Logistics and Supply Chain Management Practices - Coursework Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2014 Introduction The past 20th century indeed witnessed considerable supply chain expansions both locally and internationally. There is no dispute that logistics and supply chain practices play a key role in many businesses and have remained a pillar in a majority of businesses where the significance is felt far and wide. Throughout the world, businesses are becoming more and more reliant on the practices of logistics and supply chain to be in the same pace with the increasing demands of the world’s economy. While logistics put into emphasis the flow of goods from where that originates to the point of consumption, supply chain practices basically stress on the relationship between customers and suppliers through wholesalers, distributors and retailers. Using a flow of information and logistics activities that satisfy the customers and properly implementing better supply chain practices, there is compelling evidence that businesses create value and earn themselves a competitive advantage over others. While matters regarding logistics and supply chain practices have motivated not only practitioner but also the academic interest, the value of a critical analysis of the literature pertaining to logistics and supply chain practices remains fundamental and indispensable. In light of this, this particular paper offers a critical analysis while putting into focus the practices of logistics and supply chain practices and the literature pertaining to them. In the first part (part A), the paper provides a critical analysis on the recent literature review in logistics and supply chain management practices. However, in the next part (Part B), this paper critically analyses a journal titled “Relationships between quality of information sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry” by Ming Juan Ding, Ferry Jie, Kevin A Parton and Margaret Matanda. Part A A variety of subject literature has significantly contributed to the work pertaining to logistics and supply chain management practices from various perspectives. However, a look at the literature review pertaining to some of the supply chain practices occasionally highlights the need for a more rigorous research. Thus, developing an analysis of a literature review from a critical perspective becomes inevitable. The critical analysis in this part pertains to a literature review by albert park, Gaurav Nayyar and Patrick Low titled “Supply Chain Perspectives and Issues: A Literature Review” while attempting to understand the global value chains, this literature review highlights various aspects regarding the supply chain management practices. In fact, according to park et al (2013), continuous improvement remains a key issue. In the journal, park et al (2013) highlights how continuous improvement is crucial and how this is impacted upon by various factors. Actually, according to the journal, as productivity improvements take place and maintain the initial prevailing productivity, the decisions regarding the entire location are likely not to be tampered with. In a like manner, park et al (2013) points out how the captive chain linkages enhance rapid process as well as product upgrading while hindering the functional capability. In such situations, the buyers are presented as highly demanding of the low-capability suppliers, consequently investing much time monitoring or instructing the suppliers. While this argument holds true, the journal seems to have left out other important aspects, including details of costs and competition. It is irrefutable that conceptually, supply chain management is not entirely understood by a majority hence posing a myriad of challenges. The journal by park et al (2013) also stress on the value of leanness, where cost features prominently despite the fact that the journal does not give more details on the fixed costs and variable costs separately. Supply chain actually represents the central unit of a competitive analysis, where cost remains key. Most business put their focus in cutting down the cost of logistics and supply chain. However, In order to reduce on this cost, the principles of lean manufacturing to operations of logistics and supply chain need to be put in place, as also argued by Barrat (2014). Some of the products that are considered waste to the customer become inspected and eliminated. A case study is in the Automobile industry, where the Toyota Company actually became synonymous with lean production, hence termed Toyota Production System. Similarly, the production of the aircraft termed spitfire by the UK and the US automobile production followed suit. Within the supply chains, cycle time is considered full when a material has been entered to a chain of supply and delivered to the customer. Li et al (2005) agree with this and suggests a shorter time, the time Li et al (2005) refers to as dock-to-dock time. However, Researchers often come up with different things that Li et al (2005) considers waste to the customer, things such as waiting, overproduction, over processing and defects. A number of strategies have been put across to help in the continuous improvement for logistics and supply chain practices, where collaboration is one of them. Mena et al. (2009) however disagrees with this stating that there is limited practical research on the collaboration strategies beyond the dyadic point, hence there is no practical evidence supporting the benefits of collaboration. There is also no detailed framework and solid recommendations on how to integrate more on logistics and supply chain. Part B: A critical analysis Juan Ding Ming, Jie Ferry, Kevin A. Parton, Margaret J. Matanda, (2014),"Relationships between quality of information sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 25 Iss 1 pp. 85 – 108. "Relationships between quality of information sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry" is basically a journal written by Ding et al (2014). In this journal, Ding et al (2014) provide an analysis of the supply chain practices. Further, this particular journal analyzes the supply chain food quality performance indicator of the beef processing industry in Australia. To achieve this, the journal uses a developed conceptual model in the testing of the manner in which various supply chain practices, including strategic alliance, information sharing, information quality, customer focus, antecedent co-operative behaviour and information quality impact on the food quality. In their analysis, Ding et al (2014) conclude that particular aspects such as trust, information quality, commitment and strategic alliance indeed significantly affect food quality. In their work, Ding et al (2014) reach a consensus that strategic alliance is fundamental with regards to cost as well as the maintenance of operation effectiveness. They additionally claim that the perception of the mutual long-run goals is quite necessary in promoting trust and commitment. Consequently, they state that information quality and information sharing can be significantly improved by various innovative technology approaches. However, despite the praise by Ding et al (2014) on the supply chain practice relating to the beef industry, there are arguments pertaining to the limited research that has been conducted in the supply chains of agribusiness and to be specific the limited research in the beef industry. This implies that more research needs to be conducted in the field in order to increase insight on regarding such practices While putting the meat industry into perspective, this journal stresses that the red meat industry within Australia is mainly reliant on cattle and sheep which also doubles to make Australia the largest mutton (sheep meat) exporter and the second largest beef exporter globally. This journal has highlighted a fact that cannot be disputed. Actually, Wang & Lalwani (2007), the Australian meat industry is the fourth largest commodity earner in the Australian market. Regardless of this, there have been fluctuations in the market. Mena et al. (2009) indeed point to research that has indicated fluctuations as mainly mediated by fluctuations in the selling price of beef, a rise in transportation cost brought by oil price rising, an increase in the price of electricity and low utilization capacity as a result of a fall in demand and animals availability in a period of time. Besides, studies on the impact of supply chain have been conducted in the food industry particularly the meat industry. Ding et al (2014, pp.48-65) highlight that large supermarkets demanding low prices from those processing the meat are often the main customers to such firms. The analysis by Ding et al (2014) concerning big supermarkets forming the customer base for the meat products is however contestable as they are not the only major consumers of such products. In fact, Kwon & Rowley, 2009, pp.106-124) argue that the customer base involves both small and medium beef enterprises. While discussing strategic alliance, Ding et al (2014) emphasize that strategic alliance leverages on both strategic as well as operational capabilities within organizations to assist in the achievement of significant continuous benefits. Thus, according to the journal, Strategic alliance seems to be the first supply chain practice that has an impact in the managing of the Australian chain of supply. Neureuther &Kenyon (2008, pp.48-65) also seems to concur while arguing that Strategic alliance ensures that firms collaborate and interact when buying and supplying to have an outcome that benefits both the suppliers and the customers. With such kind of relationship, the market is expected to be competitive (Gimenaz & Lourenco, 2008, pp. 309-343). This is also affirmed by Ding (2014) who claims that the aim of strategic alliance is to help organizations participating in the strategic and working activities to achieve important benefits on the run. Actually, what ensures that there is a competitive advantage between suppliers and customers as well as what ensures that value is created in the market is the tactical alliance between logistics service providers, the suppliers, customers and the manufacturers. Barret (2004) however states that for strategic alliance to occur two categories are formed. First is an internal collaboration with customers and suppliers which he calls vertical collaboration. The second is horizontal collaboration which is usually between competitors and non-competitors.While the journal by Ding et al (2014) journal stresses that the red meat industry makes Australia to be among the largest meat exporters globally, a review of the different sectors of strategic supplier partnership highlights that different components contribute to the importance of the beef industry in Australia. Such components include high communication levels between producers and processers of cattle, coordination, trust, interdependence, long term commitment, problem solving and resolutions in conflict and integrative cooperative relationships. Sherphard &Gunte (2006, pp.242-158) argues that such a relationship can be through consistent improvements and effectiveness when it comes to supplier partnerships. Customer focus is highlighted by Ding et al (2014) as a significant challenge. This is actually one of those factors that a business cannot do without and a factor that cannot be underrated at any particular time. Melville & Ramirez (2008) actually argue that it is important to both stakeholders and customers since it maintains, establishes, enhances and at times terminates the relationships existing. However, maintaining a strong customer focus is a major challenge to various organizations. This is a point also supported by Melville & Ramirez (2008) who argue that it is a challenge in the meat industry to provide the diverse customers with consistent service. As such, Melville & Ramirez (2008) recommend customer relationship management (CRM) since it helps organization in achieving consistency. This is however not easy; usually it is a big challenge as pointed out by Ding et al (2004, p.25). This is attributed to the fact that business has to go through the process of knowing what the customers require, a process that requires customers information. This can be costly since it requires information technology systems to help in the process of keeping the customers information updated to the business. Ding et al (2014) has also expounded on information sharing. It is unquestionable that through information sharing of their strategies and operating information, participants in the chains of supply achieve a higher collaborative behaviour. The process of supply chain becomes efficient and cost effective since this practice allows companies to access and share information down the chains of supply. Melville & Ramirez (2008) argue that the use of internet benefits management since it improves the process of supply chains, although this seems costly as also argued by Li et al (2005). Ding et al (2014) has highlighted Information quality as a serious issue. Although this practice is important, it depends on some factors. Li et al (2005) argue that it relies on the quality of information that has been shared. Timelessness, accuracy and proper information formatting thus significantly determine the quality of information. Many researchers have also support the role of the four determinants of information quality. The effectiveness of any operation is usually determined by factors such as delayed or inaccurate information. Thus, in the beef industry, there needs to be accuracy, credibility and adequacy in information between makers and processors. Study indeed shows that reliability, accuracy, timelessness and credibility are among the criteria used in measuring information quality. For instance in case there is accuracy, reliability and completeness with no delay from the producers to wholesalers, the quality of the beef will have a positive impact. Wholesalers then deliver to the market the products of high quality. According to Li et al (2005), this proves that the quality of information can either positively or negatively impact on the chain of performance in this industries process. Lean system has also been mentioned by Ding et al (2014). The logic behind this practice is to use few inputs to produce outputs relating to the systems of mass production offering a choice to the final consumer. According to Jie & Parton (2009), customer value is usually optimized while wastes in the production line eliminated. It saves on costs and productive working relationships. It saves on time development while cutting costs in the costs of manufacturing and distribution. This reduces the levels of risks while increasing flexibility. The food industry considers it an important element. However Barrat (2004) explains that adopting this practice is not easy despite it increasing profitability. Barrat (2004) through an analysis on the chain value of food in relation to lean thinking in the UK meat industry, showed the collaboration of different chains supporting the performance. According to Ding et al (2014), the performance of the food supply chain in the manufacturing process of Australian market depends on the quality of food. With regards to this, Attributes like the quality of food, efficiency, flexibility and responsiveness all influence the competitive advantage of the beef processors. The reason for choosing the quality of food as the measurement indicator of performance is that in Australia food quality and the safety of the welfare of animals are key performance indicators in red meat chains in Australia. Arguments are that maintaining high quality in food is important in the performance of the supply chain. Attributes like integrity, shelf life and safety are related to the quality of food. Research regarding risk free strategies relating to the chain of meat highlights a number of strategies. Such a strategy includes fully integrating a system of assurance. According to Ding et al (2014), flexibility is a significant measurement of food quality. Thus, Ding et al (2014) seem to stress the significance of flexibility with the idea that quality of the food should be able to adapt to different environments either from the domestic or international markets. In addition, Ding et al (2014) claims that the extent to which information that is critical is communicated to ones partner of supply chain is a significant measure. In this case, Ding et al (2014) cites the elements of the quality of sharing information to include timelessness, adequacy, accuracy and the credibility of the flow of information being exchanged. On the other hand, it is a noteworthy aspect that the other measurement of quality is the effectiveness on the management of risk by minimizing the risks exposed to the chains of supply. Indeed more often than not there are overlooked risks. The journal by Ding et al (2014) has highlighted the importance of the performance indicator. Performance actually has an influence on the producer’s competitive advantage. Mena et al ( 2009) seem to support this while emphasizing that what needs to be done by beef processors is to build competencies focusing on the requirements of the customers by having the right quality of beef and making sure that the beef is delivered in a qualitative manner likely to satisfy the customer. However, such a feat may be achieved by rapidly responding to the customers’ demands in a manner that is professional. Also, as discussed by Ding et al (2014), trust remains a key factor that contributes to the performance indicator. The argument by Ding et al (2014) is justifiable since given the fact that all partnerships at work are affected by trust. In their work, Wang & Lalwani (2007) also stress that through trust, beef enterprises in Australia have been able to share information in a valuable manner while also devoting their resources and time to understanding the business of fellow partners and in the end achieving results that if otherwise done individually would not have achieved Conclusion It is evident that the significance of incorporating logistics and supply chain management in the business has been widely written about in many a literature. It is also evident that customer focus, strategic alliance, information quality, information sharing, antecedent corporate behaviour and lean system are some of the supply chain practices given priority in businesses. A critical analysis of the literature review has thus presented valuable insight in the matters regarding works relating to particular supply chain practices. According to the journal by Ding et al (2014), different components contribute to the importance of the beef industry in Australia, including high communication levels between producers and processers of cattle, coordination, trust, interdependence, long term commitment, problem solving and resolutions in conflict and integrative cooperative relationships. Despite the common consensus that such facts remain indisputable, a critical analysis of this particular journal reveals some loopholes including the fact that limited research has been conducted in the supply chains of agribusiness and especially in the beef industry Bibliography Barratt, M., 2004, “Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 30-42. Ding, M. et al, 2014, “Relationships between quality of information sharing and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry.” International Journal of Logistics Management. 2, p.25. Jie, F. & Parton, K.,2009, “The need for improved skills in the Australian meat industry”, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 257-269 Kwon, S. et al, 2009, “The Purchasing Performance of Organizations Using e-Marketplaces.” British Journal of Management. 20, 106-124. Li, S. et al, 2005, “Development and validation of a measurement instrument for studying supply chain management practices”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 618-641. Melville, N & Ramirez, R., 2008, “Information technology innovation diffusion: an information requirements paradigm.” Information Systems Journal. 18, 247-273. Mena, C. et al, 2009, “A comparison of inter- and intra-organizational relationships: two case studies from UK food and drink industry”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 39 No. 9, pp. 762-784. Neureuther, B. & Kenyon, G., 2008, “The Impact of Information Technologies on the US Beef Industry's Supply Chain.” International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management. 1, 48-65 Park, A. et al, 2013, “Supply Chain Perspectives and Issues: A Literature Review” Fung Gobal Institute and World Trade Organization. Philip, L. & Cesar R., 2008, “Building collaborative agri-food supply chains: The challenge of relationship development in the Scottish red meat chain.” British Food Journal. 110, 395-411. Shepherd, C. & 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. 242-158. Wang, Y. & Lalwani, C.,2007, “Using e-business to enable customised logistics sustainability”,The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 402-419. Read More