”, “supply chain metrics”. These
searches resulted in 220 articles in the ISI Web of knowledge and 103 articles in
Scopus. In total 323 articles were identified. Summary of the search results is shown in
Table I and the review methodology shown in Figure 1. In the identified articles a few
papers were found duplicated in these two databases and those papers were eliminated
and finally 270 articles resulted. Distribution of these articles with respect to journals is
given in Table II.
An analysis by year and approach of published articles is presented in Figures 2
and 3 respectively. The analysis shows notable growth in the number of articles
published from 2008 (Figure 2). Authors have suggested one of the reasons for this
spectacular growth is economic crisis during the last quarter of 2008 and the first
quarter of 2009 (Bénassy-Quéré et al., 2009). Drastic changes in exports and
fragmentation of supply chains during this period made researchers focus more on
supply chain performance issues. Researchers have used the survey approach more
than case study. Hence, there is low attention to the case study approach in supply
chain area (Figure 3). The 270 articles were further scrutinized based on authors’
perspective analysis on supply chain performance, which we have briefly introduced in
section 1. This includes enhancing the supply chain performance, and supply chain
measures and metrics. In enhancing the supply chain performance perspective, the
authors considered papers which focused on specific areas of the supply chain such as,
collaboration and trust, (Papakiriakopoulos and Pramatari, 2010; Panayides and Lun,
2009), integration (Fabbe-Costes and Jahre, 2008; Flynn et al., 2010), product variety
(Thonemann and Bradley, 2002); partnership (Ryu et al., 2009), organizational
structures (Kim, 2007), collaboration (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005), information
technology (Wu et al., 2006), system perspective (Chan and Qi, 2003), environmental
(Shaw et al., 2010), agile (Van Hoek et al., 2001) and risk (Srinivasan et al., 2011). While,
the supply chain measure and metrics perspective papers (Gunasekaran et al. 2001;
Otto and Kotzab, 2003; Shepherd and Gunter, 2006) focused on measures and metrics of

No. of articles
Database Keywords published
Table I.
ISI web of knowledge Supply chain: performance, metrics, measurement, metrics 220 Summary of database
Scopus Supply chain: performance, metrics, measurement, metrics 103 review (year 2000-2011)
IJPPM
61,5

524

Figure 1.
Research methodology

supply chain. The authors considered the articles focused on supply chain measures
and metrics. Further, in order to justify the analysis adopted for this extraction, we
offer the following reasons for selection criteria:
.
General issues of supply chain measures.
.
Supply chain measures for designing, implementing and monitoring of
measures.
.
Key Performance Indicators.
.
Approaches to supply chain measures.
.
Application of supply chain measures.

In summary, our argument is that papers, which extensively address the issue of
supply chain performance measurement and provides detailed key insights on the
issue and satisfy any of the above criteria are potential candidates for inclusion in this
 Supply chain
SL no. Journal name Count
performance
1 International Journal of Production Economics 31 measures
2 International Journal of Production Research 26
3 Journal of Operations Management 19
4 Industrial Management & Data Systems 15
5
6
Management Science
European Journal of Operational Research
10
9
525
7 Production Planning Control 10
8 SCM: An International Journal 48
9 International Journal of Physical Distrubution and Logistics 19
10 International Journal of Productivity and Performance Measurement 8
11 International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20
12 International Journal of Logistics Management 12 Table II.
13 Benchmarking: An International Journal 12 Distribution of articles
14 Others 31 with respect to journal
Total 270 wise

Figure 2.
Year wise representations
of articles

Figure 3.
Approach wise
representations of articles
IJPPM paper. This has helped in extracting the most relevant 28 articles from the pool of 270
articles for the scope and objectives of this paper. An analysis of the list of 270 articles
61,5 based on researcher’s categorization of topics is given in Appendix (Table AI).
The detailed classification of the final extracted papers (28) with respect to author,
title, approach and focus are shown in Table III.

526
3. Literature review
The 28 scrutinized papers and are viewed on the basis of three phases of the PMS
process as reported below:
(1) designing of measures;
(2) implementing of measures;
(3) monitoring of measures.

3.1 Designing of measures

In this phase, authors took in papers which were focused on development of
frameworks, conceptual models, classification of measures and supported theories, and
which focused on design of supply chain performance measures for improving overall
supply chain performance. In the literature, Kaplan and Norton’s (1992) original,
publication on the balanced score card (BSC) has been the most cited performance
measurement article for eight out of the last ten years and every year for the last seven
(Neely, 2005). This indicates the significance of balanced measurement of business
processes. Lapide (2000) focused importance on balanced score card, process
measurement and limiting of total metrics in the supply chain. Researchers have
acknowledged the importance of integrated metrics, because these metrics allow
management to assess the overall competitiveness of the supply chain and to
determine which internal improvement efforts produce the greatest impact on overall
competitiveness Lambert and Pohlen (2001). Hence, application of balanced score card
can be extended to develop integrated frameworks with supply chain operations
reference model (SCOR) for analyzing supply chain performance. For example,
Bullinger et al. (2002) discussed the integration of SCOR and balanced score card
measurement, and proposed a methodology integrating bottom-up and top-down
measures as a hybrid balanced measurement approach; and Thakkar et al. (2009)
proposed a SCOR-BSC framework for small and medium enterprises of supply chains.
In supply chain management Gunasekaran et al. (2001) probably made the first attempt
to classify the metrics into a balanced approach with respect to organization levels
(strategic-tactical-operational) and SCOR process stages (plan-source-make-deliver).
Further, Shepherd and Gunter (2006) classified metrics into cost, quality, time,
flexibility and qualitative versus quantitative with respect to SCOR process stages.
There are several metrics in the literature and in business organizations
recommended for use in measuring the performance of a supply chain management
(Gunasekaran et al., 2004; Gunasekaran and Kobu, 2007; Folan and Browne, 2005,
Fynes et al., 2005). A major challenge for many companies that are developing a
measurement process is limiting the number of measures (Lapide, 2000). Organizations
often find there is a lack of practical guidelines on how to develop KPIs (Chae, 2009).
Chae (2009) suggested guidelines for designing metrics and proposed key performance
metrics for the SCOR model. With this view Gunasekaran and Kobu (2007) have
 Approach Focus
SL no. Author Title F/T S R 1 2 3

1. Lapide (2000) True measures of supply chain performance U U

Gunasekaran et al. (2001) Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain
2. environment U U
3. Lambert and Pohlen (2001) Supply chain metrics U U
Bullinger et al. (2002) Analyzing supply chain performance using a
4. balanced measurement method U U
Otto and Kotzab (2003) Does supply chain management really pay? Six
perspectives to measure the performance of
5. managing a supply chain U U
Gunasekaran et al. (2004) A framework for supply chain performance
6. measurement U U U
Hervani et al. (2005) Performance measurement for green supply chain
7. management U U
Shepherd and Gunter (2006) Measuring supply chain performance: current
8. research and future directions U U
Yao and Liu (2006) An integrated approach for measuring supply chain
9. performance U U
Agarwal et al. (2006) Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile supply
10. chain: an ANP-based approach U U
Gunasekaran and Kobu (2007) Performance measures and metrics in logistics and
supply chain management: a review of recent
11. literature (1995-2004) for research and applications U
Bhagwat and Sharma (2007) Performance measurement of supply chain
12. management using the analytical hierarchy process U U
Gulledge and Chavusholu (2008) Automating the construction of supply chain key
13 performance indicators U U U
Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz (2008) Supply chain best practices – identification and
14. categorization of measures and benefits U U
Wong and Wong (2008) A review on benchmarking of supply chain
15. performance measures U U
(continued)
measures
performance

Comprehensive summary
Supply chain

and focus
author, title, approach
of articles with respect to
Table III.
527
 61,5

528
IJPPM

Table III.
Approach Focus
SL no. Author Title F/T S R 1 2 3

Martin and Patterson (2009) On measuring company performance within a

16. supply chain U U
Chae (2009) Developing key performance indicators for supply
17. chain: An industry perspective U U
Chia et al. (2009) Performance measurement in supply chain entities:
18. Balanced scorecard perspective U U
Cai et al. (2009) Improving supply chain performance management: a
systematic approach to analyzing iterative KPI
19. accomplishment U U
Thakkar et al. (2009) Supply chain performance measurement framework
20. for small and medium scale enterprises U U
Bhagwat and Sharma (2009) An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model for
performance measurement of supply chain
21. management U U
Akyuz and Erkan (2010) Supply chain performance measurement: a literature
22. review U U
Shaw et al. (2010) Developing environmental supply chain
23. performance measures U U
Lin and Li (2010) An integrated framework for supply chain
24. performance measurement using six-sigma metrics U U U
25. Zhang et al. (2011) A few measures for ensuring supply chain quality U U
Fabbe-Costes et al. (2011) Future sustainable supply chains: what should
26a organizations scan? U U
Olugu et al. (2011) Development of key performance measures for the
27. automobile green supply chain U U U
Mondragon et al. (2011) Measures for auditing performance and integration
28. in closed-loop supply chains U U
Notes: a This paper does not discuss any measures however inclusion is justified for its potential to support sustainability aspect in supply chain
performance measurement; F/T: Framework/Theory S: Survey R: Review; 1. Designing of measures; 2. Implementing of measures; 3. Improvement/
Monitoring of measures
analyzed and identified 27 key performance indicators from literature on the basis of Supply chain
the following criteria:
performance
.
balanced score card perspective;
measures
.
components of measures;
. location of measures in supply chain links;
.
decision levels; 529
.
nature of measures;
.
measurement base; and
. traditional vs modern measures.
However, Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz (2008) have found from their studies that current
performance approaches do not generally include social and environmental aspects and
are concentrated on economic aspects, not on sustainable aspects. Hervani et al.(2005)
listed environmental measures and provided an integrated framework of supply chain
management, environmental management, and performance management. However,
there is no ideal existing performance framework or environmental supply chain
performance measure (ESCP). Hence, an integrated framework could facilitate the
environmental supply chain benchmarking process Shaw et al. (2010).
The perspectives of measuring supply chain management have been extended from
BSC and SCOR to value and cost accounting. Lambert and Pohlen (2001) provided a
frame work which helps to develop the performance metrics in supply chain,
identifying those that translate into shareholder’s value. In their view, the overall
performance is determined by the increase in market capitalization for each firm in the
supply chain. From a cost accounting point of view Yao and Liu (2006) developed an
integrated framework of economic value added (EVA), balanced scorecard (BSC) and
activity-based costing (ABC) to measure supply chain performance. Further to these
perspectives, Otto and Kotzab (2003) proposed six perspectives of measuring supply
chain performance such as: system dynamics, operations research, logistics,
marketing, organization and strategy areas. These follow a particular set of goals,
which lead to particular set of metrics. Finally, Akyuz and Erkan (2010) conducted a
critical review in the domains of supply chain, information technology (IT), business
process management and performance management and brings forth the requirements
of performance measurement metrics in present era, which will help while designing
the metrics to encounter the issues related supply chain measures.

3.2 Implementing measures

In this phase, authors included papers which focused on empirical testing of
frameworks, survey and case study examples to understand the implementation issues
associated to supply chain performance measures. More research is needed to develop
supply chain metrics and to overcome the implementation barriers Lambert and
Pohlen (2001). Chia et al. (2009) tested empirically the BSC framework in the supply
chain by considering the 15 generic performance measures. Gunasekaran et al. (2004),
in their empirical study of a framework focused on classification of various supply
chain measures based on supply chain activities with respect to levels (strategic,
operational and tactical) of organization to address the authority and responsibility of
management at appropriate level.
IJPPM Prioritizing the measures and metrics in supply chain management is the key to the
success Gunasekeran and Kobu (2007). In the era of globalization it is critical to select
61,5 the right choice of performance metrics and measures. In this view, Analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) can be the best tool for decision makers that best suits their
understanding, prioritizing and choosing the best measure and metric for day-to-day
business operations. Bhagwat and Sharma (2007) developed a supply chain decision
530 making problem hierarchy (Goal as an overall supply chain performance; criteria as a
levels of organizations; alternatives as a BSC perspectives) by using AHP and obtained
data for the model with the help of a survey. Further to this, Bhagwat and Sharma
(2009) developed a combination of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and pre-emptive
goal programming (PGP) model by considering qualitative and quantitative measures
for optimizing supply chain performance. However, some state that AHP helps to
choose most suitable alternatives but it cannot capture interdependencies (Meade et al.,
1997; Meade and Sarkis, 1999). Hence, Agarwal et al. (2006) proposed a framework by
using three types of metrics such as, lean, agile and leagile with the help of analytic
network process (ANP), to support managers in making strategic decisions in supply
chains.
Application of management concepts such as six sigma, and E-business for
selecting the supply chain metrics were explained by Lin and Li (2010) and Gulledge
and Chavusholu (2008). Martin and Patterson (2009) identified cycle time and inventory
as the key performance measures to analyze the company performance in a supply
chain. However, continuous improvement of supply chain performance needs frequent
monitoring of these key performance measures (KPIs). Cai et al. (2009) explained how
to accomplish this for the iterative KPIs in supply chains with a cost transformation
matrix (PCTM).
With the advent of environmental concerns organizations have been redefining
their supply chain measurement process by selecting green measures. For example,
Olugu et al. (2011) explained green supply chain KPIs in the automobile industry for
both forward and backward chains. Mondragon et al. (2011) discussed the measures for
closed loop supply chains of both forward and backward directions for shorter life
cycle products.

3.3 Monitoring of measures

In this section, the authors considered articles that contributed particularly
pragmatic guidelines and benchmarking issues for monitoring of supply chain
performance as, it reveals the gap between planning and execution (implementing)
and helps companies to identify potential problems and areas for improvement
(Chae, 2009). Fabbe-Costes et al. (2011) discussed sustainability of supply chains
with the help of a scanning framework; it includes six levels such as, societal,
network, chain, firm, function, supply chain managers and people level. To ensure
supply chain quality and continuous improvement, Zhang et al. (2011) found that
supply chain co-ordination, technology application, risk management, and reliability
assurance are important performance measures. The success of the supply chain
depends on how we assess and monitor these measures. Benchmarking is one of the
best ways to assess these measures (Shah and Singh, 2000). The general
benchmarking process differs from supply chain benchmarking since performance
measures differ field to field. Insights of supply chain benchmarking such as,
problems, and tools to use benchmarking were discussed by Wong and Wong (2008)
and, also they explained the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) in Supply chain
supply chain benchmarking.
Selected noteworthy contributions delivering new approaches to measurement,
performance
including novel methodologies in the area of supply chain performance measurement, measures
are reported in Table IV.
The overall evaluation of the papers under these phases has helped the authors to
highlight the key research issues. These include a total 15 (RI1-RI15) research Issues 531
(RI) and a total 16 (RQ1-RQ13) research questions (RQ). These research issues and
questions are listed in Table V.

4. Findings and conclusion

Researchers’ focus on the domain of supply chain measures and metrics, improved
remarkably from the year 2000. Initially, attempts were applied to development of
integrated frameworks (Bullinger et al.(2002), with balanced scorecard, classifying
measures (Gunasekaran et al., 2001; Shepherd and Gunter, 2006); over time attention
moved to other areas namely, application of measures (Lin and Li, 2010),
identification of KPIs (Gunasekaran and Kobu (2007), Small and Medium scale
Enterprises (Thakkar et al., 2009) and measures for green supply chains (Hervani
et al.(2005). Unlike in pure management, this is not a paradigm shift from one era to
other; as it altogether depends on the researcher’s view towards supply chain
measures and application of their knowledge in this domain. Based on the review of
selected research papers, and taking into account the previous considerations of
Shepherd and Gunter (2006) Gunasekaran and Kobu (2007), and Akyuz and Erkan
(2010), the authors have provided a few insights for contemporary researchers in the
domain of supply chain measures and metrics, which are demanded for growth and
sustainability of organizations, in the present contemporary competitive
environment. These include:
(1) Extent to which organizations should identify the key performance indicators
(KPIs) in the following views:
.
Supply chain length (includes: parent organizations, suppliers, distributors,
logistic service providers).

Model/framework/methodology Author Year

Framework based on levels Gunasekaran et al. 2001

Using Six sigma metric Dasguptha.T 2003
Framework based on SCOR model Gunasekaran et al. 2004
SCOR with AHP model Haun et al. 2004
Taxonomy of measures Shepherd and Gunter 2006
KPIs identification Gunasekaran and Kobu 2007
Supply chain performance model using AHP Bhagawat and Sharma 2007
Supply chain performance model using BSC Bhagawat and Sharma 2007
i-SCOR Methodology Gulledge and Chavusholu 2008
SCOR-BSC framework for SMEs Thakkar et al. 2009 Table IV.
AHP with PGP model Bhagawat and Sharma 2009 Summarization of works
Integrated framework of SCM-ESCM Shaw et al. 2010 in supply chain measures
Integrated Six sigma and capability maturity model Lin and Li 2010 and metrics from
Scanning framework Fabbe-Costes et al. 2011 (2000-2011)
 61,5

532

questions
IJPPM

Table V.
Research issues and
Phases Representative articles Research issues Research question

Designing of Akyuz and Erkan (2010); Gunasekaran RI1: Lack of development of measures RQ1: Are existing measures for any
measures et al. (2001); Shaw et al. (2010); for cost effective responsive supply supply chain performance measurement
Mondragon et al. (2011), Gunasekaran chains system ample to audit the responsive
et al. (2004); Chia et al. (2009); RI2: Lack of development of key supply chains?
Gunasekaran and Kobu (2007); performance measures (KPM) in RQ2: Do organizations have different
Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz (2008); supplier development or partnership sets of measures for both responsive and
Bhagwat and Sharma (2007); Shepherd formation efficient supply chains?
and Gunter (2006) RI3: Absence of measures for lean RQ3: Are lean supply chain practices
international supply chains having impact on supply chain
RI4: Poor integration of environmental performance of organizations?
measures with existing supply chain RQ4: Do key performance measures
performance models address the performance issues with
RI5: Lack of common Measures regard to partnership formation in both
RI6: Lack of development of supply up and down streams of supply chains?
chain performance measures for RQ5: Do specific industry supply chain
different product life cycles measures address the supply chain
RI7: Lack of cross industry studies in performance of any industry?
supply chain performance area RQ6: Do environmental measures fit for
RI8: Lack of developing the measures for existing supply chain performance
sustainable supply chains models?
RQ7: Are existed performance measures
addressing the short and long product
life cycles’ supply chains
RQ8: Are sustainable supply chains
more needed for different sets of
measures than the existing measures?
(continued)
Phases Representative articles Research issues Research question

Implementing of Akyuz and Erkan (2010), Otto and RI9: Lack of validating the metrics in RQ9: Are organizations analyzing
measures Kotzab (2003); Shepherd and Gunter different approaches (system dynamics, supply chain performance on context
(2006); Olugu et al. (2011); Gunasekaran operations research, logistics, base?
and Kobu (2007); marketing, organization and strategy) RQ10: Do organizations adopt the
for different supply chains contexts distinct measures for various
RI10: Lack of empirical support for approaches?
validation of supply chain measures RQ11: Do organizations have
R11: Lack of addressing factors cognizance of the environmental
effecting success or failure of measures?
performance measurement system RQ12: Are organizations analyzing the
RI2: Less focus on empirical support of causes and effects on supply chain
environmental supply chain measures measures in changing environment?
RQ13: Do organizations comfy with the
results of green supply chain measures?
Monitoring of Shepherd and Gunter (2006); Wong and RI13: Lack of addressing the on-going RQ14: Are existed supply chain
measures Wong (2008); Akyuz and Erkan maintenance of supply chain performance measurement frameworks
(2010);Zhanga et al. (2011) performance measurement systems addressing the benchmarking issues of
RI14: Less focus on supply chain supply chains?
benchmarking RQ15: Are organizations having
RI15: Lack of addressing measures for sustainable benchmarking tools for their
progress and improvement of supply chains
integration RQ16: Do organizations have robust
measures for flexible integration of
supply chains?
measures
performance
Supply chain

Table V.
533
IJPPM .
Supply chain width (includes: Job type contractors/all contract works
providers).
61,5 .
Supply chain depth (includes: sub suppliers, sub retailers).
(2) Ability of metrics to handle supply chains for long and short product life cycles.
(3) Metrics should be classified based on push, pull and push-pull supply chains.
534 (4) Extent to which organizations understand the external forces and how they are
acting on their performance measurement system.
(5) Metrics and performance system/model should be mathematically valid.
(6) Cross functional fit of metrics across industries.
(7) Measures for addressing the continuous improvement of organizational
performance systems.
(8) Tailoring the measures for complex supply chain networks in present network
era.
(9) Ability of the organization to understand and respond to the rapidly changing
value addition curve.
(10) Ability of KPIs to handle assorted supply chain collaborations and
partnerships.
(11) Competitive environment demands empirical measures and case study
approaches for measuring the supply chain.
(12) Measures should be rigorously compliance.
(13) Concept of “sustainability” should understand in the context of supply chains.
(14) Extent to which organizations understand the impact of management practices
on supply chain performance.
(15) Identifying the effects of strategic, tactical and operational measures on overall
profitability of supply chain.
(16) Extent to which organizations classify the metrics based on long and short term
strategies of supply chains.
Over all, these insights enable organizations to make their supply chain performance
measurement systems more robust and flexible. Changes in global economic, social
and environmental conditions are increasing the occurrence of fragmented supply
chain networks. This induces organizations to focus on ongoing maintenance of supply
chain performance measurement systems.
This paper has analyzed the development of research on supply chain measures and
metrics over recent years by reviewing the articles published in the relevant
peer-reviewed international journals. Our prime goal has been to analyze the
researchers’ views towards supply chain performance over the years. In order to
support a detailed analysis of selected key articles, the authors have adopted a
deductive approach to decide about the inclusion or exclusion of the papers.
From the review it is very much important that the organization’s potential and
competence in supply chain management and their ability to go with the selected,
prescribed measures are closely related. An organization with less of supply chain
competence, adopting too advanced supply chain performance measures would
simply be taxing their resources (technology and people). This approach may show
some good research for the time being but may hamper the long term growth Supply chain
perspective of the organizations. On the other hand organizations adopting very
preliminary supply chain measures (cost, quality, time, flexibility) despite their due
performance
competence and potential clarity demonstrate their unwillingness to co operate in measures
the supply chain. This behavior has to be re advised or corrected using
reward/punishment measures.
535
5. Agenda for future research
Today, the competition is neither in between organizations nor supply chains.
Organizations are conceiving how unique we are in the market. This demands a
realistic assessment of strategic competence of the organization based on its
environment (political and social), expectations and technology. This directs the
organizations to create competitive advantage and value to customers. Performance
achievement is not a task, which will end once we achieve a particular goal. It is an
ongoing and never-ending process. The authors found that there is a large scope for
further research in the domain of supply chain measures and metrics. Specifically, this
should include development of metrics and measures for different structures of the
supply chain and understand the level of synchronization of supply chain activity with
the level of complexity in management of measures for each supply chain structure.
With this overall background, the authors have drawn a few implications for both
researchers and practitioners from this study. These are listed in Table VI.
To address the issues raised in this paper, a set of research questions are broadly
associated with five categories such as:
(1) characteristics of measures;
(2) use of management practices;
(3) integration and partnership;
(4) benchmarking; and
(5) socio-environmental aspects.
These objectives help to address the research questions raised in Table VI. RQ1, RQ2,
RQ5, RQ7, RQ8 and RQ12, and associated with the objective of characteristics of
measures. This objective addresses the issues such as standardization of measures,
developing performance indices for various (responsive/efficient) supply chains,
measures for sustainable supply chains. Though researchers (Gunasekaran and Kobu,
2007; Akyuz and Erkan, 2010) addressed the issues in supply chain performance
measures; there is a need for continuous monitoring of measures; as, these measures
are time- and economic-sensitive in nature. The authors’ found there is a need for
addressing issues such as: application, empirical evidence and synergies of
management concepts such as, knowledge management (KM), lean management,
business process reengineering (BPR), business process management (BPM) in supply
chain performance measurement system. Thus, RQ3, RQ9 and RQ10 are associated
with the use of management practices. Supply chains are becoming more widely
dispersed across the globe. However, supply chain integration remains just a dream for
many practicing supply chain managers, who are failing to simplify their value
streams to the detriment of themselves and their supply chain partners (Childerhouse
et al., 2011). RQ4 and RQ16 associated with the integration and partnership
measurement issues such as selection and managing of key performance measures in
IJPPM
Implications for contemporary
61,5 References researchers Implications for practitioners

El Saadany et al., 2011; Otto (i) Researchers should address (i) Influence of behavioral
and Kotzab (2003); which measures are more issues while establishing and
Gunasekaran and Kobu (2007); flexible with conventional cost implementing the key
536 Shepherd and Gunter (2006); accounting methods while performance measures and
Childerhouse et al. (2011); addressing environmental metrics are very high
Ramanathan et al. (2011); supply chain issues (ii) Intangibles measures can
Papakiriakopoulos and (ii) Researchers should develop be used at the higher level
Pramatari (2010); Simatupang a measurement index decision-making such as
and Sridharan (2005); (combinations of system strategic level, but the
Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz dynamics, operations research, tangibles measures can be
(2011); Jalalvand et al. (2011); logistics, marketing, used at the operational level
Slone et al. 2007 (HBR); Keebler organization and strategy decision-making. A mix of
and Plank (2009); Sundram et al. perspectives) for getting intangibles and tangibles can
(2011); Nudurupati et al. (2011); optimum supply chain be used at the tactical level
Gunasekaran et al. (2004); performance decision-making
Kannan and Tan (2005); Lee (iii) Need for metrics (iii) Organizations should
and Cheong (2011); Tate et al. standardization and conceive that supply chain
(2010) identification of key measures performance measures change
that could be shared between according to change of
supply chain partners competitive business strategy
(iv) Need of more empirical and technology
tests on effects of management (iv) Supply chain management
practices with combination of practices may affect the
supply chain management overall supply chain
practices performance
(v) Understand the synergies (v) Management information
between the various (Total system and change
quality management (TQM) management plays a
and knowledge management) significant role in the success
management practices of Performance measurement
(vi) Understand the cultural system
and behavioral issues that (vi) Integration of Just-in-Time
influence the application of ( JIT), TQM and SCM practices
TQM in SCM into operations strategy, the
(vii) Addressing the impacts of potential exists to add value
Performance measurement and to better position oneself
system (PMS), Management to respond to competitive
information system (MIS) and pressures
change management practices (vii) Removing internal
in multi- cultural boundaries along the supply
collaborations and networks chain
(viii) Researchers should focus (viii) Simplifying value
on inclusion of more streams along the supply
collaboration metrics and chain
validate them (ix) Success of collaboration
(ix) Addressing the supply may not depend on the degree
Table VI. chain integration issues of of collaboration, rather
Implications for industry wide and across the consistent intervention and
researchers and countries necessary changes are
practitioners (continued)
 Implications for contemporary
Supply chain
References researchers Implications for practitioners performance
(x) Researchers should focus required to improve the
measures
on case study approaches, performance of collaboration
where collaboration and (x) Incentive can be indirect
information sharing are the motivating factor for active 537
key components of business- involvement of supply chain
process management members in collaboration
(xi) Need to incorporate (xi) Supplier integration and
broader relationships such as customer integration are
manufacturers and important for cost reductions
distributors or manufacturers (xii) Process benchmarking
and logistics service providers and business stage
or distributors and logistics benchmarking provides detail
service providers and to information for managers to
analyze collaborations across evaluate their supply chains
different industries from supplier’s supplier to
(xii) Researchers should focus customer’s customer
on external benchmarking of (xiii) While benchmarking the
supply chains processes in supply chain,
(xiii) Understanding the managers should consider the
barriers for benchmarking in performance of supply chain
different industries. Need of members by considering the
addressing converting these context and context dynamics
barriers into enablers (ix) Top level executives
(xiv) Researchers should specifically ought to be able to
address the measures for list and explain the factors
benchmarking for developing affecting availability, working
countries capital, and cost; improvement
(xv) Researchers should of these areas helps to do
understand the relationship supply chain benchmarking
between environmental and best-practice analysis
management strategy and (x) Carbon footprint
level of green supplier measurement and evaluation
selections; environmental system helps to improve
management commitment and carbon and energy efficiencies
level of green procurement within the focal company and
while dealing with green along the supply chain
supply chain measures (xi) Companies should track
(xvi) Researchers focus on the carbon emissions to cope
identify and measure product with environmental challenges
levels’ carbon footprint of and pressures
different supply chains
(xvii) Researchers should
focus on longitudinal studies
for better understanding of
corporate social and
environmental responsibility Table VI.
IJPPM
SL no. Research questions Objectives
61,5
1 RQ1, RQ2, RQ5, RQ7, RQ8, To understand the characteristics of various supply chain
RQ12 measures in different approaches and environments
2 RQ3, RQ9, RQ10 To understand the impact of contemporary and contextual
manufacturing and management practices on supply chain
538 performance
3 RQ4, RQ16 To identify the critical success factors in supply chain
integration and partnership
4 RQ6, RQ14, RQ15 To develop benchmarks for various categories of performance
measures
Table VII. 5 RQ11, RQ13 To identify the role of socio-environmental measures in
Research objectives supply chain performance

dynamic supply chain environment to create win-win environment. RQ6, RQ14, and
RQ15 are associated with the objective of benchmarking issues. The global ecosystem
is witnessing a rigorous challenge in its economic sub-system as energy capacity and
waste disposal capability are approaching their limits (Solvang et al., 2006). Recently,
the focus on environmental management has shifted from operations internal to the
manufacturing companies or facilities, to the entire supply chain (Olugu et al., 2011).
With the advent of environmental concerns, RQ11 and RQ13 become associated with
the socio-environmental aspects. These objectives are listed in Table VII.

6. Suggestions to contemporary researchers

.
Researchers should include and analyze safety-related measures in supply
chains.
.
There is a need for longitudinal case study approach to understand the factors
affecting supply chain measures.
.
There is a need to understand the supply chain performance measurement
models behaviours’ in developing and developed countries.
.
Comparative analysis is needed of short vs long supply chains based on product
life cycles.
.
There is a need for development of supply chain measures, which can support
timely new product development in order to protect the organization against fall
in revenue and obsolescence of products and processes.
To this end, we will now go ahead with the objectives, which we discussed in the
previous section for more detailed analysis by developing propositions and a case
study approach. Subsequently we will refine and update our understanding.

References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2006), “Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile
supply chain: an ANP-based approach”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 173 No. 1, pp. 211-25.
Akyuz, G.A. and Erkan, T.E. (2010), “Supply chain performance measurement: a literature Supply chain
review”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 17, pp. 5137-55.
Beamon, B.M. (1998), “Supply chain design and analysis: models and methods”, International
performance
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 281-94. measures
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Measuring supply chain performance”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 Nos 3-4, pp. 275-92.
Beamon, B.M. and Balcik, B. (2008), “Performance measurement in humanitarian relief chains”, 539
The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 4-25.
Bénassy-Quéré, A., Decreux, Y., Fontagné, L. and Khoudour-Casteras, D. (2009), “Economic crisis
and global supply chains”, CEPII, working paper No. 2009-15, available at: [Link]/
anglaisgraph/workpap/summaries/2009/[Link]
Bhagwat, R. and Sharma, M.K. (2007), “Performance measurement of supply chain management
using analytical hierarchy process”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 18 No. 8,
pp. 666-80.
Bhagwat, R. and Sharma, M.K. (2009), “An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model for
performance measurement of supply chain management”, Production Planning and
Control, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 678-90.
Bititci, U., Cavalieri, S. and von Cieminski, G. (2005), “Implementation of performance
measurement systems: private and public sectors”, Production Planning and Control,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 99-100.
Bititci, U., Garengo, P., Dörfler, V. and Nudurpati, S. (2008), “Performance measurement:
questions for tomorrow”, SIOM Research Paper Series, 005, 27 October, available at: www.
[Link]/siom/research/researchpapers
Bititci, U.S., Turner, T. and Begemann, C. (2000), “Dynamics of performance measurement
systems”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 692-704.
Bourne, M., Mils, J., Wilcox, M., Neely, A. and Platts, K. (2000), “Designing, implementing and
updating performance measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 754-71.
Brewer, P. and Speh, T. (2000), “Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain
performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.W. (2001), “Adapting the balanced scorecard to supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-56.
Bullinger, H.R., Kuehner, M. and Hoof, A.V. (2002), “Analysing supply chain performance using a
balanced measurement method”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40
No. 15, pp. 3533-43.
Cai, J., Liu, X., Xiao, Z. and Liu, J. (2009), “Improving supply chain performance management: a
systematic approach to analyzing iterative KPI accomplishment”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 512-21.
Caplice, C. and Sheffi, Y. (1994), “A review and evaluation of logistics metrics”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 11-28.
Chae, B. (2009), “Developing key performance indicators for supply chain: an industry
perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 422-8.
Chan, F.T.S. (2003), “Performance measurement in a supply chain”, International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 534-48.
Chan, F.T.S. and Qi, H.J. (2003), “An innovative performance measurement method for supply
chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 Nos 3-4,
pp. 209-23.
IJPPM Chia, A., Goh, M. and Hum, S.H. (2009), “Performance measurement in supply chain entities:
balanced scorecard perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
61,5 Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 605-20.
Childerhouse, P., Deakins, E., Bøhme, T., Towill, D.R., Disney, S.M. and Banomyong, R. (2011),
“Supply chain integration: an international comparison of maturity”, Asia Pacific Journal
of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 531-52.
540 Chow, G., Heaver, T.D. and Henriksson, L.E. (1994), “Logistics performance: definition and
measurement”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 17-28.
Clift, R. (2003), “Metrics for supply chain sustainability”, Clean Technologies and Environmental
Policy, Vol. 5 Nos 3-4, pp. 240-7.
Cuthbertson, R. and Piotrowicz, W. (2008), “Supply chain best practices – identification and
categorization of measures and benefits”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 57 No. 5, pp. 389-404.
Cuthbertson, R. and Piotrowicz, W. (2011), “Performance measurement systems in supply chains:
a framework for contextual analysis”, International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 583-602.
Dasguptha, T. (2003), “Using the six-sigma metric to measure and improve the performance of a
supply chain”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 355-66.
De Toni, A. and Tonchia, S. (2001), “Performance measurement systems”, International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 46-70.
Dixon, J.R., Nanni, A.J. and Vollmann, T.E. (1990), The New Performance Challenge – Measuring
Operations for World-class Competition, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
El Saadany, A.M.A., Jaber, M.Y. and Bonney, M. (2011), “Environmental performance measures
for supply chains”, Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No. 11, pp. 1202-21.
Epstein, M.J. and Westbrook, R.A. (2001), “Linking actions to profits in strategic decision
making”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 39-49.
Fabbe-Costes, N. and Jahre, N. (2008), “Supply chain integration and performance: a review of the
evidence”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 130-54.
Fabbe-Costes, N., Roussat, C. and Colin, J. (2011), “Future sustainable supply chains: what should
companies scan?”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 228-52.
Fitzgerald, L., Johnston, R., Brignall, S., Silvestro, R. and Voss, C. (1991), Performance
Measurement in Service Business, CIMA, London.
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B. and Zhao, X. (2010), “The impact of supply chain integration on
performance: a contingency and configuration approach”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 58-71.
Folan, P. and Browne, J. (2005), “A review of performance measurement: towards performance
management”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 56 No. 7, pp. 663-80.
Fynes, B., Voss, C. and de Búrca, S. (2005), “The impact of supply chain relationship dynamics on
manufacturing performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 6-19.
Gulledge, T. and Chavusholu, T. (2008), “Automating the construction of supply chain key
performance indicators”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 6, pp. 750-74.
Gunasekaran, A. and Kobu, B. (2007), “Performance measures and metrics in logistics and
supply chain management: a review of recent literature (1995-2004) for research and
applications”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 2819-40.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGaughey, R.E. (2004), “A framework for supply chain Supply chain
performance measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3,
pp. 333-47. performance
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001), “Performance measures and metrics in a measures
supply chain environment”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 71-87.
Hervani, A.A., Helms, M.M. and Sarkis, J. (2005), “Performance measurement for green supply 541
chain management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 330-53.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. Jr and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting
the service profit chain to work”, Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 105-11.
Hieber, R. (2002), Supply Chain Management: A Collaborative Performance Measurement
Approach, Verlag der Fachvereine Hochschulverlag AG an der ETH Zurich, Zurich.
Huan, S.H., Sheoran, S.K. and Wang, G. (2004), “A review and analysis of supply chain
operations reference (SCOR) model”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 23-9.
Jalalvand, F., Teimoury, E., Makui, A., Aryanezhad, M.B. and Jolai, F. (2011), “A method to
compare supply chains of an industry”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 82-97.
Johnson, H.T. and Kaplan, R.S. (1987), Relevance Lost – The Rise and Fall of Management
Accounting, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
Kanji, G.K. (1998), “Measurement of business excellence”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 9
No. 7, pp. 633-43.
Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2005), “Just in time, total quality management, and supply chain
management: understanding their linkages and impact on business performance”,
OMEGA: Int. J. Mgmt. Sci., Vol. 33, pp. 153-62.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard – measures that drive
performance”, Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 71-9.
Keebler, J.S. and Plank, R.E. (2009), “Logistics performance measurement in the supply chain:
a benchmark”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 785-98.
Keegan, D.P., Eiler, R.G. and Jones, C. (1989), “Are your performance measures obsolete?”,
Management Accounting, Vol. 70 No. 12, pp. 45-50.
Kennerley, M.P. and Neely, A.D. (2000), “Performance measurement frameworks – a review”,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Performance Measurement, pp. 291-8.
Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2002), “A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of
performance measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 22 No. 11, pp. 1222-45.
Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2003), “Measuring performance in a changing business
environment”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 213-29.
Kim, S.W. (2007), “Organizational structures and the performance of supply chain management”,
Production Economics, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 323-45.
Lambert, D.M. and Pohlen, T.L. (2001), “Supply chain metrics”, The International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Lapide, L. (2000), “True measures of supply chain performance”, Supply Chain Management
Review, July/August, pp. 25-8.
Lee, K-H. and Cheong, I-M. (2011), “Measuring a carbon footprint and environmental practice:
the case of Hyundai Motors Co. (HMC)”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 111
No. 6, pp. 961-78.
IJPPM Lin, L.C. and Li, T.S. (2010), “An integrated framework for supply chain performance
management using the using six-sigma metrics”, Software Quality Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3,
61,5 pp. 387-406.
Martin, P.R. and Patterson, J.W. (2009), “On measuring company performance within a supply
chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 2449-60.
Meade, L. and Sarkis, J. (1999), “Analyzing organizational project alternatives for agile
542 manufacturing process: an analytical network approach”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 241-61.
Meade, L.M., Liles, D.H. and Sarkis, J. (1997), “Justifying strategic alliances and partnering:
a prerequisite for virtual enterprising”, Omega, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 29-42.
Medori, D. and Steeple, D. (2000), “A framework for auditing and enhancing performance
measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 520-33.
Meixell, M. and Gargeya, V.B. (2005), “Global supply chain design: a literature review and
critique”, Transportaion Research Part E, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 531-50.
Micheli, P. and Neely, A. (2010), “Performance measurement in the UK’s public sector: searching
for the golden thread”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 591-600.
Mondragon, A.E.C., Lalwani, C. and Mondragon, C.E.C. (2011), “Measures for auditing
performance and integration in closed-loop supply chains”, Supply chain Management:
An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 43-56.
Neely, A. (1999), “The performance measurement revolution: why now and what Next?”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 205-28.
Neely, A. (2005), “The evolution of performance measurement research: developments in the last
decade and a research agenda for the next”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1264-77.
Neely, A., Adams, C. and Crowe, P. (2001), “The performance prism in practice”, Measuring
Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 6-12.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (2005), “Performance measurement system design:
a literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1228-63.
Neely, A., Mills, J., Platts, K., Richards, H., Gregory, M., Bourne, M. and Kennerley, M. (2000),
“Performance measurement system design: developing and testing a process-based
approach”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 20
Nos 9-10, pp. 1119-45.
Neely, A.D., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design:
a literature review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Neely, A.D., Mills, J., Gregory, M., Richards, H., Platts, K. and Bourne, M. (1996), Getting the
Measure of Your Business, Findlay Publications, Horton Kirby.
Nudurupati, S.S. and Bititci, U.S. (2005), “Implementation and impact of IT-supported
performance measurement systems”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 152-62.
Nudurupati, S.S., Bititci, U.S., Kumar, V. and Chan, F.T.S. (2011), “State of the art literature
review on performance measurement”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 60
No. 2, pp. 279-90.
Olugu, E.U., Wong, K.Y. and Shaharoun, A.M. (2011), “Development of key performance
measures for the automobile green supply chain”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 567-79.
Otto, A. and Kotzab, H. (2003), “Does supply chain management really pay? Six perspectives to Supply chain
measure the performance of managing a supply chain”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 144 No. 2, pp. 306-20. performance
Panayides, P. and Lun, Y.H.V. (2009), “The impact of trust on innovativeness and supply chain measures
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Papakiriakopoulos, D. and Pramatari, K. (2010), “Collaborative performance measurement in
supply chain”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 110 No. 9, pp. 1297-318. 543
Park, J.H., Lee, J.K. and Yoo, J.S. (2005), “A framework for designing the balanced supply chain
scorecard”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 335-46.
Puigjaner, L. and Lainez, J.M. (2008), “Capturing dynamics in integrated supply chain
management”, Computers and Chemical Engineering, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 2582-605.
Ramanathan, U., Gunasekaran, A. and Subramanian, N. (2011), “Supply chain collaboration
performance metrics: a conceptual framework”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 856-72.
Ratnatunga, J., Gray, N. and Balachandran, K.R. (2004), “CEVITA: the valuation and reporting of
strategic capabilities”, Management Accounting Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-105.
Ryu, I., So, S. and Koo, C. (2009), “The role of partnership in supply chain performance”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 496-514.
Saad, M. and Patel, B. (2006), “An investigation of supply chain performance measurement in the
Indian automotive sector”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Nos 1/2,
pp. 36-53.
Schönsleben, P. (2004), Integral Logistics Management: Planning and Control of Comprehensive
Supply Chains, Auerbach Publications, Boca Raton, FL.
Shah, J. and Singh, N. (2000), “Benchmarking internal supply chain performance: development of
a framework”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 37-47.
Shaw, S., Grant, D.B. and Mangan, J. (2010), “Developing environmental supply chain
performance measures”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 320-39.
Shepherd, C. and Gunter, H. (2006), “Measuring supply chain performance: current research and
future directions”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 55 Nos 3/4, pp. 242-58.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2005), “Supply chain discontent”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 349-69.
Slone, R.E., Mentzer, J.T. and Dittmann, J.P. (2007), “Are you the weakest link in your company’s
supply chain?”, Harvard Business Review, September.
Solvang, W.D., Roman, E., Deng, Z. and Solvang, B. (2006), “A framework for holistic greening of
value chains: knowledge enterprise: intelligent strategies in product design,
manufacturing, and management”, International Federation for Information Processing
(IFIP), Vol. 207, pp. 350-5.
Srinivasan, M., Mukharjee, D. and Gaur, A. (2011), “Buyer-supplier partnership quality and
supply chain performance: moderating role of risks, and environmental uncertainty”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 260-71.
Sundram, V.P.K., Ibrahim, A.R. and Chandran Govindaraju, V.G.R. (2011), “Supply chain
management practices in the electronics industry in Malaysia: Consequences for supply
chain performance”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 834-55.
Tate, W.L., Ellram, L.M. and Kirchoff, J.F. (2010), “Corporate social responsibility reports:
a thematic analysis related to supply chain management”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 19-44.
IJPPM Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F. and Cagnazzo, L. (2010), “Performance measurement and management: a
literature review and a research agenda”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14 No. 1,
61,5 pp. 4-18.
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2009), “Supply chain performance measurement
framework for small and medium scale enterprises”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 702-23.
544 Thonemann, U.W. and Bradley, J.R. (2002), “The effect of product variety on supply-chain
performance”, European Journal of Operational Research, No. 143, pp. 548-69.
Van Hoek, R.I., Harrison, A. and Christopher, M. (2001), “Measuring agile capabilities in the
supply chain”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21
Nos 1/2, pp. 126-47.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986), “Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: a comparison of approaches”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 801-14.
Waggoner, D.B., Neely, A.D. and Kennerley, M.P. (1999), “The forces that shape organisational
performance measurement systems: an interdisciplinary review”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 60-61, pp. 53-60.
Wong, W.P. and Wong, K.Y. (2008), “A review on benchmarking of supply chain performance
measures”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-51.
Wu, F., Yeniyurt, S., kim, D. and Cayusgil, T. (2006), “The impact of information technology on
supply chain capabilities and firm performance: a resource-based view”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 493-504.
Yao, K. and Liu, C. (2006), “An integrated approach for measuring supply chain performance”,
Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, Vol. 2 No. 10, (Serial No. 17).
Zhang, L., Wang, S., Lic, F., Wange, H., Wange, L. and Tanf, W. (2011), “A few measures for
ensuring supply chain quality”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 1,
pp. 87-97.

About the authors

P.R.C. Gopal is a Research Scholar in the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management
at IIT Kharagpur. He did his MBA at National Institute of Technology (NIT) Warangal in 2008
and Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering in 2005 at Bapatla Engineering College, Acharya
Nagarjuna University, Andhra Pradesh. P.R.C. Gopal is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: prcgopal@[Link]
Jitesh Thakkar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Industrial Engineering and
Management at IIT Kharagpur. He obtained his doctoral degree in the area of Supply Chain
Management from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi in 2009. He did his [Link]. in
Industrial Engineering with 9.157 CGPA from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi and
Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering with Gold Medal from BVM Engineering College, SP
University, Gujarat. He is a recipient of award “Excellence in Teaching and Research (for Year
2007)” given by Charutar Vidya Mandal – a leading educational trust in Gujarat. He has 15
research publications in peer reviewed international journals like International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management, International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive
Advantage, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, International Journal of Innovation and Learning, etc.
 Years
Views 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Appendix
Measures and metrics 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 6 3 3 28
Enhancing the supply chain performance
Information system infrastructure 1 1
System thinking 1 1
Integration 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 13
Continuous improvement 1 1
Product 1 1 1 1 4
Agility 2 1 2
Hierarchical 2 1
Uncertainty 1 1
Forecasting 2 1 3
Optimization 1 1
Design 1 1 2 1 2 7
Information/IT 2 2 1 4 3 2 1 4 19
Process 2 3 1 6
Functional 1 1
Behavioral 2 1 1 1 5
TQM 1 1 2
Analytics 1 1 2
Strategic 1 1 2 1 1 6
Suppliers 1 3 4
Environmental 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 13
E-commerce 2 2
Decision 1 2 1 4
Manufacturing strategy 1 1
Qualitative 1 1
ROI 1 1
Dimensional 1 2 3
Relationships 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 5 3 3 22
Collaboration 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 15
Lean 1 1 2
(continued)
measures

respect to researchers’
performance
Supply chain

view
Summary of articles with
Table AI.
545
 61,5

546
IJPPM

Table AI.
Years
Views 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Operational 1 1 1 1 4
Quality 1 1 1 1 4
Transparency 1 2 3
E-business 1 1
SME’s 1 1 1 1 4
Network 1 1 5
Risk 1 1
Benchmarking 1 3 4
Management practices 1 1 1 1 1 5
Scheduling 1 1
Cultural 1 1 2
Technology 1 2 2 5
Analytics 1 1
Trust 1 1 2
Six-Sigma 1 1
Knowledge management 1 1
Change management 1 1
Crisis 1 1 2
Logistics 1 1 1 3
Value 1 1 1 3
Organization 1 1 2
Mechanism
Orientation 1 1
Time 1 1
Lead time 1 1 2 4
Sustainability 1 1
Service 2 1 1 4
NPV 1 1
Price 1 1
Coordination policies 1 1
Cost 1 1 1 3
Complexity 1 1 1 1 4
(continued)
 Years
Views 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Innovation 2 1 3
Elasticity 1 1
Decision support system 1 1
Role of PMs 1 1 2
ERP 1 1 1 3
Outsourcing 2 2
Social preferences 1 1
Human impact 1 1
Trans shipment 1 1
System disruptions 1 1
Firm cross functional orientation 1 1
Ethical responsibility 1 1
SC capabilities 1 1
Financial 1 1 2
SC practices 1 1 1
SCP implementation variables 1 1
measures
performance
Supply chain

Table AI.
547