Construct · 4 names · 4 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · one construct, sliced and renamed Nearest construct by meaningsupplycompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to supply chain integration is supply.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The degree to which a manufacturer strategically joins up its own internal functions and coordinates them with the processes of its suppliers and customers, partitioned by where the joining happens. Flynn, Huo, and Zhao's 2010 The impact of supply chain integration on performance separated internal integration, the collaboration of a firm's own departments into a synchronised whole, from external integration, which they split again into customer integration and supplier integration. This is one way of cutting a single underlying construct, strategic coordination with supply-chain partners; other traditions cut the same construct by direction along the chain, by the information that flows, or by the kind of tie involved, and a study that measures only one cut may miss what another calls by the same name.[1]
The same construct cut by direction and breadth: how widely a plant reaches upstream to its suppliers and downstream to its customers when it integrates activities such as shared planning, linked systems, and joint logistics. Frohlich and Westbrook's 2001 Arcs of integration measured supplier-side and customer-side integration as two spans and classified plants by the width of the arc they formed across both, finding the widest arcs tied to the strongest performance gains. Where the internal and external cut asks where integration sits relative to the firm's boundary, this tradition asks how far it extends in each direction along the chain; both name the one construct of coordinating with partners, so a result about a wide arc and a result about high external integration are describing overlapping ground under different labels.[2]
The same construct cut by its content, treating the substance of integration as the information that moves between partners and the systems that carry it. Prajogo and Olhager's 2012 study of supply chain integration and performance separated the technology and the sharing that let information flow between firms from the logistics integration of physical material handling, and set both within long-term relationships. Here the construct is operationalised as what is exchanged and how, rather than by locus or by direction; a firm can score high on information sharing yet low on a boundary-based measure, so reading this slice as the whole of integration, or as identical to the customer and supplier scales, mistakes one dimension of the construct for all of it.[3]
A synthesis that re-partitions the same construct once more, this time by the kind of bond between partners. Leuschner, Rogers, and Charvet's 2013 A meta-analysis of supply chain integration and firm performance gathered the scattered measures and grouped them into information integration, the sharing of data; operational integration, the joining of processes and activities; and relational integration, the trust and commitment in the relationship, and found all three positively related to performance. The grouping absorbs the information cut as one of its three types and shows that the internal, external, arc, and information labels are alternative slices of a single family rather than separate constructs; the meta-analysis exists because the literature had named the same thing so many ways that its results had to be re-coded to be compared.[4]
Next
See how supply chain integration sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct