“A ROSE, by any other name”. . .

: relationship
typology and performance measurement in
supply chains
Christian Chelariu
Marketing Department, Sawyer Business School, Suffolk University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Anthony Kwame Asare
Department of Marketing, School of Business, Quinnipiac University, Hamden, Connecticut, USA, and
Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
Eugene M. Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to develop a comprehensive framework of supply chain performance that includes relationship, operational,
strategic and economic performance measures.
Design/methodology/approach – The literature regarding inter-organizational performance including: supply chain management, logistics and
marketing performance measures is reviewed. A synthesis of the review provides the foundation for developing a comprehensive model of supply chain
management performance.
Findings – The review and synthesis finds that supply chain performance focuses primarily on operational and economic performance measures while
paying less attention to relational and strategic performance measures. The comprehensive framework identifies four major categories of supply chain
performance measures: relational; operational; strategic; and economic – hence the name ROSE.
Originality/value – This comprehensive framework identifies four types of supply chain measures that can be used as a guiding framework by both
academics and practitioners. The paper also offers directions for future work in the form of propositions.

Keywords Performance measurement, Governance, Supply chain management, Relationship marketing

Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction psychological aspects of this complex phenomenon. However,

Supply chain management (SCM) is a relatively new and
dynamic discipline, having emerged in 1980s, and it is still in
the process of defining itself (Mentzer et al., 2008; Lambert
et al., 2008). This search for identity is complicated because
SCM, while originating in Logistics but espousing an
integrative vocation, spans several academic disciplines
including operations management, marketing, and
information systems (Frankel et al., 2008). The domain
dispute in the academia is mirrored in the practitioner’s
world, where supply chain responsibilities are often split into
functional “fortified silos”, sometimes leading to conflicting
priorities and turf wars (Lambert et al., 2008, p. 114).
Since SCM emerged primarily within the field of Logistics,
so far the research has focused mostly within the operational
side of SCM, largely overlooking the political and social
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm
as Bechtel and Jayaram (1997, p. 22) observe: “the most
important barrier to reengineering is people and not systems
or technology” and the importance of this little addressed
dimension has lately became more and more apparent.
More recent scholarship confirms the persistence of this
issue: “The emphasis on process improvement . . . combined
with a limited amount of research on soft issues, highlight that
the social aspects of SCM have been neglected both in the
breadth and depth of research. A bibliometric analysis of
SCM literature generated four clusters of studies, broadly
representing logistics, research methods, and inter-
organizational traditions, with a fourth cluster comprising
heterogeneous studies (Charvet et al., 2008). Interestingly, the
inter-organizational cluster is based almost entirely on a
special issue of Decision Science, which seems to confirm that
the topic of inter-firm relationships is still at the periphery of
the SCM literature.
We follow the exhortations of previous SCM researchers
and we introduce two theoretical frameworks, borrowed from
related disciplines: the governance framework, from channel

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

29/4 (2014) 332– 343 Received 19 August 2013
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] Revised 19 August 2013
[DOI 10.1108/JBIM-08-2013-0178] Accepted 20 August 2013

332
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
management (Frankel et al., 2008), and a performance
framework, based on Talcott Parson’s notion of functional
imperatives (Parsons et al., 1961). We believe the adoption of
these frameworks would considerably broaden and strengthen
the theoretical foundations of the supply chain management
literature.
While some elements of inter-firm relationships are already
present in various SCM studies, the field lacks a solid, all-
encompassing theoretical framework that includes inter-firm
relationships. As a result, for example, very few studies take
into account relationships based on power (see Maloni and
Benton, 2000, for an exception) and influence (Choi and
Hong, 2002). Furthermore, while collaborative relationships
are discussed in comparatively more studies, the field lacks
cohesion as researchers interchangeably use a variety of
different constructs, such as integration, coordination,
cooperation, to describe them. In some cases, the focus is
not on the nature, of inter-firm relationships, but rather on
the structural and operational issues related to supply chain
integration (Chen et al., 2009). Applications of governance
theory remain at an exploratory level in the literature (Richey
et al., 2010).
Moreover, as we show in this paper, there seems to be
interesting parallels between the types of relationships and the
various SCM typologies known in the literature. The
empirical validation of such parallels between frameworks
originating in different theoretical traditions would represent
both a challenge and an opportunity for future research.
From a practitioner standpoint, a focus on the initiation,
maintenance and dissolution of the relationships with
suppliers and distributors helps extend the SCM from a
focus on operational issues into the realm of strategy. Also, a
broader understanding of performance, encompassing soft
elements, learning and adaptation would facilitate the intra-
firm conversation and harmonize the relationships between
various firm departments.
The paper is structured as follows: first, we review the
existing logistics performance literature and we introduce the
ROSE typology of performance, based on the theoretical
foundations offered by Talcott Parsons. Then, we introduce
the notion of inter-firm governance and we provide
propositions relating the three types of governance to the
four categories of performance measurement in the ROSE
framework. We conclude with a section on limitations and
ideas for future research.
2. ROSE – a typology of performance measures
2.1 Performance measurement in the SCM literature
Improper measurements or lack of measurements altogether
can hinder the understanding and the implementation of
SCM (Lee and Billington, 1992). The need to improve SCM
performance measures is one of the directions for future
research indicated by Bechtel and Jayaram (1997) in their
comprehensive review of the SCM field. More than ten years
later, the field is largely dominated by the balanced score card
approach (Trent, 2010; Folan and Browne, 2005; Brewer and
Speh, 2000), but other papers use a variety of performance
approaches.
For example, in a recent study, Fugate et al. (2010)
conceptualize performance as a second order factor, reflecting
three first order factors:
333
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
1 logistics efficiency (measured with indicators such as
inventory turns per year, average order cycle time, line
item fill rate and percent orders shipped on time);
2 logistics effectiveness (as measured by sales,
transportation costs, warehousing costs inventory costs,
and total logistics costs); and
3 logistics differentiation (based on rating the performance
of the business unit relative to competitors on indicators
such as damage free deliveries, finished good inventory,
forecasting accuracy, time of backorder, total inventory
turns).
Earlier, Griffis et al. (2004) focused on the relationship
between logistics measurement and the information needs of
the firm, and shows that various measures used in the
literature follow three dimensions:
1 competitive basis (ranging from efficiency to
responsiveness);
2 measurement frequency (ranging from diagnostic to
monitoring); and
3 measurement focus (from operational to strategic).
Finally, Rafele (2004) applies the SERVQUAL (service
quality) framework to logistics and proposes three broad
measurement domains: tangible components (utilization of
assets, personnel and inventory), ways of fulfillment (supply
conditions and lead time), and informative action (marketing,
order management and after-sale information). In a similar
vein, Deepen et al. (2008) observe that logistics outsourcing
performance should take into account customer’s
expectations and should distinguish between goal
achievement and goal exceedance.
In an offshoring context, Ruamsock et al. (2007) consider
six broad types of measures for supplier performance: product
quality, process (IT and production capability), time (on time
receipt at buyer’s location, cycle time length and consistency),
quality (shipment accuracy, delivery damage, accurate
invoicing), cost (price, transportation costs, safety stock).
Finally, the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR)
model endorsed by the Supply Chain Council, focuses on five
attributes: reliability, responsiveness, flexibility, cost and
assets.
This wide variety of approaches can be explained in part by
reliance on the inductive approach in logistics research, in
which results from a survey of practitioners form the basis for
a proposed performance measurement system (see, for
example, Autry and Stanley, 2008, Gunasekaran et al.,
2004). In related fields, such as the distribution channels
literature, the approach is often deductive, where a theory is
proposed, applied, and then empirically verified.
For this paper, we build our understanding of performance
measurement in supply chain management on the sociological
foundations of Talcott Parsons’ structural functionalism and
more specifically on the AGIL (Adaptation, Goal attainment,
Integration, Latency) framework of functional imperatives
(Parsons, 1970). Talcott Parson’s structural functionalism is
one of the dominant classical sociological theories and his
work has substantially influenced research on social systems
and institutions in multiple disciplines. Parsons views society
as a system of interacting social units, organizations and
institutions and identifies four distinct functions needed for
the survival of any social system including organizations or
networks of organizations. A system needs to Adapt to its
environment, to have and to attempt to achieve its Goals, to
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
Integrate its various components, and to maintain its Latent
structures, referring to belief systems, values, behavioral
norms, culture. While these four functional imperatives
represent to some extent competing values (Quinn and
Rohrbaugh, 1983), any social system represents a
combination of all four elements.
We adapt the functional imperatives framework to a supply
chain management context, by developing four categories of
performance measures. As indicated earlier, of particular
interest for us are inter-firm Relationships. This category of
performance measures, largely neglected so far in the SCM
literature, corresponds to the maintenance of the Latent
structure imperative in Parsons’ framework. Various actors in
the supply chain are socialized within a system of industry
norms and, because they routinely interact with players from
the same industry, they form tacit fundamental assumption
and values that are often “taken for granted”. Within the
supply chain system, the Relationship category of
performance measures focus on cohesion among the various
organizations, morale, loyalty and commitment to the supply
chain policies and programs.
A second category is represented by Operational
performance measures, by far the most prevalent in the
logistics literature. This category corresponds to the
Integration imperative in Parsons’ framework and it focuses
on stability and control. Within the supply chain, this function
is achieved through coordination, communication, and
through deployment of information technology solutions,
such as EDI, web-based platforms, or RFID.
A third category is the Strategic performance category
represented in the Parsons’ framework by the Adaptation
imperative. In this perspective, the organization manages its
relationship with the business environment in order to gain
external legitimacy, and to acquire resource acquisition and
external support. The strategy literature, particularly the
resource based view of the firm (RBV), focuses on how
companies use their strategic resources to exploit their
environment and create a sustainable competitive advantage
(Barney, 1991). Since Parson’s adaptation imperative
emphasizes the importance of measuring how well a
company is coping with other players in its environment, it
matches a company’s strategic perspective which focuses on a
firm’s performance in comparison with its competition.
Finally, the fourth category is represented by Economic
performance measures and corresponds to Goal attainment in
Parsons’ framework. Since the primary goal of a firm is to
perform economically and financially, economic performance
can be identified with Goal attainment.
2.2 Validation of the ROSE framework within the extant
literature
Since the supply chain needs to succeed in all four functional
imperative, its performance measurement should encompass
all four categories of performance measures: Relationship,
Operational, Strategic and Economic (ROSE). Next, we’ll
discuss how the previous studies, especially in the channels of
distribution and operation research literature fit in the overall
ROSE framework.
2.2.1 Relationship performance. Relationship marketing is
creating a fundamental shift in marketing channels and other
inter-firm environments (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
Companies now focus less on the “one time transaction”
and are increasingly directing their efforts towards
334
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
establishing, developing, and maintaining successful long-
term relationships with their suppliers, customers, and other
business partners. Since supply and channel partnerships are
a collaborative relationship between buyers and sellers most of
whom value interdependence, cooperation, and long-term
associations, it is therefore particularly important that
researchers should consider measuring the quality of the
relationships between channel partners (Gunasekaran et al.,
2004). Relationship performance measures measure the
quality and the strength of the relationship between a firm
and its partners. Some of the relationship performance
measures used in the distribution channels literature include:
cooperativeness (Frazier, 1983), commitment (Mohr and
Nevin, 1990), satisfaction, conflict, justice, cooperation, and
long-term orientation (Kumar et al., 1992; Scheer and Stern,
1992; Claro et al., 2003; Zablah et al., 2005). Some of the
questions that a firm seeks to answer when using relational
performance measures are: How strong is the relationship
between our firm and our channel partner? How committed
are both partners to this channel relationship? Is this
relationship a short- or long-term relationship? How well
am I satisfying and fulfilling my business customer’s
expectations? Am I providing my business customers with
the value that they expect to get out of the relationship?
Conversely, how well is my supplier satisfying and fulfilling
my expectations? Is my supplier providing me with the value
that I expected to get out of the relationship? Answers to
questions like these can help a firm determine the quality and
amount of resources that they should invest in a relationship.
They can also help companies identify and repair broken
relationships before they develop into larger problems, on
both sides of a dyad.
2.2.2 Operational performance. Operational performance
measures the extent to which a firm fulfills the operational
requirements of its channel partners. Operational level
measurements reflect tactical decisions made by middle-
and lower-level managers and usually deal with resource
allocation and targets set to achieve specific goals
(Gunasekaran et al., 2004). Some of the operational
performance measures found in the distribution channels
literature include: error rate (Duarte and Davies, 2003), lead
time (Gunasekaran et al., 2001), reimbursement of warranty
claims (Frazier, 1983), inventory turnover (Noordewier et al.,
1990), on time delivery (Gunasekaran et al., 2001;
Noordewier et al., 1990), and productivity (Mohr and
Nevin, 1990). The key questions for a firm measuring its
operational performance in its relationship with its
downstream channel partners are: How well am I fulfilling
the operational requirements of my channel partners? Am I
making it more convenient and easier for my channel partners
to do business with me? Is the quality of my operations,
logistics, shipping, etc. enabling me to provide my channel
partner with additional value beyond the product or service
that I provide them? Since operational performance measures
can be applied to both sides of the dyad, a company that is
measuring the operational performance of its supply chain
partners can ask very similar questions: How well are my
suppliers fulfilling my operational requirements? Are my
suppliers making it more convenient and easier for me to do
business with them? Is the quality of my supplier’s operations,
logistics, shipping, etc. enabling them to provide me with
additional value beyond the basic product or service that they
provide me?
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
Operational measures are becoming even more important
in business-to-business environments because of the
increasing popularity of business concepts and processes like
Six Sigma, Kanban, Just-in-time (JIT), value streams, Lean
manufacturing (Liker and Wu, 2000), and the total quality
movement (TQM). These processes all demand high levels of
quality and precision and as a result, failure to meet strict
operational requirements can lead to widespread disruptions
in a supply chain. It is therefore important for companies to
frequently measure operational performance in their supply
and distribution channels to determine if important
operational standards and requirements are being met.
ROSE’s operational performance category includes
measures like fill rate, lead time, cycle time, and inventory
turnover.
2.2.3 Strategic performance. Strategic management has been
defined as the process through which managers ensure the
long-term success of a firm in its environment (Chakravarthy,
1986). In recent years however, the discipline has broadened
its focus to emphasize the competitiveness of a firm.
According to Meyer (1991), the central aim of strategic
management is to enable firms to understand sustained
competitive advantage and to determine how it can be
systematically created. This expanded focus on competitive
advantage is the result of the work of prominent strategic
management researchers including Wernerfelt and
Montgomery (1986) and Barney’s (1991) work on the
resource based view (RBV). Strategic performance measures
can be defined as measures that are used to evaluate the
extent to which a firm is fulfilling its long-term strategic plans
are also used to compare a firm’s performance with its
competitors. Since B2B interactions are becoming more
strategic in nature and the value of strategic performance
measures are increasingly being recognized in the literature it
is important for researchers to focus on strategic performance
measures. Some of the strategic performance measures found
in the literature include: strategic performance (Bello and
Gilliland, 1997), reseller adaptation, and contribution to
growth (Kumar et al., 1992).
Some of the key questions that companies using strategic
performance to measure their downstream business
relationships can answer include: How well am I helping my
partner achieve their long-term strategic goals? How well am I
performing compared to my competitors? How does the
overall value (products, services) that I provide compare with
those of my competitors? Companies using strategic
performance measures to measure their upstream channel
relationships are able to answer questions that are very similar
to the ones posed above: How well is my supplier helping us
achieve our long-term strategic goals? How well is my
supplier’s performance compared to that of their competitors?
How does the overall value that my suppliers provide me
(products, services) compare with those of their competitors?
We should note that by naming the performance dimension
“Strategic”, we don’t mean to imply that Relationships
measures are any less strategic. Both types of measures are
future oriented (see for example, long-term orientation and
contribution to growth, in each measure category). However,
the Strategic category is focused more on identifying new
resources and opportunities, and it has a theoretical basis in
the resource-based view of the firm (Wernerfelt and
Montgomery, 1986; Barney, 1991). On the other hand, the
335
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
Relationship dimension is based on the relational paradigm
(Macneil, 1981).
2.2.4 Economic performance. These are the most popular
performance measures used to assess the performance of a
firm (Rust et al., 2002) or a distribution channel (Kumar et al.,
1992; Spriggs, 1994). Economic measures can be defined as
performance measures that are used to determine the extent
to which a firm either receives or provides its partners with
economic value. Economic measures used in the channels
literature include: profits (Mohr and Nevin, 1990; Scheer and
Stern, 1992; Spriggs, 1994), sales (Claro et al., 2003; Mehta
et al., 2003; Spriggs, 1994), sales growth (Claro et al., 2003),
asset turnover (Mehta et al., 2003), and equity (Mohr and
Nevin, 1990).
Table I identifies some of the major research that use
performance as a dependent variable and matches them with
the ROSE performance typology. Table I powerfully
underscores the complementary approach needed in a
supply chain context. However, a full understanding of
performance can only be accomplished by combining a more
relational perspective from distribution channels, and
increasingly from operation management (Fynes et al.,
2005; Zhao et al., 2008; Tangpong et al., 2010), with a
more operational perspective from Logistics. Indeed, some
Logistics studies seem to recognize the presence of these four
categories of variables, while at the same time weighting more
heavily the operational measures.
While each of the performance categories have been studied
by various researchers, very little work has been done to
integrate them into a more comprehensive classification of
performance measures. The ROSE performance framework is
an initial effort in this direction. In the next section, the paper
provides a framework for selecting channel performance
measures by linking the ROSE performance measures to
different inter-organizational forms of governance.
3. Inter-organizational governance and
performance
3.1 Inter-organizational governance
The term governance refers to a way of organizing
transactions, encompassing the initiation, maintenance, and
termination of relationships between a set of parties (Heide,
1994). Williamson (1991) initially conceived of governance
structures to be made up of two mechanisms, markets and
hierarchies, and later expanded the concept to recognize
intermediate forms of organization such as relational
contracting. Building on Williamson’s expanded concept,
Heide (1994) identifies three forms of inter-organizational
governance or forms of inter firm exchanges: Market,
Unilateral (alternatively known as hierarchy, or power-based
governance), and Bilateral (or trust-based governance).
Understanding the differences among these inter-firm
governance archetypes is critical, yet the study of inter-firm
relationships is fairly recent in the supply chain literature.
Moreover, while bilateral (or trust-based) relationships have
been quite extensively covered, market-type relationships, but
more importantly unilateral (or power-based) relationships
have been neglected.
A central concept in the present supply chain literature is
integration, defined as “linking major business functions and
business processes within and across companies into a
cohesive and high performing business model” (CSCMP
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
Table I Types of performance measurement used in past research
Study
Frazier (1983)
Anand and Stern (1985)
Gaski and Nevin (1985)
Heide and John (1988)
Mohr and Nevin (1990)
Noordewier et al. (1990)
Kumar et al. (1992)
Scheer and Stern (1992)
Kalwani and Narayandas
(1995)
Bello and Gilliland (1997)
Aulakh and Kotabe (1997)
Jap (1999)
Liker and Wu (2000)
Claro et al. (2003)
Coelho et al., 2003
Achrol and Etzel (2003)
Duarte and Davis (2003)
Al-Zubaidi and Tyler (2004)
Duffy and Fearne (2004)
Fynes et al. (2004)
Zablah et al. (2005)
Benton and Maloni (2005)
Fynes et al. (2005)
Ruamsock et al. (2007)
Fugate et al. (2010)
Relationships
Cooperativeness of
manufacturer’s reps
Quality of manufacturers reps.
advice
Coordination
Satisfaction
Commitment
Customer satisfaction
Reseller loyalty
Customer satisfaction
Perceived satisfaction
Future growth
Customer satisfaction
Customer satisfaction
Customer retention
Supply chain satisfaction
Customer satisfaction
Operational
Car allocation and delivery
Interfirm assistance
Reimbursement of warranty
claims
Relative dealer performance
Inventory turnover
Percentage on time delivery
Percentage acceptable
Reseller competence
Reseller compliance
Inventory turnover
Percentage late deliveries
Percentage truckloads filled
Defective products shipped to
customer, and many more . . .
Relative error rate
Delivery performance
Delivery performance
On time receipt, cycle time
length, shipment accuracy,
delivery damage, accurate
invoicing
Logistics efficiency (measured
with indicators such as
inventory turns per year,
average order cycle time, line
item fill rate and percent
orders shipped on time)
336
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
Strategic
Reseller adaptation
Contribution to growth
Strategic performance
Competitive advantage
Flexibility performance
Flexibility performance
Logistics differentiation
(based on rating the
performance of the business
unit relative to competitors)
Economic
Manufacturer generated
demand
Sales performance
expectancy
Sales targets
Field selling cost/agency
commission
Channel performance
Contribution to sales
Contribution to profits
Sales performance
Net profit
ROI, net sales
Gross margin
Inventory costs
Economic performance
Selling performance
Sales profit contribution
(domestic vs foreign)
Profit performance
Emergency shipping costs
Cost penalty for not filling
trucks
Sales growth rate
Sales performance
Profit performance
Sales volume
ROI
Percentage sales growth
Lost sales
End-of-season stock
Current costs
Sales
Cost performance
Governance costs
Cost performance
Price, transportation costs,
safety stock
Logistics effectiveness (as
measured by sales,
transportation costs,
warehousing costs, inventory
costs, and total logistics costs)
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
Glossary of Terms, 2009; cited in Chen et al., 2009). Early
comprehensive frameworks for supply chain integration
included a relationship component, mentioning customer
integration, supplier integration and also relationship
integration, in addition to process-oriented measures such
as technology and planning integration. More recent papers
focus on supply chain process integration and consider
customer orientation, along with cost orientation, as a driver
of process integration (Chen et al., 2009).
Another recent study, drawing mostly from the relational
governance paradigm, looks at barriers and facilitators of
supply chain integration (Richey et al., 2010, p. 244). An
examination of the survey items used in the study indicate
that barriers of integration refer to a situation where the firm
focuses “on itself over the partnership” and exhibits “a lack of
willingness to share needed information”, while facilitators of
integration refer to a supply chain partnership where the
inter-firm relationship is based on aligned goals, bilateral
communication, and interdependence. Importantly, the
bilateral facilitators predicted superior performance, while
the “internalized’ approach encapsulated in barriers to
integration is negatively related to supply chain performance.
Relationship collaboration and trust building emerge as key
factors in the implementation of supply chain collaboration
(Fawcett et al., 2008). In the same vein, Hofer et al. (2009)
show that partnerships with third party logistics providers are
predicted by a variety of firm-level (such a prior experience)
and inter-firm variables (such as dependence, credibility and
benevolence). In terms of consequences, building strong
collaborative relationships among supply chain members was
shown to help develop logistics learning capabilities (Esper
et al., 2007; Spekman et al., 2002). The length of business
relationships, length of contract (in years), and mutual trust
have been shown to distinguish between dyads practicing lean
manufacturing or not (Wu, 2003).
If bilateral governance is well represented, unilateral
governance based on power and influence strategies is a lot
less researched. One notable exception is the research of
Maloni and Benton (2000), also Benton and Maloni (2005),
analyzing the bases of power in the automotive supply chain
and contrasting this governance mode with the relational (or
bilateral) governance. Importantly, the article acknowledges
that power-based governance can be used to achieve supply
chain integration and in this way, superior performance.
This idea is paramount: supply chain integration, leading to
superior performance, can be achieved not only through trust-
based, bilateral mechanisms, but also through the deployment
of power-based, unilateral mechanisms (Zhao et al., 2008;
Robicheaux and Coleman, 1994). In fact, efficient and
effective supply chains lead by powerful companies such as
Wal-Mart, often deploy both mechanisms, depending on
whether they deal with smaller suppliers, or with larger ones,
such as P&G, and sometimes even within the same
relationship. These governance mechanisms are needed to
manage the increased complexity of business interactions
characteristics of increased integrations and coordination
among firms. To the extent that such integration is not needed
(such as in the case of spot purchases of commodities, an
investment in more complex governance mechanisms is not
needed and the parties will rely instead on market governance.
Different governance forms are a reflection of the different
types of value that companies look for in a relationship. To
determine whether a company has received or provided the
337
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
kind of value that is expected when they initiated the
relationship, they will use performance measures that
accurately reflect the goals and the value that they
anticipated when they initiated the relationship. To develop
a guide that determines which performance measures will be
used under each of these different governance situations, we
link the different performance measures in the ROSE
performance typology with different governance forms.
Based on the literature on inter-organizational governance
and using perspectives from numerous distribution channels
studies, Table II demonstrates the linkage between different
types of performance measures in different governance
environments.
3.2 Market governance and performance
Market governance is a discrete exchange, consistent with the
underlying assumptions of classical economic theory
(Macneil, 1981). This governance form has a short-term
orientation and views inter-firm relationships as discrete
relationships that terminate after every completed exchange
(Keysuk and Frazier, 1996). Roles are narrowly defined in
terms of a minimum amount of duties required by the parties
involved to complete the transaction, and since the
relationship is usually limited to discrete transactions, long-
term planning is basically nonexistent (Heide, 1994).
The primary focus in market governance environments is
short-term economic profits and the price mechanism is the
primary mechanism for inter-firm coordination (Dwyer et al.,
1987). Measuring economic value is therefore very important
since it enables companies in a market environment to
determine the extent to which they have achieved their
economic goals through that exchange. Because companies in
market exchanges have a short-term orientation, building
relationships are not as important as in a bilateral exchange.
According to Johnson et al. (2004), market exchanges do not
warrant the time, effort, costs, and additional resources
necessary to maintain long-term relationships with trading
partners. In market exchanges, enforcement mechanisms are
external to the relationship, usually consisting of the use of the
legal system, and market mechanisms and continuous control
or monitoring of trading partners is considered to be of
limited necessity (Kaufmann and Stern, 1988; Noordewier
et al., 1990).
Since market exchange is seen as a series of discrete
transactions focused on short-term economic gain, companies
in this environment are more likely to use economic
performance measures and less likely to use strategic,
operational and relational measures (Table III). We
therefore propose that:
P1. Companies measuring the performance of their supply
chain partners under market governance will use
primarily economic performance measures.
3.3 Unilateral governance and performance
Unilateral (or hierarchical) governance is a non-market
governance form in which there is power asymmetry, and
one partner has the ability to develop rules, give instructions,
and in effect impose decisions on the others (Li and Dant,
1997). Exchanges are governed by contracts that contain
explicit specifications of duties to ensure that the required
behaviors are performed (Williamson, 1991). Contracts
containing standard rules, monitoring mechanisms, and
 Table II ROSE performance framework and types of governance structures
Market Unilateral Bilateral
Comment Source Comment Source Comment Source
Relationships Focus on short-term profits so Keysuk and Frazier (1996) Creating relationship and satisfying Ganesan Oriented towards strong lasting Morgan and Hunt
developing relationship with customer is trading partner’s customer could (1994) customer relationships (1994); Dwyer et al.
not very important reduce dependency and create (1987); Ganesan
competitive advantage (1994)
Prices determined by competition and Anderson and Weitz In customer driven supply chains, Gunasekaran Satisfying your trading parter’s Dwyer et al. (1987);
marketplace. Creating relationships with (1989); Gundlach and supply base of even the very large, et al. (2004) customer is very important and can Ganesan (1994)
customers and other partners is of Cadotte (1994) has an impact on ultimate customer lead to barriers to exit
limited importance satisfaction
Do not warrant time, effort, costs, and Anderson and Weitz Neither party has much stake in Lusch and Relationships are so important that Dwyer et al. (1987);
additional resources necessary to (1989); Gundlach and relationship so there is very limited Brown (1996) they are the cornerstone of the Morgan and Hunt
maintain extensive relationships Cadotte (1994); Johnson relational behavior system (1994)
“A ROSE, by any other name”

et al. (2004)
Limited interdependence, lower reliance Goldberg (1976); Ouchi Reliance on maintaining good social Ring and Van Rewards based on commitment to Ouchi (1979); Heide
on social agreements, and relatively (1979); Yilmaz et al. relations is virtually eliminated de Ven (1994) the system and individual goals are (1994); Claro et al.
shallow concern for whole system (2005) influenced by the long-term goals of (2003)
performance the whole system
Operations Roles are narrowly defined in terms of Kaufmann and Stern Active supervision and close Ouchi (1979); Roles become multidimensional and Ganesan (1994)
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro

minimal level of duties required to (1988) operational surveillance is used to Noordewier more complex. It is important to test
complete transaction ensure performance et al. (1990) ability of partner to deliver promised

338
output
Limited control, monitoring of behavior Kaufmann and Stern Governed by contracts that contain Williamson Parties monitor partners through Barthon and Jepsen
of trading partners, and administrative (1988); Noordewier et al. explicit specifications of duties (1991); Heide socialization processes leading to: (1997); Bello and
apparatus necessary (1990) (1994) shared values, internal control, Gilliland (1997)
minimized opportunism, and
commitment
Strategy By virtue of its emphasis on discrete Macneil (1981); Frazier Focus more on processes and less on Lusch and Long-term relationships can be used Dwyer et al. (1987);
transactions, planning is limited or non- et al. (1989); Heide (1994) long-term strategies Brown (1996) to create competitive advantage by Ganesan (1994);
existent creating product differentiation and Johnson et al. (2004)
barriers to switching
Because of short-term nature, need for Heide (1994) Strategic planning less important Gundlach and The relationship is seen as a Macneil (1981);
flexibility and adjustments is limited or than in relational exchange Murphy strategic one and planning is also Heide (1994); Lusch
non-existent (1993) jointly done and Brown (1996)
Economic Channel members primary focus is short- Goldberg (1976); Dwyer Price comparisons and economic Ouchi (1979) Business relationships still aimed at Claro et al. (2003)
term economic profits et al. (1987); Keysuk and performance are used as a way to achieving economic gains
Frazier (1996) monitor the effectiveness of an
exchange
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343

Price mechanism is likely to be primary if Goldberg (1976); Focus on economic benefit of Lusch and Interested in long-term economic Heide (1994); Claro
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

not sole mechanism for inter-firm Williamson (1991); Keysuk powerful party Brown (1996) wellbeing of the whole system et al. (2003)
coordination and Frazier (1996)
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
Table III Relationship between ROSE performance measures and
governance forms
Performance measures Governance forms
Market Unilateral Bilateral
Relationships Low High High
Operational Low High High
Strategic Low Low High
Economic High High High
terminating clauses are frequently used as a governance
mechanism (Osborn and Baughn, 1990) and incentive
systems are designed to reward observed behavior (Heide,
1994). Since behaviors and processes are highly valued in
unilateral exchanges (Noordewier et al., 1990) operational
performance measures are important in this governance
environment.
In unilateral governance, economic performance is
important since the relationship exists so long as it provides
economic benefits to the powerful party (Lusch and Brown,
1996). Price comparisons and economic performance are
used as a way to monitor the effectiveness of the relationship
and companies, particularly the powerful players,
continuously measure the economic value of the relationship
to determine if they are receiving the economic value that they
expect out of that relationship. It is quite common for
powerful companies to use these economic measures to put
pressure on their trading partners and demand reduction in
the prices of products and services that they receive from their
less powerful partners. While long-term strategic planning is
important, there is very little relational building between
trading partners (Lusch and Brown, 1996). Relationships are
terminated when the contracts expire and the powerful party
usually is the one who makes the decision as to whether to
renew the contract or not (Heide, 1994).
Companies in unilateral exchanges are less interested in
creating long-term relationships; and they develop unilateral,
rather than joint, strategic plans; but are more interested in
monitoring the behavior of their trading partners and
ensuring that they maximize their individual profit potential.
We propose that:
P2. Companies measuring the performance of their supply
chain partners under unilateral governance use
primarily. . .
(a) Operational performance measures.
(b) Economic performance measures.
3.4 Bilateral governance and performance
Bilateral Governance is associated with relational exchange
and relationships are based on social processes, norms, and
cooperation across both parties (Li and Dant, 1997).
Relationships are the cornerstone of bilateral governance
and evaluative processes involve the assessment of not only
skills but also general beliefs, attitudes and values (Dwyer
et al., 1987).
In bilateral governance, relationships are seen as strategic
and planning is jointly done, decentralized, flexible, and
exhibits lower-levels of specificity (Lusch and Brown, 1996).
Individual goals are reached through joint accomplishment
and influenced by the long-term goals of the whole system
339
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
(Claro et al., 2003). Since relationships are viewed as strategic
and long-term goals are valuable, companies in such an
environment will evaluate the effectiveness of their strategies
and long-term plans.
Parties monitor their partners through socialization
processes that lead to shared values, promote internal
control, minimize opportunism, and reward partners based
on commitment to the relationship (Barthon and Jepsen,
1997). The need for explicit enforcement is low since
expectations of future business represent an incentive to abide
by the norms and serve as an enforcement mechanism on its
own (Heide, 1994). Although the need for enforcement is
low, companies in bilateral relationships will measure their
channel’s operational effectiveness in order to jointly work
towards continuous improvement and solving any operational
problems that they might face. Measuring operational
performance is therefore important in bilateral governance
environments. In bilateral exchanges business relationships
are still aimed at economic gains and the partners are
interested in the long-term economic wellbeing of the whole
system (Claro et al., 2003). It is therefore important for firms
to measure the extent to which economic goals have been
achieved in their channel.
Since companies in bilateral exchanges see their
relationships as strategic, they are very interested in
satisfying customers; monitor their members using
socialization processes; are interested in creating long-term
relationships; and also aim at providing long-term economic
benefits for all members of their system. Therefore, we
propose that they will use all four components of the ROSE
framework:
P3. Companies measuring the performance of their supply
chain partners under bilateral governance will use
primarily. . .
(a) Relational performance measures.
(b) Operational performance measures.
(c) Strategic performance measures.
(d) Economic performance measures.
4. Contributions, limitations, and directions for
future research
This paper makes two significant contributions to
practitioners and the academic literature. First, the paper
develops a comprehensive classification of supply chain
performance measures that includes both financial and non-
financial measures. Unlike accounting based performance
measures like ROI and ROA which are backward looking
(Rust et al., 2002), non-financial performance measures
identified in the ROSE framework are forward looking
measures thus enabling companies to anticipate problems and
take corrective measures before the problems actually occur.
For example, customer satisfaction is an important measure
of future performance since it captures the likelihood that
customers will return to purchase again (Lehmann and
Reibstein, 2006).
Another contribution of the paper is that it proposes a
framework that helps practitioners and academics alike to
determine the most effective performance measures to select
under different supply chain governance conditions. Although
numerous academic researchers have called for research to be
conducted to help create a structure or framework that
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
identifies conditions under which different performance
measures should be used (Kumar et al., 1992; Lehmann
and Reibstein, 2006; Spriggs, 1994), very little work has been
done on the performance construct. This paper is a
preliminary attempt to provide a framework that both
managers and researchers can use to select different
performance measures under different conditions.
Both the ROSE performance framework as well as the
governance theory can be linked to existent supply chain
classification. For example, the supply chain literature
distinguishes between functional supply chains characterized
by predictable demand and a focus on efficiency and
innovative supply chains, where demand is unpredictable
and the major concern is market response (Fisher, 1997). It
could be interesting to explore what type of governance is
more appropriate for each of the two situations. Could
unilateral governance best fit the mission of squeezing costs
and redundancies in a functional supply chain, as the example
of Wal-Mart shows us? On the one hand, could bilateral
governance be the solution for innovative supply chains,
because they allow the partners to make the necessary
adjustments without incurring high transaction costs? On the
other hand, could unilateral governance potentially lead to
faster decision making and be more appropriate for dealing
with short lead times? What elements of the ROSE
performance measurement framework would work best in
each of the two situations?
Furthermore, newer classifications also introduce the
notion of supply uncertainty (in addition to the previously
considered demand uncertainty), leading to four types of
supply chains: efficient, responsive, risk-hedging and agile
(Lee, 2002). The same questions as before would apply here,
but at a higher level of complexity. Could maybe different
modes of governance be deployed with upstream partners
versus downstream partners in order to deal with different
levels of uncertainty?
Resilient supply chains, defined as enterprise systems that
survive, adapt and grow in the face of turbulent change, are
characterized by diversity, efficiency adaptability and cohesion
(Pettitt et al., 2010). Interestingly, these four dimensions
closely parallel the AGIL dimensions framework, and thus,
our own ROSE performance framework. For example,
cohesion, referring to the existence of unifying forces or
linkages, strong partnerships and distinctive corporate culture
(Fiksel, 2003) approximates the Relationship dimension in
the ROSE framework, with its emphasis on relationships and
cultural norms. The diversity dimension of resilience parallels
the Operational dimension in the ROSE framework, with its
emphasis on the need for integration between various supply
chain entities. A resilient enterprise system’s adaptability
refers to flexibility, change, accumulation of resource slack,
and organizational learning in response to new pressures and
it corresponds to the Strategic dimension in the ROSE
framework. Finally, Efficiency, defined as performance with
modest resources closely mirrors the Economic imperative in
the ROSE framework (Fiksel, 2003). The equivalence of
these frameworks, although originating in different
intellectual traditions, confirms the wide applicability of the
ROSE frameworks, based on its solid theoretical foundation
in the work of Talcott Parsons.
The concept of supply chain identity salience is another
interesting theoretical development and it refers to the extent
to which a firm believes that it belongs to a certain supply
340
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
chain (Min et al., 2008). This identity encompasses both
emotional and cognitive bonds and it induces the firm to
follow the social norms of that specific supply chain. The
article also introduces the notion of supply chain social
capital, defined as social resources embedded in the
relationships in a supply chain network. Supply chain
capital, with its structural and relational linkages, is shown
to predict innovation-oriented and execution-oriented supply
chain performance. While these concepts seem related to
bilateral governance, more empirical validation would be
needed to see how identity salience and social capital relate to
the ROSE performance framework.
To conclude, while the field of SCM has more recently
applied concepts from the relational paradigm, there is still a
need to incorporate a larger theoretical framework to account
for the variety of relationships in the supply chain. Based on a
review of the extant literature, in this paper, we introduced a
typology of governance relationships and we showed how the
ROSE performance measures correspond to each governance
typology.
References
Achrol, R.S. and Etzel, J.M. (2003), “The structure of reseller
goals and performance in marketing channels”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 146-164.
Al-Zubaidi, H. and Tyler, D. (2004), “A simulation model of
quick response replenishment of seasonal clothing”,
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 320-327.
Anand, P. and Stern, L.W. (1985), “A sociopsychological
explanation for why marketing channel members relinquish
control”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 4,
pp. 365-377.
Anderson, E. and Weitz, B. (1989), “Determinants of
continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads”,
Marketing Science, Vol. 8 No. 4, p. 310.
Aulakh, P.S. and Kotabe, M. (1997), “Antecedents and
performance implications of channel integration in foreign
markets”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 28
No. 1, pp. 145-175.
Autry, C.W. and Stanley, E.G. (2008), “Supply chain capital:
the impact of structural and relational linkages on firm
execution and innovation”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 157-168.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 99-121.
Barthon, P. and Jepsen, B. (1997), “How time affects
transaction costs and relational governance in the
distribution channel: a review and research propositions”,
Management Research News, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 14-30.
Bechtel, C. and Jayaram, J. (1997), “Supply chain
management: a strategic perspective”, International Journal
of Logistics Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 15-34.
Bello, D.C. and Gilliland, D.I. (1997), “The effect of output
controls, process controls, and flexibility on export channel
performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 22-38.
Benton, W.C. and Maloni, M. (2005), “The influence of
power driven buyer/seller relationships on supply chain
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
satisfaction”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Brewer, P.C. and Speh, T.H. (2000), “Using the balance
scorecard to measure supply chain performance”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 75-93.
Chakravarthy, B.S. (1986), “Measuring strategic
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 5,
pp. 437-458.
Charvet, F.F., Cooper, M.C. and Gardner, J.T. (2008), “The
intellectual structure of supply chain management: a
bibliometric approach”, Journal of Business Logistics,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 47-58.
Chen, H., Daugherty, P.J. and Landry, T.D. (2009), “Supply
chain process integration: a theoretical framework”, Journal
of Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 27-46.
Choi, T.Y. and Hong, Y. (2002), “Unveiling the structure of
supply networks: case studies in Honda Acura, and Daimler
Chrysler”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 5,
pp. 469-493.
Claro, D.P., Hagelaar, G. and Omta, O. (2003), “The
determinants of relational governance and performance:
how to manage business relationships?”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 703-713.
Deepen, J.A., Goldsby, T., Knemeyer, M.A. and Wallenburg,
C.M. (2008), “Beyond expectations: an examination of
logistics outsourcing goal achievement and goal
exceedance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 2,
pp. 75-104.
Duarte, M. and Davies, G. (2003), “Testing the conflict-
performance assumption in business-to-business
relationships”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 91-99.
Duffy, R. and Fearne, A. (2004), “The impact of supply chain
partnerships on supplier performance”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), “Developing
buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51
No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Esper, T., Fugate, B.S. and Sramek, B.D. (2007), “Logistics
learning capabilities: sustaining the competitive advantage
gained through logistics leverage”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 57-78.
Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2008), “A three stages
implementation for supply chain collaboration”, Journal of
Business Logistics, No. 1, pp. 93-128.
Fiksel, J. (2003), “Designing resilient, sustainable systems”,
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 37,
pp. 5330-5339.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), “What is the right supply chain for your
product?”, Harvard Business Review, March-April,
pp. 105-116.
Folan, P. and Browne, J. (2005), “Development of an
extended enterprise performance measurement system”,
Production Planning and Control, Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 531-544.
Frankel, R., Bolumole, Y.A., Eltantawy, R.A., Paulraj, A. and
Gundlach, T.G. (2008), “The domain and scope of SCM’s
foundational disciplines-insights and issues to advance
research”, Journal of Business Logistics, p. 29(1.
Frazier, G.L. (1983), “On the measurement of interfirm
power in channels of distribution”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 158-167.
341
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
Fugate, B.S., Mentzer, J.T. and Stank, T.P. (2010), “Logistics
performance: efficiency, effectiveness and differentiation”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 43-62.
Fynes, B., Búrca, D.S. and Marshall, D. (2004),
“Environmental uncertainty, supply chain relationship
quality and performance”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 179-190.
Fynes, B., Voss, C. and Búrca, D.S. (2005), “The impact of
supply chain relationship quality on quality performance”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96 No. 3,
pp. 339-354.
Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinants of long-term orientation
in buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58
No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Gaski, J.F. and Nevin, J.R. (1985), “The differential effects of
exercised and unexercised power sources in a marketing
channel”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 130-142.
Goldberg, V.P. (1976), “Regulation and administered
contracts”, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 426-448.
Griffis, S.E., Cooper, M., Goldsby, J.T. and Closs, D.J.
(2004), “Performance measurement: measure selection
based upon firm goals and information reporting needs”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 95-129.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and McGaughey, R.E. (2004),
“A framework for supply chain performance
measurement”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 333-347.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001),
“Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain
environment”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 71-86.
Gundlach, G.T. and Cadotte, E.R. (1994), “Exchange
interdependence and interfirm interaction: research in a
simulated channel setting”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 516-532.
Gundlach, G.T. and Murphy, P.E. (1993), “Ethical and legal
foundations of relational marketing exchanges”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 35-50.
Heide, J.B. (1994), “Interorganizational governance in
marketing channels”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1,
pp. 71-85.
Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1988), “The role of dependence
balancing in safeguarding transaction-specific assets in
conventional channels”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 20-35.
Hofer, A.R., Knemeyer, M.A. and Dressner, M.E. (2009),
“Antecedents and dimensions of customer partnership
behavior in logistics outsourcing relationships”, Journal of
Business Logistics, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 141-163.
Jap, S.D. (1999), “Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration
processes in buyer-supplier relationships”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 461-475.
Johnson, J.L., Sohi, R.S. and Grewal, R. (2004), “The role of
relational knowledge stores in interfirm partnering”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 21-36.
Kalwani, M.U. and Narayandas, N. (1995), “Long-term
manufacturer-supplier relationships: do they pay off for
supplier firms?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 1,
pp. 1-16.
Kaufmann, P.J. and Stern, L.W. (1988), “Relational exchange
norms, perceptions of unfairness, and retained hostility in
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
commercial litigation”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 32
No. 3, pp. 534-552.
Keysuk, K. and Frazier, G.L. (1996), “A typology of
distribution channel systems: a contextual approach”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Kumar, N., Stern, L. and Achrol, R.S. (1992), “Assessing
reseller performance from the perspective of the supplier”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 238-253.
Lambert, D.M., Garcia-Dastugue, S.J. and Croxton, K.L.
(2008), “The role of logistics managers in the cross-
functional implementation of supply chain management”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 113-132.
Lee, H.L. (2002), “Aligning supply chain strategies with
product uncertainties”, California Management Review,
Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 105-119.
Lee, H.L. and Billington, C. (1992), “Managing supply chain
inventory: pitfalls and opportunities”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 65-73.
Lehmann, D.R. and Reibstein, D.J. (2006), Marketing Metrics
and Financial Performance, Marketing Science Institute,
Cambridge, MA.
Li, Z.G. and Dant, R.P. (1997), “An exploratory study of
exclusive dealing in channel relationships”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 201-213.
Liker, J.K. and Wu, Y.C. (2000), “Japanese automakers, US
suppliers, and supply-chain superiority”, Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 81-100.
Lusch, R.F. and Brown, J.R. (1996), “Interdependency,
contracting, and relational behavior in marketing
channels”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 19-38.
Macneil, I.R. (1981), “Economic analysis of contractual
relations: its shortfalls and the need for a rich classificatory
apparatus”, Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 75
No. 6, pp. 1018-1063.
Maloni, M. and Benton, W.C. (2000), “Power influences in
the supply chain”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 49-61.
Mehta, R., Dubinsky, A.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2003),
“Leadership style, motivation and performance in
international marketing channels: an empirical
investigation of the USA, Finland and Poland”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 50-85.
Mentzer, J.T., Stank, T.P. and Esper, T.L. (2008), “Supply
chain management and its relationship to logistics,
marketing, production, and operations management”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 31-43.
Meyer, A.D. (1991), “What is strategy’s distinctive
competence?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 821-835.
Min, S., Kim, S.K. and Chen, H. (2008), “Developing social
identity and social capital for supply chain management”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 283-304.
Mohr, J. and Nevin, J.R. (1990), “Communication strategies
in marketing channels: a theoretical perspective”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 36-51.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-
trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Noordewier, T.G., John, G. and Nevin, J.R. (1990),
“Performance outcomes of purchasing arrangements in
industrial buyer-vendor relationships”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 80-93.
342
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
Osborn, R.N. and Baughn, C.C. (1990), “Forms of
interorganizational governance for multinational
alliances”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 503-513.
Ouchi, W.G. (1979), “A conceptual framework for the design
of organizational control mechanisms”, Management
Science, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 833-848.
Parsons, T. (1970), The Social System, Routledge & Kegan
Paul, London.
Parsons, T., Shils, E., Naegle, K. and Pitts, J. (1961), Theories
of Society, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Pettitt, T.J., Fiksel, J. and Crowston, K.L. (2010), “Ensuring
supply chain resilience: development of a conceptual
framework”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 1-21.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), “A spatial model of
effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach
to organizational analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 363-377.
Rafele, C. (2004), “Logistic service measurement: a reference
framework”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 280-290.
Richey, G.R. Jr, Roath, A.S., Whipple, J.M. and Fawcett, S.E.
(2010), “Exploring a governance theory of supply chain
management: barriers and facilitators to integration”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 237-255.
Ring, P.S. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1994), “Developmental
processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 90-118.
Robicheaux, R.A. and Coleman, J.E. (1994), “The structure
of marketing channel relationships”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 22, pp. 38-51.
Ruamsock, K., Russell, D. and Thomchick, E. (2007), “US
sourcing form low-cost countries: a comparative analysis of
supplier performance”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Fall, pp. 16-30.
Rust, R.T., Moorman, C. and Dickson, P.R. (2002), “Getting
return on quality: revenue expansion, cost reduction, or
both”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 7-24.
Scheer, L.K. and Stern, L.W. (1992), “The effect of influence
type and performance outcomes on attitude toward the
influencer”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 128-142.
Spekman, R.E., Spear, J. and Kamauff, J. (2002), “Supply
chain competency: learning as a key component”, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 41-45.
Spriggs, M.T. (1994), “A framework for more valid measures
of channel member performance”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 327-343.
Tangpong, C., Kuo-Ting, H. and Ro, Y.K. (2010), “The
interaction effect of relational norms and agent
cooperativeness on opportunism in buyer-supplier
relationships”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28
No. 5, pp. 398-414.
Trent, R.J. (2010), “Creating the ideal supplier scorecard”,
Supply Chain Management Review, March-April, pp. 24-29.
Wernerfelt, B. and Montgomery, C.A. (1986), “What is an
attractive industry?”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 10,
pp. 1223-1230.
Williamson, O.E. (1991), “Comparative economic
organization: the analysis of discrete structural
 “A ROSE, by any other name”
Christian Chelariu, Anthony Kwame Asare and Thomas Brashear-Alejandro
alternatives”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 269-296.
Wu, Y.C. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: a perspective of lean
suppliers”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 23 No. 11, pp. 1349-1376.
Yilmaz, C., Sezen, B. and Ozdemir, O. (2005), “Joint and
interactive effects of trust and (inter) dependence on
relational behaviors in long-term channel dyads”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 235-248.
Zablah, A.R., Johnston, W.J. and Bellenger, D.N. (2005),
“Transforming partner relationships through technological
innovation”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 355-363.
Zhao, X., Huo, B., Flynn, B.B., Hoi, J. and Yeung, Y. (2008),
“The impact of power and relationship commitment on the
integration between manufacturers and customers in a
supply chain”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 368-388.
Further reading
Ford, J.D. and Schellenberg, D.A. (1982), “Conceptual issues
of the linkage in the assessment of organizational
performance”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 49-58.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
343
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing
Volume 29 · Number 4 · 2014 · 332 –343
Janda, S. and Seshadri, S. (2001), “The influence of
purchasing strategies on performance”, The Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 294-306.
Oliver, K.R. and Webber, M.D. (1982), “Supply chain
management: logistics catches up with strategy, outlook”, in
Christopher, M. (Ed.), Logistics, The Strategic Issues,
Chapman & Hall, London.
Skaggs, B.C. and Snow, C.S. (2004), “The strategic signaling
of capabilities by service firms in different information
asymmetry environments”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 2
No. 3, pp. 27-29.
Webb, K. and Hogan, J.E. (2002), “Hybrid channel conflict:
causes and effects on channel performance”, The Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 338-356.
Zacharia, Z.G., Nix, N.W. and Lusch, R.F. (2009), “An
analysis of supply chain collaborations and their effect on
performance outcomes”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 30
No. 2, pp. 101-124.
Corresponding author
Christian Chelariu can be contacted at: cchelariu@
suffolk.edu
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.