849954 sisus

Although SCM and its managerial nature are an essential part of modern logistics
thinking, some critical notes have to be added (see also Essay 2). New and
Payne (1995) associate SCM with unhelpful research practices, because it has
some weaknesses: enough empirical evidence may not be found and the basis
may not be a relevant one to support the basic ideas firmly. As a result, a widelyaccepted
discipline can be harmful as it can be a ‘wisdom‘; the theory stipulates
the norms for analysis, defining what is a valid approach and what is not. According
to New and Payne, the domain is too broad and wide, and thus it reduces
the scholars’ ability to find out the real points: ‘it becomes less clear what
differentiates the subject as a distinctive field, and what constitutes valid research
questions and investigative strategies‘ (New and Payne 1995, 69). Moreover,
the use of SCM has an impact on the research strategies as well; the use
of deductive reasoning has guided the scholars in logistics, and the use of inductive
(or abductive) reasoning has not been in focus (as often in actor-based orientation;
compare to Fig. 1).
Supply chain thinking is mainly applicable for conditions in which a traditional
manufacturing industry is performed, and it is not so well suited for explaining
the regularities in service industry. Furthermore, the value creation logic in the
supply chain theory is problematic: value is created through sequential activities,
with interlinked, partly overlapping or extended value chains. It is evident is that
the relationships per se have value and the processes are more non-linear, parallel
and matrixed by nature.
In networks it is not often a question of how the firms operate, but rather how the
actors in a broad scope are involved in the network/net. This also means that
much of the interorganisational behaviour is as much interpersonal as based on
formal and rational decision-making across firm boundaries. Accordingly, the
question of a real win-win situation is problematic on a wide network level, as the
participants in the network tend to hide conflicts of interest, covering the deleterious
effects; however, the actors want to be involved in the network despite of
these constraints. In SCM the non-positive features of the relationhips are – if
not totally ignored – discussed in less detail. In general, the relevance of SCM is
poor in explaining the various elements of the ties (such like actor bonds) between
the network members.
SCM depicts a reality where one firm (actor) dominates over others in terms of
technological exellence, capabilities, power or size. This is not always adequate
in every network. SCM is a rough simplification of the reality; it has been typical
within SCM-based analysis that the multiphase, sequential processes are simplified
by means of concrete conceptualisation, which stems only from operational
11