Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services: Mohua Banerjee, Manit Mishra

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jretconser
Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business

intelligence perspective
Mohua Banerjee a,n, Manit Mishra b
a
b
International Management Institute IMI Kolkata 2/4C, Judges Court Rd, Alipore, Kolkata 700027, West Bengal, India
International Management Institute IMI Bhubaneswar Gothapatna, Bhubaneswar 751003, Odisha, India
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 9 December 2014
Received in revised form
21 September 2015
Accepted 25 September 2015
The study surveyed executives of a major food retailer in India and explored their perspectives on supply
chain management practices, competitive advantage and rm performance; to assess the importance
accorded to application of business intelligence (BI) in their operations. Nine dimensions for SCM
practices and four dimensions for competitive advantage are identied which are found to strongly relate
to each other. The dimensions of SCM also strongly relate to rm performance. Though information
sharing with suppliers and their inclusion in strategic decision-making emerge as key dimensions of
SCM, their impact on competitive advantage is perceived to be insignicant by retailers.
& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Supply chain management
Business intelligence
Emerging market
Food retailer
Competitive advantage
Firm performance
1. Introduction
The understanding and execution of supply chain management
(SCM) practices have a key role for an organization in staying
competitive and for enhancing protability in the increasingly
competitive global marketplace (Childhouse and Towill, 2003).
Existing literature consistently uses terms such as supplier integration, supply base management, synchronization, partnerships
and supply chain management to dene elements of this management viewpoint (Tan et al., 1998; La Londe and Masters, 1994).
The concept and practice of SCM has received increasing attention
amongst business managers, consultants and academicians
(Hamister, 2012). The implementation of SCM practices is not
conned to manufacturing rms only (Li et al., 2006), it has spread
its wings in the retail sector also (Randall et al., 2011). In the
modern and competitive retail environment, SCM is the key to
success and survival (Arnold, 2002; Ganesan et al., 2009). Previous
studies have identied several antecedents and consequences of
SCM practices in numerous contexts. Though the Supply-Chain
Council has developed a supply-chain operations reference model
as a cross-industry standard for supply chain management, it does
not describe specic activities and practices and its impact on rm
performance.
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: m.banerjee@imi-k.edu.in (M. Banerjee),
manit.mishra@imibh.edu.in (M. Mishra).
One important problem of managing SCM practice is handling

the huge amount of information regarding its members (e.g.
manufacturers, distributors, sales agents, retailers) and therefore
coordinating their current business. SCM is inuenced by the information associated with each business, where the several interactions between the business processes may be coordinated
and the product ows can be continually supervised (Filos and
Banahan, 2000). Yet as organizations rely more heavily on information, its usage in an efcient and effective manner becomes
tough. Rather than assisting an organization's core objective of
taking swift and responsive decisions, more information hampers
the process. In this perspective, the business intelligence (BI)
paradigm has been introduced. BI is dened as the process of
procuring digital information regarding the entire organization
so that it may be used for providing competitive advantage
(Malhotra, 2000). BI is an important component for effective
supply chain management practice (Rabelo et al., 2002). In SCM
context, BI entails the extent and nature of information sharing.
As an emerging market India has occupied 20th position in the
Global Retail Development Index (Kearney, 2014) and remained a
high-potential market with accelerated retail growth of 14% to 15%
expected over 2015 as per the previous Global Retail Development
Index (Kearney, 2013). The Indian retail market is broadly classied as unorganized/traditional retail which is made up of open
bazaars/haats' and corner stores called kiranas', and organized/
modern retail, which resembles the modern Western-style supermarkets and department stores. Modern retail is limited to 8%
in 2014 (Kearney, 2014). Among other factors, expensive supply
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009
0969-6989/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Banerjee, M., Mishra, M., Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.09.009i
M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()
chain has been identied as a concern for modern retailers. It is a

necessity for Indian retailers to focus on factors and strategies that
will aid them in gaining competitive advantage (Singh et al., 2010)
and they are now concentrating on improving operations and
back-end processes to increase protability (Kearney, 2014).
There has not been any signicant study on supply chain
practices in India (Austin, 1990) and till recent times supply chain
practices in India exhibit inadequate visibility (Srivastava, 2006). A
study of the forms and dynamics of the dispersion of modern food
retail in India has traced the phenomenon since the 1960s and
identied domestic capital investment, early diversication into
small formats and early penetration into tier-two, tier-three cities
and rural areas, as factors that have facilitated the growth (Reardon and Minten, 2011). As modern retail is an emerging phenomenon in India, there has been no ofcial statistics based on
comprehensive inventory of sales of modern or traditional retailers available for their study; hence the form of their data is
small samples and more on the lines of business case study research to extract an overall image of the phenomenon. Researchers
have focused on demand side effectiveness and studies have
monitored the factors that affect non-vegetarian food consumption behavior among consumers in the state of Odisha (India)
where organized retailing is in its early stages (Kumar and Kapoor,
2014); buying behavior of consumers with respect to food and
grocery items (Ali et al., 2010). A study of SCM practices in the
Indian industry encompassing diverse segments such as agro
products, automotive, chemicals/fertilizers, computer hardware,
etc., along with retail, has recommended aligning supply chain
strategy with business strategy, streamlining processes for supply
chain integration, forming partnerships for minimizing inventory
and focusing on infrastructure and technology deployment for
building India-specic supply chains (Sahay and Mohan, 2003).
Researchers aiming to identify structural and relational factors
that inuence the upstream channel management of organized
retailers in India have identied government regulations, informational transparency, and long-term orientation fostering
trust between channel partners leading to collaborative partnerships as key factors (Dabas et al., 2010). However researchers have
not focused on the aspect of retailers developing their supply side
efciencies through BI implementation, though the studies suggest that managers and executives should devote sufcient
thought to implementing a policy of information sharing in the
process of SCM execution and to augment the specic competitive
strengths of the organization (Pandey et al., 2010).
This research is a survey initiative to study contemporary SCM
practices in the Indian retail context and in particular, the extent
and nature of information sharing among retail channel members
for enabling BI usage. The study also relates the dimensions of SCM
practices to the retail rm's competitive advantage and rm performance. The survey respondents were managers and executives
of a food chain retailer with operations mostly conned to eastern
and southern India.
The subsequent section examines existing literature in the
global as well as the Indian supply chain management context. In
the succeeding sections the research constructs are dened,
characteristics of the respondents are described and the survey
methodology is provided. It is followed by an analysis of the
results and concluded with the managerial implications of the
study.
2. Supply chain management dened

SCM is dened as identifying the strategic nature of coordination within a specic organization and across trading partners
within the supply chain for the purpose of improving an individual
organization's performance and the performance of the whole

supply chain (Li et al., 2006). It encompasses all activities related
to design, developing, synthesis, establishment and control of
supply chains (Chan and Qi, 2003). Each linkage in a supply chain
signies a relationship between a specic customer and a specic
supplier; purpose of this association being to provide delivery
requirements of the immediate customer and subsequently to
replicate the practice throughout the supply chain for the benet
of the end consumer (Towers and Burnes, 2008). In the existing
research studies the concept of SCM has been studied from two
separate perspectives: purchasing and supply management, and
transportation and logistics management (Tan et al., 1998). As per
the purchasing and supply management perspective, SCM is dened by the integration of supply base that developed from the
traditional procuring and materials functions (Baneld, 1999).
From the perspective of transportation and logistics management,
SCM is dened by the integrated logistics systems and thus focuses
on inventory reduction, spanning both within and across the organizations that are part of the supply chain (Rudberg and Olhager, 2003). In due course the philosophy of SCM developed and
combined into a collective body of knowledge that incorporated
the entire gamut of value-adding activities of the manufacturers
and logistics providers (Tan, 2001).
It is recognized that since SCM has rm-level consequences, it
is necessary to measure the effects of SCM practices on an organization's performance measures (Green et al., 2006). The issue
pertaining to which dimensions are specically related to SCM
practice and nally to a rm's overall performance has largely
gone unnoticed (Mentzer et al., 2004). Challenges exist in terms of
identifying appropriate performance measures for the analysis of
the supply chain (Akyuz and Erkan, 2010). Past studies (Li et al.,
2006) have reported the impact of SCM practice on salient constructs like rm performance and competitive advantages. Their
study has identied strategic supplier partnership, customer relationship, level of information sharing, quality of information
sharing and postponement to represent SCM practices. Ganesan
et al. (2009) examined how retailers are considering factors beyond their organizational limits to improve and leverage the
competencies of their supply chain partners to create greater value
and competitive advantages. They identied three trends that affect retail supply chains: global sourcing practices, multichannel
route to market and relationship-based innovation. Moberg et al.
(2002) identied both the quality and quantity aspects of information sharing as important aspects for effective SCM practices
and have treated both constructs as independent. In their study on
relationships among supply chain practices, competitive advantage and organizational performance, Singh et al. (2010) included in their list of SCM practices: technology use, SC speed,
customer satisfaction, supply chain integration and inventory
management.
In the developed markets, the growth of value/discount retailers has led to a fundamental transition in marketplace power
from manufacturers to retailers (Arnold, 2002; Srinivasan, 2004).
With the evolution of power on the demand side, it has become
important to understand SCM from a retail perspective (Davies,
2009). Retail SCM (R-SCM) has received inadequate coverage in
retailing journals (Randall et al., 2011). The articles that are
available on retail SCM incline to be focused on particular aspects
only, e.g. dealing with traditional inter-rm relationship issues
inclusive of power (Bloom and Perry, 2001), partnering (Mentzer
et al., 2004), co-ordination (Ingene and Parry, 2000), conict
management (Bradford et al., 2004), guaranteed prot margin
programs (Lee and Rhee, 2008) and automatic replenishment
(Levy and Grewal, 2000). This single-point focus of retail research
is predictable and has its reasons. Rather than develop as a holistic
research domain, retail SCM research has been an off-shoot of
research on other critical areas like manufacturing and distribution, and consumer product marketing.
3. Business intelligence and decision making in supply chain

management
In an emerging and rapidly changing business environment,
organizations that have the competency to leverage information
about their customers, marketplace and business operations will
be able to benet from the business opportunities and achieve
sustained competitive advantage (Berson et al., 2002). Firms need
to essentially examine accurate and timely information in a scenario where global markets are getting increasingly competitive,
consumers and market places are exhibiting greater volatility and
product life cycles are gradually shortening (Gangadharan and
Swamy, 2004). For monitoring activities and assessing performance of a rm's business processes, the rm needs access to
information and also an effective data management mechanism.
The information systems collect and process enormous data in
various forms in the rms and understanding and assessing the
information about the processes of an organization becomes a
challenging proposition. BI encompasses an extensive range of
analytical software and solutions for gathering, consolidating,
analyzing and providing access to information in a manner that is
expected to facilitate an enterprise's employees make better decisions (Adelman et al., 2002).
If a rm faces no problem with data and the business operates
smoothly and data is available to relevant executives as per their
need, then the rm does not need BI (Whitehorn and Whitehorn,
1999). However when an organization is growing and the number
of customers is consistently increasing, then there emerges a need
to understand the reports in order to monitor the trends, market
potentials, growth segments and customer behavior changes. For
forecasting trends and forming strategies, analysis of cross-tabulated data is essential. BI decision support applications facilitate
many such multi-dimensional analysis like online analytical processing (OLAP), click-stream analysis, balanced scorecard preparation, visualization, querying, reporting and charting, data
mining for text content and voice, forecasting, geospatial analysis,
enterprise portal implementation, knowledge management, digital dashboard access and other cross-functional activities. In essence, the purpose of investing in BI is to transform a rm from a
reactive-to-data environment to one that is pro-active.
However it cannot be ignored that though more retailers in
India today are focusing on major investments in their organizations, retail businesses in India are still striving to achieve competitive advantage. While the aforesaid review highlights the
benets of BI applications in businesses, it also makes vitally obvious that businesses must rstly have access to the right information at the right time before it can be put to effective usage
through BI. Availability of timely and accurate information is crucial to a rm's ability to leverage it using BI for gaining protable
insights in business. This context provides the impetus for the
present study to examine the extent to which retail rms in India
collect and integrate relevant information, so that they can subsequently leverage the information through BI implementation in
their SCM practices.
4. Supply chain management in the context of India's retail

environment
Strong microeconomic conditions including a 5% GDP growth
rate, higher disposal incomes and rapid urbanization are the
causes favoring the growth in Indian retail environment (Kearney,
2013). India not only has the highest number of retail outlets per
person (7 per thousand), but also registers the highest density of
retail outlets in the world with more than 15 million outlets as
compared to 900,000 in America (Halepete and Iyer, 2008). Indian
retail sector contributes to 22% of India's GDP. The government of
India currently allows 51% (from 0%) and 100% (from 51%) foreign
direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand and single brand retail respectively. These changes in FDI regulations are attracting foreign
retailers and accelerating the growth in the Indian retail sector. To
maintain this growth and reap the benets of the reformed FDI
policy, Government of India has taken cognizance of the role of
retail infrastructure, including supply chain. Indian supply chain
suffers from poor infrastructure and consequently the Indian
government has mandated that half of the total FDI investment in
Indian retailing must be allotted for the back-end infrastructure
that includes the supply chain.
In India, presently low protability, high overheads and inadequate investment in technology are the constraints of modern
retail. Modern retail sector is not optimally using information that
is being collected by prevailing information technology (IT) systems. Current strategies are based on intuitive approaches as the
data generated in the different systems within an organization
lacks integration and therefore making predictions on customers'
future behavior, demand forecast, or gaining insights on the dynamics of market shifts becomes challenging. Quality analytics is
possible by using effective data warehousing, data mining and
business intelligence applications, and retailers are exploring
technology-based solutions to analyze structured data from different applications spanning operations like strategic sourcing,
procurement, logistics and warehousing, merchandising and promotion, shelf-space management, customer service, back-end
process, sales and marketing process, and nancial management.
They are also contemplating analysis of unstructured data from
social networks like Facebook, Twitter, Google, web logs, mobile
devices, etc.
Indian retail practitioners have established a retail SCM subdiscipline with earmarked careers and annual professional conferences (e.g. India Retail Forum, East India Retail Summit, India
Shopping Centre Forum) but SCM researchers have taken awhile to
address the retailer-centric business model and there is an insufcient number of studies that address SCM issues, capabilities
and outcomes (Defee et al., 2009) and business intelligence integration in SCM processes. The aforesaid literature has examined
SCM practices from different perspectives and this knowledge gap
is unanticipated in the context of the critical nature of SCM to
success in the context of Indian retail (Brown et al., 2005; Ganesan
et al., 2009).This gap is the basis of the motivation to develop the
following objectives of this study: to explore retail SCM practice in
India with a special focus on the extent and nature of information
sharing that enables BI; and relate these SCM practices to the retail
rm's performance.
5. Research constructs
5.1. SCM practices
Previous research has dened SCM practice as a set of activities
undertaken in an organization for promotion of effective management of its supply chain. Existing studies conducted predominantly in the USA have indicated possible dimensions of SCM
practices. Alvarado and Kotzab (2001) in their study of SCM
practices have included concentration on core competencies, use
of inter organizational systems such as EDI, and elimination of
excess inventory levels by postponing customization towards the
end of the supply chain. Li et al. (2006) have identied strategic
supplier partnership, customer relationship, level of information

sharing, level of information quality and postponement as factors
to measure SCM practices. Tan et al. (2002) studied the prevalent
supply chain management and supplier evaluation practices and
found supply chain integration, information sharing, supply chain
characteristics, customer service management, geographical
proximity and JIT capability as the six constructs of SCM practices.
With an underlying common goal of eventually improving a rm's
performance, existing literature describes SCM practices from a
range of different dimensions. A detailed discussion of the possible
dimensions that could emerge in this study of SCM practices in
Indian retail has been provided below.
Organizations that strategically align to each other can eliminate wasteful time and effort by working closely together (Balsmeier and Voisin, 1996). When organizations enter into strategic
partnerships with suppliers, they are in a position to work more
effectively with a limited number of key suppliers who are
agreeable to share the responsibility of the product's success (Li
et al., 2006). An effective supply partnership is a critical element of
a successful supply chain (Noble, 1997). The long term relationship
that exists between an organization and its suppliers identies a
strategic supplier relationship.
Relationship management with customers is becoming fundamental for an organization's survival with the transition into a
period of mass customization and personalized service (Wines,
1996). An organization can differentiate its product from its
competitors' offering, maintain customer loyalty and increase the
value it provides to its customers by maintaining a good customer
relationship (Magretta, 1998). Dedicated relationships pose an
intrinsic barrier to competition and hence provide the most sustainable advantage (Day, 2000). The entire gamut of practices that
an organization employs in order to improve customer satisfaction, handle customer complaints and build long-term relationships with customers describes its customer relationship (Claycomb et al., 1999).
The degree to which the success of an individual organization
in a supply chain relationship is dependent on the activities of the
other organizations indicates their interdependence (Larson,
1992). Interdependence between the organizations comprising a
supply chain facilitates cooperation. Cooperation between suppliers and customers in a relationship is an important attribute
(Pilling and Zhang, 1992). An integrated suppliercustomer relationship exhibits exibility between the two organizations
(Dahlstrom et al., 1996). Integration within the supply chain takes
into account the role of inter-organizational systems. Modern and
rened information systems connect separate organizations (Samli
et al., 1998). IT can be used effectively for promoting integration
between organizations such as groups of suppliers and customers
that are organized into networks. Companies that operate their
SCM processes as an integrated system rather than optimized
functional sub-systems gain cost benets (Stock et al., 2000). To
compete effectively, supply chains act as a cohesive entity and
modify from a group of unrelated units to an asset of units that act
as a productive enterprise.
Sharing a certain level of trust simplies information sharing
between involved partners and helps in maintaining long term
relationships. This results in improvement in knowledge management and overall benets to the organization (Grifth et al.,
2006). Involvement of customers during the early stages results in
an effective supply chain (Divett et al., 2003). The identication of
additional supply chain amongst the suppliers, customers and
buyers and their early involvement during the product/service
design stage (concurrent engineering) helps in reduction of lead
time (Celtek and Kaynak, 1999). Strategically selecting the suppliers and aligning the purchasing function with the organization's
strategic orientation, keeping the long term issues of the
organization in mind, and providing adequate knowledge of the

organization's strategic goal to the suppliers help an organization
achieve competitive advantage (Chen and Paulraj, 2004a, 2004b).
The extent to which the supply chain is either focused or distributed geographically most likely has a major effect on the decision making authority and coordination within the organization
(Stock et al., 2000). Coordination of the supply chain is required in
the physical movement of products from one location to another.
Greater distances and a wider range of locations separating the
constituents of the supply chain is therefore likely to have signicant consequences for the management of the supply chain
(Stock et al., 2000). The extent to which the units in an organization's supply chain including suppliers, production facilities,
distributors and customers are located across a range of geographic regions indicate its geographical proximity. An organization with high geographic dispersion would show a low proportion of supply chain units within an individual geographic area; on
the other hand low geographic dispersion would reveal a high
proportion of supply chain units within one area and low proportions in other areas.
From a supply chain perspective, inventory levels should be
optimized, because maintenance of inventory is expensive and
poses problems (Piplani and Fu, 2005). Inventory cost is measured
in terms of the cost associated with management of inventory in
stocks and loss of sales due to shortage of inventory accounting for
lost sales (Agarwal and Shanker, 2002). JIT purchasing does not
mean pushing back inventories on suppliers (Adair-Heeley, 1988);
rather it emphasizes reduction in inventory levels throughout the
supply chain. JIT is the capability of an organization to directly link
its supply strategy to the organization's overall strategy by
agreements that strengthen buyersupplier cooperation (Polakoff,
1992). For utilizing a JIT system, shorter delivery times are mandatory and point-of-sales data are essential to know which products require prompt replenishment.
The level of communication of proprietary and important information to one's supply chain partners (quantity aspect) denotes
the level of information sharing (Monczka et al., 1998). It is possible for supply chain partners who on a regular basis exchange
information, to work as a single entity. Together they can comprehend the needs of the end customer better and this enables
them to respond to market changes quicker (Stein and Sweat,
1998). Information sharing builds trust among channel members
(Henriott, 1999). It also offsets the risks pertaining to market and
demand uncertainty and enables reduction in the bullwhip effect
(Yu et al., 2001). Functional silos that exist within a company affect
the ow of materials and information in the same manner as
multi-rms do in the supply chain (Chandra and Kumar, 2000).
Effective usage of pertinent and timely information by all the
functional elements within a supply chain can be used as a distinguishing factor to build competitive advantage (Tompkins and
Ang, 1999; Jones, 1998; Novack et al., 1995).
It has been observed that several organizations have an intrinsic
reluctance to provide information beyond the minimal requirement
since information disclosure is taken as a loss of power (Berry et al.,
1994). The impact of the quality of information sharing on SCM
depends on what type of information is shared, with whom it is
shared, and when and how it is shared (Chizzo, 1998; Holmberg,
2000). Ensuring the quality of the shared information becomes a
critical aspect of effective SCM (Feldmann and Mller, 2003). The
accuracy, timeliness, adequacy and credibility of the exchanged
information affect the quality of the information that is shared
(Moberg et al., 2002; Monczka et al., 1998).
However despite the signicance and theoretical development
of SCM, in the Indian context there is inadequate research on how
Indian retailers/SCM practitioners assess their suppliers, dene
and implement SCM practices and how these practices impact
rm performance. Also, there is insufcient mention of the importance to the retailer, regarding the level and quality of information sharing among the retail channel partners that consequently enables their BI systems. This research investigates these
issues to evaluate their relevance for Indian retailers based on
empirical data collected from an Indian organized food retailer. For
the purpose of this study, by discussions with Indian managers
operating in corporate ofce and in stores, and with store executives, along with reviewing and combining the existing literature,
36 SCM practices have been identied (Appendix, Section I). These
included practices related to management issues of supply and
product management, relationship with their customers, information sharing, technology sharing, geographical location and
capability issues of partners in the supply chain.
Objectives (a) and (b) were achieved by using exploratory

factor analysis (EFA). Objectives (c) and (d) were attained through
determination of bivariate correlations.
5.2. Competitive advantage
6.2. Respondent's prole
Empirical literature is replete with factors like price/cost,

quality, delivery and exibility as possible dimensions of competitive competencies (Skinner, 1985; Roth and Miller, 1990). In describing a research framework for competitive competencies
Koufteros et al. (1997) have proposed competitive pricing, premium pricing, value to customer quality, dependable delivery and
production innovation. Competitive advantage refers to the level
to which an organization can create a secure position over its
competitors (McGinnis and Vallopra, 1999). It consists of competencies that allow an organization to differentiate itself from its
competitors and is an outcome of certain critical management
decisions (Tracey et al., 1999). Based on deliberations with Indian
retail practitioners and review of the existing literature, a total of
16 items for related to price/cost, quality, delivery dependability,
product innovation and time to market have been considered for
this study (Appendix, Section II).
Modern retail is still an emerging phenomenon in India and so

this study is an attempt to derive a general impression of the
supply chain management practices and its relevance from the BI
perspective, of a particular retailer on the lines of business case
study research. For the study a specic retailer with operations in
eastern, southern and a recent foray in northern India has been
chosen. The retail business is a part of the Business Conglomerate's
Rs.15,000 crore businesses in eastern India, and has 127 stores in
2014 out of which 33 are hypermarkets with store size in excess of
20,000 ft2 and employs more than 7,000 people. The retailer has
been operating with the supermarket format since 2001 and has
achieved several awards (Most Admired Food and Grocery Retailer
of the Year Award for Largest Expansion, Highest Trading Density,
and Same Store Sales Growth 2014; Best Visual Merchandising and
Retail Design in the category Hypermarket [ 415,000 ft2] 2014;
Most Admired Retail Company of the Year (East India) at the East
India Retail Summit 2013, etc.). The retailer has recently hired the
services of Boston Consulting Group to enhance processes and
capabilities such as space management and analytics in order to
grow the business at a faster pace and become competitive. Hence
a detailed understanding of the retailer's SCM practices including
the extent and nature of information sharing the rm undertakes
that enables BI systems, and relating these SCM practices to the
rm's performance forms the basis of this study. A survey questionnaire has been used as a primary instrument to collect information. The study proposed 500 executives as respondents
with random sampling. A snowball sampling process was used.
The randomness of the sample was protected by ensuring that the
choice of each sampling unit was not preconceived and that each
sampling unit was selected independent of the selection of any
other sampling unit. The proposed sample size is justied on the
basis of minimum requirements of statistical tools to be used in
the study. The questionnaire was sent to the Indian food chain
retail CEO operating in eastern and southern regions of India, in
convenience, supermarket and hypermarket format. He forwarded
the questionnaire to their professionals (executive directors, general managers, deputy managers and store executives) operating
in the supply management, transportation, logistics and IT functions in eastern and southern India. The reason for this approach is
that mid-level managers were hesitant to provide information for
the survey as they were indecisive in determining what information was condential to their business and what could be shared.
The CEO was proactive in his role and as an initiator of the organization-building process, had his focus on understanding the
concerns existing within the supply chain. He was forthcoming in
using his authority to direct the appropriate personnel to make
available specic information for the survey. Respondents were
asked to indicate the activities included as part of their rm's
supply chain management efforts. 481 responses were received for
5.3. Firm performance

While the short-term objectives of SCM are primarily to reduce
inventory and cycle time, and increase productivity, the long-term
objectives are to increase market share and prots for all units
comprising the supply chain (Tan et al., 1998). Past studies indicate
that nancial metrics have been used as tools for comparing organizations and assessing an organization's performance (Holmberg,
2000). Financial performance measures are more likely to reect a
rm's evaluation by factors external to the rm. Firm performance
denotes to what extent the organization attains its market-oriented
goals as well as its nancial goals (Yamin et al., 1999). Organizational performance is improved by any organizational initiative
undertaken on its SCM. Previous studies have proposed rm performance using both nancial and market criteria, including return
on investment, market share, prot margin on sales, growth of ROI,
growth of sales, market share and competitive position (Vickery
et al., 1999; Stock et al., 2000). Based on the existing literature and
insights from senior managers a total of seven dimensions are
considered for this study (Appendix, Section III).
6. Research methodology
6.1. Objectives
The study endeavored to explore the constructs of SCM, competitive advantage and rm performance in Indian conditions. The
objectives of the study are as follows:
(1) To identify the underlying dimensions of the constructs: SCM
practices and competitive advantage.
(2) To determine importance of sharing information with suppliers as an SCM practice among food retailers.
(3) To assess the relationship between the constructs of SCM
practices and competitive advantage; and, SCM practices and
rm performance.
Hypotheses 1 and Hypotheses 2 have been formulated to
attain the objective.
(4) To assess retail executives' perspective on whether BI can
enable the SCM practices of the company to contribute towards competitive advantage.
supply chain management practices, competitive advantage and

organizational performance.
7. Statistical analysis
7.1. Hypotheses
In order to fulll the objectives of the study, following hypotheses were formulated and put to test:
H1. : There is a signicant relationship between the constructs of
SCM practices and competitive advantage.
H2. : There is a signicant relationship between the constructs of
SCM practices and rm performance.
7.2. Item generation

The item generation for the three constructs relied on both
popular and theoretical notions. In exploratory research, a convenience sample of 20 retail practitioners and academicians in the
eld of retail SCM was asked to describe in an open-ended format
the key aspects of SCM practices, competitive advantage and rm
performance. Frequently mentioned descriptions were converted
into items. Another source of items was adaptation from earlier
studies in which these constructs have been used (see Li et al.,
2006; Day, 2000; Yu et al., 2001; Feldmann and Mller, 2003;
Stock et al., 2000; Grifth et al., 2006; Piplani and Fu, 2005;
McGinnis and Vallopra, 1999; Holmberg, 2000). The process led to
identication of 36 items for SCM practices, 16 items for competitive advantage and seven items for rm performance. A Likert
scale format was used for all items with response categories ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), for SCM
Table 1
Exploratory factor analysis of supply chain management practices items.
# Factor (Variance explained)/Item
Factor
1
Supply chain characteristics (42.5%)

1 We work on suppliers' on-time delivery directly to our points of use.
2 We communicate our future strategic needs to our suppliers.
3 We work on creating a greater level of trust among supply chain members.
4 We work on locating closer to our customers.
5 We work on identifying additional supply chain.
6 We participate in the marketing efforts of our customers.
Level of information sharing (8.85%)
1 Our trading partners keep us fully informed about issues that affect our business.
2 Our trading partners share business knowledge of core business processes with us.
3 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is reliable.
4 We inform trading partners in advance of changing needs.
5 We and our trading partners exchange information that helps establishment of business planning.
6 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is adequate.
7 We and our trading partners keep each other informed about events or changes that may affect the other
partners.
Customer relationship (7.6%)
1 We frequently measure and evaluate customer satisfaction.
2 We facilitate customers' ability to seek assistance from us.
3 We frequently interact with customers to set reliability, responsiveness and other standards for us.
4 We frequently determine future customer expectations.
5 We periodically evaluate the importance of our relationship with our customers.
Supply chain integration (5.3%)
1 We reduce response time across the supply chain.
2 We work on improving integration activities across supply chain.
3 We work on creating a compatible communication/information system.
4 We search for new ways to integrate SCM activities.
5 We work on establishing more frequent contact with supply chain members.
Quality of information sharing (5%)
1 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is accurate.
2 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is timely.
3 Information exchange between our trading partners and us is complete.
4 We regularly solve problems jointly with our suppliers.
JIT capabilities (4.1%)
1 We aid our suppliers to increase their JIT capabilities.
2 We require suppliers to locate closer to our rm.
3 We work on increasing our rm's JIT capabilities.
Inclusion in strategic decision making (3.8%)
1 We include our key suppliers in our planning and goal-setting activities.
2 We have continuous improvement programs that include our key suppliers.
Involvement in product quality & development (3.4%)
1 We consider quality as our number one criterion in selecting suppliers.
2 We have helped our suppliers to improve their product quality.
Mutual trustworthiness (2.9%)
1 Our trading partners share proprietary information with us.
2 We actively involve our key suppliers in new product development processes.
.855
.809
.809
.732
.697
.552
.749
.731
.662
.637
.566
.562
.508
.873
.856
.855
.777
.497
.811
.791
.715
.674
.565
.733
.704
.693
.565
.793
.679
.563
.771
.763
.798
.668
.558
.516
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 13 iterations.
practices and competitive advantage. For rm's overall performance, the response categories ranged from signicant decrease
(1) to signicant increase (7).
Table 2
Exploratory factor analysis of competitive advantage items.
# Factor (Variance explained)/Item
7.3. Factor analysis

Exploratory factor analysis was carried out on the data obtained in order to identify the underlying dimensions. Exploratory
factor analysis is considered to be a valuable tool for carrying out
an empirical examination of constructs to support a priori models
that are based on theoretical deduction. A principle components
analysis with varimax rotation was used to obtain the factors and
enable explanation of the factor matrix. The eigenvalue criteria
was used to extract the factors and conclude the number of dimensions in each construct. A high value of KMO measure of
sampling adequacy and existence of substantial correlation as indicated by a signicant value of Bartlett's test of sphericity allowed
factor analysis of the data.
7.3.1. SCM practices
Principal component analysis with eigenvalues greater than
one was used to extract factors. A total of nine factors have been
extracted (Table 1). The rst factor (labelled supply chain characteristics) represents the various characteristics of a retail supply
chain essential to gain competitive advantage. The second factor
(labelled level of information sharing) concerns the importance
given to mutual sharing of information in terms of urgency and
adequacy. The third factor (labelled customer relationship) depicts the signicance being given to proactively nurture a relationship with customers so as to execute a backward ow of
information essential for generating a customer-centric supply
chain. The fourth factor (labelled supply chain integration) represents the cohesiveness between organizations which reects in
their coordinated endeavors. The fth factor (labelled quality of
information sharing) is concerned with the exhaustiveness and
accuracy of the information sharing between channel partners.
The sixth factor (labelled just-in-time capabilities) reects the
importance being given to inventory management through developing a zero-inventory capability. The seventh factor (labelled
inclusion in strategic decision making) is concerned with an
inclusive effort towards attainment of goals, as opposed to separate efforts. The eighth factor (labelled involvement in product
quality and development) represents specically the joint efforts
towards selling quality products and making a sustained effort
towards developing products to keep pace with emerging customer needs. The ninth and last factor (labelled mutual trustworthiness) represents willingness to share critical information
with channel partner which symbolizes trust. The factors together
accounted for 83.3% of the variance in the data. The factor loadings
range from a low of 0.497 to a high of 0.873.
The nine factors extracted from the data mostly correspond to
the elements of supply chain management practices noted in
construct denition. Even as the review of literature suggested
geographical proximity to emerge as a key dimension, the technological progress and consequent attening of the world of
supply chain seems to have made geographical closeness
irrelevant.
7.3.2. Competitive advantage
The 16 items scale operationalizing competitive advantage
generated four dimensions (Table 2). The rst factor (labelled
accessibility) reects how approachable a retail outlet is due to
convenient location and competitive prices. The second factor
(labelled product) is concerned with the various functional aspects of the product assortment available at a retail outlet. The
third factor (labelled service) represents the timely delivery of
Factor
1
Accessibility (41.2%)
1 We offer competitive prices.
2 We are able to offer prices as low or lower than
our competitors.
3 We are able to compete based on locality.
Product (17.7%)
1 We offer products that are highly reliable.
2 We offer products that are very durable.
3 We offer high quality products to our customers.
4 We deliver the kind of products needed.
Service (8.8%)
1 We deliver customer order on time.
2 We provide dependable delivery.
Customer centricity (7.6%)
1 We provide customized products.
2 We alter our product offerings to meet client
needs.
3 We respond well to customer demand for new
features.
4 We deliver product to market quickly.
5 We are rst in the market in introducing new
products.
6 We have time-to-market lower than industry
average.
7 We have fast product development.
.803
.781
.737
.768
.846
.754
.408
.864
.729
.600
.728
.706
.767
.844
.877
.873
Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with

Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.
products in acceptable condition. The fourth factor (labelled

customer centricity) is concerned with the proactive behavior on
the part of retailer to meet customer needs protably. The four
factors extracted collectively explain 75.2% of the variance in the
data. The factor loadings range from a low of 0.408 to a high of
0.877. The four factors extracted correspond to the elements of
competitive advantage elucidated upon in the section on construct
denition.
7.4. Reliability analysis
The reliability of the scales for SCM practices, competitive advantage and rm performance were evaluated using Cronbach's
alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Coefcient alpha was calculated separately
for the factors and for the entire scale (Table 3).
The reliability scores were found to be acceptable for all the
scales and sub-scales (Nunnally, 1988), except the mutual trustworthiness sub-scale of supply chain management practices scale.
However, considering the high level of reliability of the scale
measuring the constructs of SCM practices, no change was made to
the scale.
7.5. Bivariate correlation
Bivariate correlation analysis was used to study the relations
between the factors extracted from supply chain management
practices and competitive advantage; and, supply chain management factors and rm performance parameters. A signicant and
strong relationship between the factors would indicate an association that deserves attention on the part of retailers.
7.5.1. SCM factors and competitive advantage factors
The SCM factors of supply chain characteristics, customer relationship and inclusion in strategic decision making have an unequivocally signicant impact on all components of competitive
Table 3
Reliability assessment.
Supply chain management practices scale
#
Scale
Reliability
1
Supply chain characteristics
2
Level of information sharing
3
Customer relationship
4
Supply chain integration
5
Quality of information sharing
6
JIT capabilities
7
Inclusion in strategic decision making
8
Involvement in product quality & development
9
Mutual trustworthiness
SCM practices
0.917
0.930
0.891
0.874
0.866
0.829
0.753
0.735
0.495
0.958
Competitive advantage scale

1
Accessibility
2
Product
3
Service
4
Customer centricity
Competitive advantage
0.853
0.808
0.864
0.907
0.901
Firm performance scale

Firm performance
0.909
Table 4
Bivariate correlations.

factors
Quality of information
sharing
JIT capabilities
Inclusion in strategic decision making
Involvement in product
quality and development
a
b
Accessibility Product Service
Customer
centricity
.244a
.020
.276a
.067
.021
.460a
.060
.204a
.072
.121a
.265a
.006
.376a
.149a
.098b
.670a
.618a
.417a
.343a
.538a
.016
.210a
.339a
.115b
.102b
.192a
.565a
.173a
.213a
.306a
.053
.415a
.046
.182a
.126a
.215a
Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

advantage viz. accessibility, product, service and customer centricity (Table 4). Supply chain characteristics are positively correlated to all attributes of competitive advantage. This corroborates
that the retailer attributes great importance to the trust component prevalent with their suppliers and shares future strategic
needs with them, also works cohesively with their channel partners in order to ensure customization in a timely and efcient
manner. It also indicates that to build competitive advantage by
responding early to customer's need for new product features and
being rst in the market to introduce new products; doing so efciently with a faster time-to-market, the retailer focuses on
seamless operations by identifying additional supply chain and
ensuring suppliers deliver on-time directly to the retailer's points
of use.
Customer relationship has the highest positive correlation
coefcient to accessibility and service. This is not surprising since
regular and frequent evaluation of customer satisfaction, interacting frequently with customers to set retailer's reliability, responsiveness and other standards, providing an environment
conducive for customers to seek assistance from the retailer
enables the retailer to benchmark with their competitors and offer

competitive prices, provide goods on time and in a timely manner
minimizing stock outs.
Inclusion in strategic decision making shows an inverse relationship to accessibility, product and service. However it shows a
positive correlation to customer centricity. A probable explanation
is that inclusion of key suppliers in the retailer's planning and
goal-setting activities, and continuous improvement programs
including key suppliers currently are a strain to the retailer's resources and therefore are considered a deterrent to delivering
customer orders on time. Inclusion in strategic decision making
requires information system compatibility among supply chain
partners and without an IT system that is user-friendly and enables channel partners to have access to common databases that
are updated in real-time, such inclusion is not possible. Advances
in information and communication technologies along with sophisticated decision support systems will enable planning, executing and monitoring strategies that are indispensable for organizing integrated supply chain systems. The retailer has taken
cognizance of the fact that involving suppliers in strategic decision
making enhances their capabilities to deliver products that suit the
customer's requirements in a timely manner which contributes
signicantly towards building their competitive advantage, as indicated by the correlation to customer centricity.
Level of information sharing has no signicant relationship to
the attributes of competitive advantage other than customer
centricity while quality of information sharing has no signicant
relationship with accessibility and service attribute of competitive
advantage. The result is not surprising since though globally these
two dimensions are considered to be important in the context of
retail SCM practices, information sharing as a precursor to BI implementation is still in a nascent stage in India. Collaborative
business planning between the retailer and its trading partners
and keeping each other fully informed on issues that affect their
businesses, are still not considered crucial to the retailer being able
to offer competitive prices, quality products and customer-centric
services. This is because modern trade is in an emerging phase and
the retailer continues to operate in functional silos within their
inter-rm departments and with their external trading partners.
The retailer is now in the process of adopting some form of analytics to reduce cost and improve services. Currently while some
form of technology rudimentarily exists as facilitators of business
processes for the retailer, in-depth integration and analysis of
detailed business data using databases, application technologies
and analysis practices that construe BI is signicantly lacking. The
underlying reason for it is that the retailer still feels that BI systems are expensive. Calculating the return on investment (ROI) for
BI systems implementation is difcult because the output of BI is
business-related insights and does not provide a direct linkage to
cost savings or increased sales.
All of the SCM factors have a signicant relationship with
customer centricity. Overall, the bivariate correlations (Table 4)
reveal that 75% of the correlations are signicant, suggesting a
strong relationship between the constructs of SCM and competitive advantage, as perceived by retail executives. Hence, Hypothesis 1 stands not-rejected.
Even as BI (level and quality of information sharing) emerged
as an important dimension of SCM (Table 1) and a strong relationship exists between dimensions of SCM and competitive
advantage (Table 4), conspicuous in its absence is the signicant
relationship between the BI aspects of SCM and dimensions of
competitive advantage. Out of a possible 18 relationships, 4 are
insignicant. The nding is critical as it suggests indifference of
retail executives towards the ability of BI to contribute to the
competitive advantage of the retailer.
Table 5
Bivariate correlations.

factors
Quality of information sharing
JIT capabilities
Inclusion in strategic decision
making
Involvement in product quality
and development
a
Market
share
Return on
investment
The growth of
market share
The growth of Growth in return on

sales
investment
Prot margin
on sales
Overall competitive
position
.140a
.460a
.351a
.379a
.406a
.170a
.218a
.170a
.472a
.274a
.387a
.399a
.286a
.265a
.287a
.557a
.378a
.380a
.423a
.436a
.277a
.347a
.383a
.182a
.185a
.362a
.392a
.279a
.291a
.322a
.120a
.234a
.378a
.386a
.254a
.240a
.237a
.065
.009
.283a
.360a
.185a
.256a
.050
.008
.028
.137a
.299a
.162a
.494a
.527a
.453a
.463a
.462a
.557a
.337a
.278a
.406a
.541a
.362a
.482a
.398a
.213a
7.5.2. SCM factors and rm performance

The bivariate correlation outputs suggest that the supply chain
management factors have a tremendous amount of inuence on
rm performance (Table 5).
The supply chain factors are positively correlated to all attributes
of rm performance though with varying levels of signicance.
Supply chain characteristics, quality of information sharing
with the channel partners, just-in-time inventory management
capabilities, inclusion of channel members in strategic decision
making by the rm, involvement of all channel members in product quality and product development, and, level of mutual trust
between the channel members inuence the different parameters
of the retail rm's performance. Interestingly, the ndings suggest
that customer relationship and integration of supply chain do not
have a signicant relationship with prot margin on sales of the
rm. A plausible explanation is that both these activities entail an
investment into the future of the rm which may or may not yield
any immediate monetary benets. Similarly, level of information
sharing, customer relationship and supply chain integration do not
exhibit a signicant relationship with overall competitive position
of the rm. This nding can be explained with the fact that the
lead time for the retailer, towards installation of IT to bring about
greater degree of information sharing with channel partners, implementation of customer relationship management systems and
integration of supply chain constituents, is reducing. Therefore, the
capability of these SCM factors to provide an overall competitive
position to the retailer against its rival rms is also diminishing. In
fact, these factors are no longer points-of-differentiation and are
rather points-of-parity. Most of the SCM factors that have a signicant impact on competitive advantage are factors that are also
contributing towards rm performance outcomes. Hence Hypothesis 2 stands not-rejected.
8. Research ndings and implications to managers

8.1. Summary of ndings
This paper studies the implementation of SCM practices of the
Indian food retailers and in particular, the extent and nature of
information sharing among retail channel members for enabling BI
usage. The study also relates these SCM practices to the retail
rm's competitive advantage and rm performance. The research
identies that SCM practices comprise of nine dimensions: supply
chain characteristics, level of information sharing, quality of information sharing, customer relationship, supply chain
integration, just-in-time capabilities, inclusion in strategic decision

making, involvement in product quality and development, and
mutual trustworthiness. The competitive advantage of the retailer
is characterized by four dimensions: accessibility, product, service,
and customer centricity.
This research reveals that presently retailers are limited in
collaborative business planning with their trading partners. Practices like inclusion in strategic decision making, keeping each
other fully informed on issues that affect their businesses and
having access to each channel partner's data, do not seem to
substantially inuence their current operations. Rather than facilitation, the above parameters are considered as restraints to
timely delivery of customer orders and hindrances in work
processes.
Information sharing with channel members is presently not an
important characteristic with Indian retailers. Timely, accurate and
complete information sharing for joint problem solving is still not
central to the retailer's operations. Joint business planning, sharing
core business processes and informing partners in advance of
changing needs are considered insignicant factors in their business processes. This prevalent situation is indicative of the fact
that modern retail in India is in an emerging phase and retailers
primarily focus on attracting customers to stores and investing in
new stores for their growth. Retailers also lack the necessary IT
infrastructure platform with their channel partners for seamless
information ow. Their operations in departmental silos render
the information fragmented and not conducive to the implementation of BI.
In a nutshell, the key ndings from the study are as follows:
(a) The dimensions of the construct SCM are: supply chain characteristics, level of information sharing, customer relationship,
supply chain integration, quality of information sharing, JIT
capabilities, inclusion in strategic decision making, involvement in product quality and development, and mutual
trustworthiness.
(b) The dimensions of the construct competitive advantage are:
accessibility, product, service, customer centricity.
(c) Inclusion of suppliers in strategic decision making and information sharing with suppliers are perceived as important
dimensions of SCM by retail executives.
(d) There is a strong and signicant relationship between dimensions of SCM and competitive advantage.
(e) Inclusion of suppliers in strategic decision-making is largely
perceived to be a hindrance in attaining competitive advantage vis--vis rival retailers.
10
(f) As per the perspective of retail executives, level and quality of

information sharing does not impact the retailer's competitive
advantage vis--vis its rival retailers.
(g) There is a strong and signicant relationship between dimensions of SCM and rm performance.
Scope for future research exists in testing the measurement
and structural models depicting the causal relationships between
the factors by using two-step structural equation modeling. It
would explain the extent of impact exogenous constructs have on
the endogenous construct. A conrmatory factor analysis would
further validate the instrument.
8.2. Implications for retail industry
Indian organized retail is in a nascent stage with prospects of
accelerated growth that will be enabled by favorable demographics, economy and political environment. At present retailers
are facing constant pressures of margins and protability. This
study shows that to ensure competitive advantage and protability, retailers are focused on addressing the product-needs of
the customers and they have built their business processes and
SCM practices to support this focal point.
Yet, in the near future Indian retailers are contemplating scaling up their operations to grow signicantly not only in the major
metropolitan cities where they are currently located, but also in
the Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities. In this scenario, current existing
practices and mind-set, as is evident from the study, will not be
sufcient to ensure sustainable growth. To scale up operations
signicantly, retailers will have to look beyond the connes of
their organizations to integrate data, capabilities and resources of
their suppliers and channel partners to create superior value and
long-term competitive advantage. For this, they will need to collect, store, access, share and analyze large amount of information,
across locations and channel partners, for making better operational decisions. So businesses must rst gear up to allow access to
the right information at the right time so that it can be put to
effective usage through BI. Availability of timely and accurate information will thus be critical to a rm's ability to leverage it using
BI in extracting meaningful insights in information and data patterns obtained from diverse touch points for improving operating
margins, protability, competition and growth.
While the above requires an investment in the IT infrastructure,
systems and processes, it also calls for a radical shift in the retailers' outlook as reected from the study. Reliance on information sharing is considered as impeding timely and dependable
delivery of products to market. On the contrary, retailers have to
appreciate that effective sharing of information among channel
partners will provide retailers the ability to respond promptly to
changes in consumer demand and reduce response time to market
needs. Rather than impede operations, information sharing will
enable narrower segmentation of customers leading to more
precisely tailored products/services and also improvement in development of new products/services. Furthermore, information
sharing among channel partners will contribute to generation of
relevant data which will be available for BI. Once retailers nd
cost/benet calculations pertaining to information sharing among
channel partners satisfactory, opportunity will exist for enhanced
application of BI in SCM practices.
However at this juncture, it is prudent to take a realistic approach to the future road ahead in BI implementation in Indian
retail and keep in mind several exogenous constraints that may
impact BI implementation, which are beyond the control of the
retailer. First, India is currently marked by poor IT infrastructure
facilities in suburban and rural areas and such condition cannot be
improved by any individual retailer. Secondly, India has an
abundance of cheap labor that makes current SCM practices laborintensive rather than technology-driven. To implement BI in their
business processes, Indian retailers will face a shortage of skilled
man-power who have the technical knowledge to decide what
action to take based on the outcomes of BI analysis. It is imperative
to know that BI system will present retailers with structured and
analyzed data but without proper skill sets they may not be able to
make informed decisions on the basis of that analysis. Thirdly,
apart from the right talent and technology, it will be fundamental
for retail rms to re-design their business processes, structure
workows and put proper incentives in place so that analytics
become a vital part of enabling managers to accomplish their
goals. Ideally the CEO should be at the helm of the process initiation and gradually all levels of the management should have a
thorough understanding of its business processes and the objectives that are to be achieved. Also the functional units impacted by
the BI initiative must be closely involved with the BI implementation processes to iron out dissidence and seamlessly
merge analytics with a rm's ongoing management tasks.
8.3. Limitations
This study is conducted on an Indian food retailer operating in
specic zones of the country. Research needs to be conducted to
study whether the SCM practices and the outlook to information
sharing among channel partners are unvaryingly applicable to
retailers operating in non-food categories as well as to retailers
with operations across other geographical locations. Extending
this study to retailers operating in other categories would enhance
the external validity of the study and improve the accuracy of
parameter estimates. This research has a relatively small sample
size which is a usual phenomenon amongst initial-stage research
studies. Yet such studies pose certain limitations to its
generalization.
Future study can increase the comprehension of a retail rm's
effectiveness by gathering objective performance data. But since
most of the organized Indian retailers are usually not publicly
listed, published nancial reports are unavailable. Obtaining such
information may require support from Indian retail trade groups
like Retailers Association of India (RAI) for cases where the retailers may not be forthcoming to participate without such ofcial
support.
Further research is necessary to extend the ndings of this
study. Specically more study is needed to validate the scales in
Indian conditions. Post-validation, research needs to be carried out
to determine the possible existence of a second order SCM practices construct and whether such a higher order factor model is
appropriate for SCM practice. The model, as a whole, needs to be
tested through path analysis to ascertain its veracity.
Note: Early version of this paper was presented at the Oxford
Retail Futures Conference 2014, organised by the Oxford Institute of
Retail Management, University of Oxford.
Appendix
I. Supply chain management practices:
With regard to SCM practice, please circle the number that
accurately reects your rm's present conditions: (1strongly
disagree; 7strongly agree)
1. We consider quality as our number one criterion in selecting
suppliers.
2. We regularly solve problems jointly with our suppliers.
3. We have helped our suppliers to improve their product quality.
4. We have continuous improvement programs that include our
key suppliers.
5. We include our key suppliers in our planning and goal-setting
activities.
6. We actively involve our key suppliers in new product development processes.
7. We frequently interact with customers to set reliability, responsiveness and other standards for us.
8. We frequently measure and evaluate customer satisfaction.
9. We frequently determine future customer expectations.
10. We facilitate customers' ability to seek assistance from us.
11. We periodically evaluate the importance of our relationship
with our customers.
12. We inform trading partners in advance of changing needs.
13. Our trading partners share proprietary information with us.
14. Our trading partners keep us fully informed about issues that
affect our business.
15. Our trading partners share business knowledge of core business processes with us.
16. We and our trading partners exchange information that helps
establishment of business planning.
17. We and our trading partners keep each other informed about
events or changes that may affect the other partners.
18. Information exchange between our trading partners and us is
timely.
accurate.
complete.
adequate.
reliable.
23. We search for new ways to integrate SCM activities.
24. We reduce response time across the supply chain.
25. We work on improving integration activities across supply
chain.
26. We work on establishing more frequent contact with supply
chain members.
27. We work on creating a compatible communication/information
system.
28. We work on identifying additional supply chain.
29. We work on suppliers' on-time delivery directly to our points
of use.
30. We communicate our future strategic needs to our suppliers.
31. We work on creating a greater level of trust among supply
chain members.
32. We work on locating closer to our customers.
33. We require suppliers to locate closer to our rm.
34. We participate in the marketing efforts of our customers.
35. We aid our suppliers to increase their JIT capabilities.
36. We work on increasing our rm's JIT capabilities.
II. Competitive advantage:
With regard to competitive advantage of your rm, please circle the appropriate number to indicate the extent to which you
agree or disagree with each statement:
(1Strongly disagree; 7strongly agree)
1. We offer competitive prices.
2. We are able to offer prices as low or lower than our
competitors.
3. We are able to compete based on locality.
4. We offer products that are highly reliable.
5. We offer products that are very durable.
6. We offer high quality products to our customers.
7. We deliver the kind of products needed.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
We
We
We
We
We
We
We
We
We
11
deliver customer order on time.

provide dependable delivery.
provide customized products.
alter our product offerings to meet client needs.
respond well to customer demand for new features.
deliver product to market quickly.
are rst in the market in introducing new products.
have time-to-market lower than industry average.
have fast product development.
III. Firm's Performance:

Please circle the appropriate number which best indicates your
rm's overall performance:
(1 Signicant decrease, 7 signicant increase)
1. Market share.
2. Return on investment.
3. The growth of market share.
4. The growth of sales.
5. Growth in return on investment.
6. Prot margin on sales.
7. Overall competitive position.
References
A.T. Kearney, Global Retail Development Index, 2014. http://www.atkearney.in/
documents/10192/4600212/Full SteamAhead for Global Retailers2014 Global Retail Development In.pdf/6f55a59b-e855-4236-96cb464c2ca01e91 (accessed 26.03.15).
A.T. Kearney, Global Retail Development Index, 2013. http://www.atkearney.
com/documents/10192/1315829/Global RetailersCautiously Aggressive or Aggressively Cautious.pdf/b8f528f4-cb6f411d-8ae6-7afb7fbc7b7e (accessed 17.04.14).
Adelman, S., Moss, L., Barbusinski, L., 2002. I Found Several Denitions of BI, DM
Review.
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., 2002. Analyzing alternatives for improvement in supply
chain performance. Work Study 51 (1), 3237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
00438020210415497.
Akyuz, A.G., Erkan, E.T., 2010. Supply chain performance measurement: a literature
review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 48 (17), 51375155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00207540903089536.
Ali, J., Kapoor, S., Moorthy, J., 2010. Buying behaviour of consumers for food products in an emerging economy. Br. Food J. 112 (2), 109124.
Alvarado, U.Y., Kotzab, H., 2001. Supplychain management: the integration of logistics in marketing. Ind. Mark. Manag. 30 (2), 183198.
Arnold, S.J., 2002. Lessons learned from the world's best retailers. Int. J. Retail.
Distrib. Manag. 30 (11/12), 562570.
Austin, J.E., 1990. Managing in Developing Countries. Free Press, New York, NY.
Balsmeier, P.W., Voisin, W., 1996. Supplychain management: a timebased strategy.
Ind. Manag. 38 (5), 2427.
Baneld, E., 1999. Harnessing value in the supply chain. Wiley, New York, NY.
Berry, D., Towill, D.R., Wadsley, N., 1994. Supplychain management in the electronics products industry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 24 (10), 2032.
Berson, A., Smith, S., Thearling, K., 2002. Building Data Mining Applications for
CRM. Tata McGraw-Hill, Delhi.
Bloom, P.N., Perry, V.G., 2001. Retailer power and supplier welfare: the case of WalMart. J. Retail. 77 (3), 379, retail supply chain management 399.
Bradford, K.D., Stringfellow, A., Weitz, B.A., 2004. Managing conict to improve the
effectiveness of retail networks. J. Retail. 80 (3), 181195.
Brown, J.R., Dant, R.P., Ingene, C.A., Kaufmann, P.J., 2005. Supply chain management
and the evolution of the Big Middle. J. Retail. 81 (2), 97105.
Adair-Heeley, C.B., 1988. JIT purchasing: seven steps for successful implementation.
Prod. Invent. Manag. Rev. APICS News 8 (12), 2223.
Celtek, S., Kaynak, H., 1999. Characteristics of supply chain management: towards
the development of a measurement instrument. In: Paper Presented at the
Second Annual North American Research Symposium on Purchasing and Supply Management.
Chan, F.T.S., Qi, H.J., 2003. Feasibility of performance measurement system for
supply chain: a process-based approach and measures. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 14
(3), 179190.
Chandra, C., Kumar, S., 2000. Supply chain management in theory and practice: a
passing fad or a fundamental change? Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 100 (3), 100113.
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004b. Understanding supply chain management: critical research and a theoretical framework. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42 (1), 131163.
Chen, I., Paulraj, A., 2004a. Towards a theory of supply chain management: the
constructs and measurements. J. Oper. Manag. 22 (2), 119150. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jom.2003.12.007.
12
Childhouse, P., Towill, D.R., 2003. Simplied material ow holds the key to supply
chain integration. OMEGA 31 (1), 1727.
Chizzo, S.A., 1998. Supplychain strategies: solutions for the customer-driven enterprise. Software Magazine. Supplychain Management Directions Supplement,
49 January 1998.
Claycomb, C., Droge, C., Germain, R., 1999. The effect of justin- time with customers
on organizational design and performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 10 (1), 3758.
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrica 16, 297334.
Dabas, C.S., Sternquist, B., Mahi, H., 2010. Organized retailing in India: upstream
channel structure and management. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 27/3 (2012), 176195.
Dahlstrom, R., McNeilly, K.M., Speh, T.W., 1996. Buyerseller relationships in the
procurement of logistical services. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 24 (2), 110124.
Davies, M., 2009. Identifying the real challenges. Logist. Manag. 48 (2), 5.
Day, G.S., 2000. Managing market relationships. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28 (1), 2430.
Defee, C.C., Randall, W.S., Gibson, B.J., 2009. Roles and capabilities of the retail
supply chain organization. J. Transp. Manag. 21 (2), 3148.
Divett, M., Crittenden, N., Henderson, R., 2003. Actively inuencing consumer
loyalty. J. Consum. Mark. 20 (2), 109126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
07363760310464587.
Feldmann, M., Mller, S., 2003. An incentive scheme for true information providing
in supplychains. OMEGA 31 (2), 6373.
Filos, E., Banahan, E., 2000. Will the organization disappear? The challenges of the
new economy and future perspectives. In: Proceedings of the PRO-VE'2000 2nd
IFIP Working Conference on Infrastructures for Virtual Enterprises. Florianpolis, Brazil, pp. 320.
Ganesan, S., George, M., Jap, S., Palmatier, R.W., Weitz, B., 2009. Supply chain
management and retailer performance: emerging trends, issues, and implications for research and practice. J. Retail. 85 (1), 8494.
Gangadharan, G.R., Swamy, N.S., 2004. Business intelligence systems: design and
implementation strategies. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces. Cavtat, Croatia.
Green, K.W., McGaughey, R., Casey, M., 2006. Does supply chain management
strategy mediate the association between market orientation and organizational performance? Supply Chain Manag. J. 11 (5), 407414. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/13598540610682426.
Grifth, D.A., Harvey, M.G., Lusch, R.F., 2006. Social exchange in supply chain relationships: The resulting benets of procedural and distributive justice. J. Oper.
Manag. 24 (2), 8598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.03.003.
Halepete, J., Seshadri Iyer, K.V., 2008. Multidimensional investigation of apparel
retailing in India. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 36 (9), 676688.
Hamister, J.W., 2012. Supply chain management practices in small retailers. Int. J.
Retail. Distribution Manag. 40 (6), 427450.
Henriott, L., 1999. Transforming supply chains into e-chains. Supply Chain Management Review. Vol. Global Supplement, Spring, pp. 1518.
Holmberg, S., 2000. A systems perspective on supply chain measurements. Int. J.
Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 30 (10), 847868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00207540310001602865.
Ingene, C.A., Parry, M.E., 2000. Is channel coordination all it is cracked up to be? J.
Retail. 76 (4), 511.
Jones, C., 1998. Moving beyond ERP: making the missing link. Logist. Focus 6 (7),
27.
Koufteros, X.A., Vonderembse, M.A., Doll, W.J., 1997. Competitive capabilities:
measurement and relationships. In: Proceedings Decision Science Institute, pp.
10671068.
Kumar, N., Kapoor, S., 2014. Study of consumers' behaviour for non-vegetarian
products in emerging market of India. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 4 (1), 5977.
La Londe, B.J., Masters, J.M., 1994. Emerging logistics strategies: blueprint for the
next century. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 24 (7), 3547.
Larson, A., 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: a study of the governance of exchange. Adm. Sci. Q. 37 (1), 76104.
Lee, C.H., Rhee, B.-D., 2008. Optimal guaranteed prot margins for both vendors
and retailers in the fashion apparel industry. J. Retail. 84 (3), 325333.
Levy, M., Grewal, D., 2000. Supply chain management in a networked economy. J.
Retail. 76 (4), 415.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T., Subba Rao, S., 2006. The impact of supply
chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational
performance. Omega Int. J. Manag. Sci. 34, 107124.
Magretta, J., 1998. The power of virtual integration: an interview with Dell computers' Michael Dell. Harv. Bus. Rev. 76 (2), 7284.
Malhotra, Y., 2000. Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations. Idea Group
Publishing, USA.
McGinnis, M.A., Vallopra, R.M., 1999. Purchasing and supplier involvement in
process improvement: a source of competitive advantage. J. SupplyChain
Manag. 35 (4), 4250.
Mentzer, J.T., Min, S., Zacharia, Z.G., 2004. The nature of inter-rm partnering in
supply chain management. J. Retail. 76 (4), 549568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0022-4359(00)00040-3.
Moberg, C.R., Cutler, B.D., Gross, A., Speh, T.W., 2002. Identifying antecedents of
information exchange within supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag.
32 (9), 755770.
Monczka, R.M., Petersen, K.J., Handeld, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., 1998. Success factors in
strategic supplier alliances: the buying company perspective. Decis. Sci. 29 (3),
55535577.
Noble, D., 1997. Purchasing and supplier management as a future competitive edge.
Logist. Focus 5 (5), 2327.
Novack, R.A., LangleyJr, C.J., Rinehart, L.M., 1995. Creating Logistics Value: Themes
for the Future. Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Nunnally, J.C., 1988. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Pandey, V.C., Garg, S.K., Shankar, R., 2010. Impact of information sharingon competitive strength of Indianmanufacturing enterprises-An empirical study. Bus.
Process. Manag. 16 (2), 226243.
Pilling, B.K., Zhang, L., 1992. Cooperative exchange: rewards and risks. Int. J. Purch.
Mater. Manag. 28 (2), 29.
Piplani, R., Fu, Y.F., 2005. A coordination framework for supply chain inventory
alignment. J. Manuf. Technol. 16 (6), 598614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
174103805106ndings09465.
Polakoff, J.C., 1992. Of kites, cranks, and switches and JIT purchasing. Corp.
Controll. 4 (5), 3032.
Rabelo, R.J., Pereira-Klen, Alexandra A., 2002. Business intelligence support for
supply chain management. In: Proceedings of the BASYS'2002 IEEE/ IFIP
Working Conference on Balanced Automation Systems. CancunMexico.
Randall, W.S., Gibson, B.J., Defee, C.C., Williams, B.D., 2011. Retail supply chain
management: key priorities and practices. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 22 (3), 390402.
Reardon, T., Minten, B., 2011. Surprised by supermarkets: diffusion of modern food
retail in India. J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 1 (2), 134161.
Roth, A., Miller, J., 1990. Manufacturing strategy, manufacturing strength, managerial success, and economic outcomes. In: Ettlie, J., Burstein, M., Fiegehaum,
A. (Eds.), Manufacturing Strategy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA,
pp. 97108.
Rudberg, M., Olhager, J., 2003. Manufacturing networks and supplychains: an operations strategy perspective. OMEGA 31 (1), 2939.
Sahay, B.S., Mohan, R., 2003. Supply chain management practices in Indian industry. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 33 (7), 582606.
Samli, A.C., Browning, J.M., Busbia, C., 1998. The status of global sourcing as a critical tool of strategic planning: opportunistic versus strategic dichotomy. J. Bus.
Res. 43 (3), 177187.
Singh, R., Sandhu, H., Metri, B., Kaur, R., 2010. Relating organised retail supply chain
management practices, competitive advantage and organisational performance. VISION J. Bus. Perspect. 14 (3), 173190.
Skinner, W., 1985. The taming of the lions: how manufacturing leadership involved,
17801984. In: Clark, K.B., Hayes, R., Lorenz, C. (Eds.), The Uneasy Alliance:
Managing the ProductivityTechnology Dilemma. The Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA, pp. 63110.
Srinivasan, M.M., 2004. Streamlined: 14 Principles for Building and Managing the
Lean Supply Chain. Thomson Business and Professional Publishing, Mason, OH.
Srivastava, S.K., 2006. Logistics and supply chain practices in India. VISION J. Bus.
Perspect. 10 (3), 6979.
Stein, T., Sweat, J., 1998. Killer supplychains. Informationweek 708 (9), 3646.
Stock, G.N., Greis, N.P., Kasarda, J.D., 2000. Enterprise logistics and supplychain
structure: the role of t. J. Oper. Manag. 18 (5), 531547.
Tan, K.C., Kannan, V.R., Handeld, R.B., 1998. Supplychain management: supplier
performance and rm performance. Int. J. Purch. Mater. Manag. 34 (3), 29.
Tan, K.C., Lyman, S.B., Wisner, J.D., 2002. Supply chain management: a strategic
perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (6), 614631.
Tan, K.C., 2001. A framework of supply chain management literature. Eur. J. Purch.
Supply Manag. 7 (1), 3948.
Tompkins, J., Ang, D., 1999. What are your greatest challenges related to supplychain performance measurement? IIE Solution 31 (6), p. 66.
Towers, N., Burnes, B., 2008. A composite framework of supply chain management
and enterprise planning for small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 13 (5), 349355.
Tracey, M., Vonderembse, M.A., Lim, J.S., 1999. Manufacturing technology and
strategy formulation: keys to enhancing competitiveness and improving performance. J. Oper. Manag. 17 (4), 411428.
Vickery, S., Calantone, R., Droge, C., 1999. Supplychain exibility: an empirical
study. J. Supply Chain Manag. 35 (3), 1624.
Whitehorn, M., Whitehorn, M., 1999. Business Intelligence: The IBM Solution: Data
Warehousing and OLAP. Springer, New York, NY, pp. 910, Springer Series.
Wines, L., 1996. High order strategy for manufacturing. The J. Bus. Strateg. 17 (4),
3233.
Yamin, S., Gunasekruan, A., Mavondo, F.T., 1999. Relationship between generic
strategy, competitive advantage and rm performance: an empirical analysis.
Technovation 19 (8), 507518.
Yu, Z., Yan, H., Cheng, T.C.E., 2001. Benets of information sharing with supply chain
partnerships. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 101 (3), 114121.

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services: Mohua Banerjee, Manit Mishra

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services: Mohua Banerjee, Manit Mishra

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services

Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business

One important problem of managing SCM practice is handling

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

chain has been identied as a concern for modern retailers. It is a

2. Supply chain management dened

organization's performance and the performance of the whole

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

3. Business intelligence and decision making in supply chain

4. Supply chain management in the context of India's retail

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

supplier partnership, customer relationship, level of information

organization in mind, and providing adequate knowledge of the

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

Objectives (a) and (b) were achieved by using exploratory

5.2. Competitive advantage

6.2. Respondent's prole

Empirical literature is replete with factors like price/cost,

Modern retail is still an emerging phenomenon in India and so

5.3. Firm performance

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

supply chain management practices, competitive advantage and

7.2. Item generation

Supply chain characteristics (42.5%)

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

7.3. Factor analysis

Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with

products in acceptable condition. The fourth factor (labelled

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

Competitive advantage scale

Firm performance scale

Supply chain management

Accessibility Product Service

Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

enables the retailer to benchmark with their competitors and offer

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

Supply chain management

The growth of Growth in return on

Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

7.5.2. SCM factors and rm performance

8. Research ndings and implications to managers

integration, just-in-time capabilities, inclusion in strategic decision

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

(f) As per the perspective of retail executives, level and quality of

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

deliver customer order on time.

III. Firm's Performance:

M. Banerjee, M. Mishra / Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services ()

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen