The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0957-4093.htm

Lean Production implementation, LP, Cloud-

Supported
Cloud-Supported Logistics and Logistics and
SCI
Supply Chain Integration:
interrelationships and effects on
business performance Received 13 February 2019
Revised 16 July 2019
14 October 2019
Luciano Novais 18 February 2020
2 May 2020
Universitat Politecnica de Valencia, Valencia, Spain Accepted 15 June 2020
Juan Manuel Maqueira Mar
ın
Department of Business Administration, Universidad de Jaen, Jaen, Spain, and
Jos
e Moyano-Fuentes
Department of Business Organization,
Marketing and Sociology, Universidad de Jaen, Jaen, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – With support from the dynamic capabilities theory, this paper examines the role of Cloud
Computing technology use in logistics (Cloud-Supported Logistics) and its effect on business results in Lean
manufacturing management (Lean Production implementation) and Supply Chain Integration contexts.
Design/methodology/approach – Using the survey method, a random sample of 260 companies in
intermediate positions in their supply chains was gathered from a population of 1,717 Spanish companies and
used to test five hypotheses. The data were collected by telephone survey using a computerised system with a
response rate of 15.6% (260 valid questionnaires). Structural equation modelling was used to test the five
proposed hypotheses.
Findings – The findings indicate that Cloud-Supported Logistics use plays an important role in achieving
better business results in Lean Production environments. Lean Production has been found to have both a direct
effect and an even more powerful indirect effect on performance through the Cloud-Supported Logistics and
Supply Chain Integration that these technologies produce. Supply Chain Integration is also found to have a
mediating effect in the Cloud-Supported Logistics–performance relationship.
Originality/value – This study is valuable for academics and practitioners as it provides evidence of the
relevant role played by Cloud-Supported Logistics in Lean Production implementation contexts. Cloud-
Supported Logistics and Lean Production are strategically and operationally linked and their joint use results
in Supply Chain Integration and better business performance.
Keywords Lean Production implementation, Cloud-Supported Logistics, Supply Chain Integration, Business
performance
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Market dynamism drives companies to be more efficient so as to produce high-quality
products at a lower cost and in the shortest possible time (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012b). This
is the goal of companies when they implement Lean Production (LP) (Moyano-Fuentes et al.,
2012b). Information technology (IT)-related capabilities have been found to play a major role
in improving business performance when LP is implemented (Brunn and Mefford, 2004) and
in integrating the supply chain process (Bruque et al., 2015).
The International Journal of
The authors acknowledge the financial support of Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient
ıfico e Logistics Management
Tecnol
ogico (CNPq) of Brazil and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness Research © Emerald Publishing Limited
0957-4093
Project PID2019-106577GB-100. DOI 10.1108/IJLM-02-2019-0052
IJLM Womack et al. (1990) define LP as a systematic approach to the identification and
elimination of waste and low or zero value-added activities through continuous improvement.
In this manufacturing context, IT can facilitate production planning, demand and supply
planning and accounting and customer service, among others (Ghaffari et al., 2014; Rai et al.,
2015). In recent years, a new IT paradigm called Cloud Computing has been rapidly adopted
by companies as it offers cost and flexibility advantages and can be applied in different
functional areas, including logistics (Subramanian et al., 2015). To be exact, Cloud-Supported
Logistics is the application of Cloud Computing IT to the logistics business function. Some
studies show that IT such as Cloud Computing can affect the internal aspects of the
organisation’s productive structure and the interconnections and functionality of inter-
organisational configurations (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a; Vermula and Zsifkovits, 2016).
More specifically, Cloud-Supported Logistics could enable effective and efficient integration
of the businesses and systems with which it interacts (suppliers, consumers, logistics
operators) (Li et al., 2013; Subramanian et al., 2015). Another way to improve business results
and competitiveness is through Supply Chain Integration (SCI) is a capability that consists of
integrating physical, information and financial flows (Rai et al., 2006) and rapidly sharing
information and activities across the value chain as a way of promoting cooperative
behaviour between chain agents (Devaraj et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2011).
The literature has analysed the role that IT plays in LP contexts and the way that both of
these impact business results (Pinho and Mendes, 2017). IT’s power to achieve SCI has also
been analysed (Yu et al., 2017). But Cloud Computing is a new phenomenon that has had a
rapid uptake in companies, where it is being applied to the supply chain to achieve SCI
(Bruque et al., 2015, 2016). It might be of great interest for both theory and practice to jointly
analyse the relationships between these three efficiency-seeking mechanisms (LP-IT-SCI) and
the effect that they have on business results. This is especially true if the analysis is focused
on the new reality that Cloud Computing use in the supply chain represents.
The previous literature has addressed the three relationships separately: LP
implementation–IT (Brunn and Mefford, 2004; Ward and Zhou, 2006; Riezebos et al., 2009),
IT–SCI (Gunasekaran and Ngai, 2004; Li et al., 2009; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Yu et al.,
2017) and Cloud–SCI (Bruque et al., 2015, 2016; Maqueira et al., 2019; Novais et al., 2019).
However, no studies have been identified that address all three variables together and their
relationship to business performance. This joint analysis could be relevant since
organisational factors such as LP implementation and the technological capabilities that
derive from the use of Cloud Computing could have multiplier effects on SCI and business
performance. LP is a management system that seeks efficiency and so has a positive impact
on business performance (Van der Vaart et al., 2012; Stump and Badurdeen, 2012), while
Cloud Computing is an IT that achieves greater efficiency than previous technologies and has
also been proven to have a direct effect on logistics activities and SCI (Bruque et al., 2015;
Trappey et al., 2016). The literature has recently identified the potential of Cloud Computing
applied to the supply chain (Cloud-Supported Logistics) and to SCI, especially (Novais et al.,
2019). So, companies that use LP may be induced to use Cloud-Supported Logistics in order to
make further gains in efficiency.
This study, therefore, aims to examine more closely the interrelationships between LP,
Cloud-Supported Logistics and Supply Chain Integration (SCI), and their impacts on business
performance. From a theoretical point-of-view, dynamic capabilities theory (Teece, 1988;
Teece et al., 1997) is used, as SCI is a dynamic capability (Oliveira et al., 2014). This study is
valuable for academics and practitioners as it supports the role played by the strategic and
operational link between the resource (Cloud-Supported Logistics) and the dynamic
capability (SCI) and the notion that the LP-IT combination results in dynamic capabilities
(Teece, 1988; Teece et al., 1997) that subsequently lead to better business performance. This
study, therefore, aims to answer the following research questions: (1) what kind of
relationship exists between LP implementation and Cloud-Supported Logistics and how does LP, Cloud-
it affect company performance? (2) what role does Cloud-Supported Logistics play in business Supported
performance when implemented in conjunction with LP and SCI?
To achieve this objective, the paper has been structured into six sections preceded by this
Logistics and
introduction. The second section presents the background to the research and the third SCI
section states the research hypotheses. The fourth section describes the methodology used.
The obtained results are presented in the fifth section. Section six offers a discussion. Finally,
section seven sets out the conclusions, implications and lines of future research.

2. Theoretical background
In this section, firstly, the key concepts used in the article’s theoretical model are stated. Then,
the dynamic capabilities theory, which underlies the hypotheses, is described. Thirdly, we
show the way that the literature has analysed the relationships between the key concepts,
which acts as the basis for the way that the hypotheses are subsequently addressed.

2.1 Key factors: conceptualisation

This section describes the conceptualisation of the key factors in this research (LP, Cloud-
Supported Logistic, SCI and business performance).
2.1.1 Lean Production. LP is defined as a systematic approach to the identification and
elimination of waste and low or zero value-added activities in the manufacturing function
through continuous improvement (Krafcik, 1988; Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones,
1996). LP extends to manufacturing operations, distribution and product development and
processing times (Hopp and Spearman, 2004; Holweg, 2007; Stump and Badurdeen, 2012).
There is some consensus in the literature that practices commonly associated with LP are:
Manufacturing Cells (MC), i.e. the grouping of workers and machines to perform specialised
operations; Total Quality Management (TQM), i.e. holistic quality consideration; Total
Productive Maintenance (TPM), i.e. the continuous improvement of equipment effectiveness
to create a favourable environment between workers and equipment; Just In Time (JIT), i.e.
producing and delivering components when they are needed and Human Resources
Management (HRM) (Cagliano et al., 2006; Shah et al., 2008; Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012b).
Moyano-Fuentes et al. (2012a) have operationalised the concept of LP in a measurement
instrument that includes these practices. The instrument contains three MC-related variables
(efficient layout, manufacturing cells and reduced inventory level in rapid manufacturing);
three TPM-related variables (Single Minute Exchange of Die or SMED, TPM use and regular
maintenance of all equipment); two JTI-related variables (JTI and Kanban system use); and
one TQM-related variable (TQM use) (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a). This measure has been
used in recent studies with the same LP concept (Uhrin et al., 2017).
2.1.2 Cloud-Supported Logistics. In the manufacturing context, IT may be able to facilitate
production planning, demand and supply planning and accounting and customer service,
among others (Ghaffari et al., 2014; Rai et al., 2015). Cloud Computing is an IT-based tool, a set
of virtualised and distributed resources that are diffuse, ubiquitous and geographically
dispersed that can be accessed on-demand using web-based technologies (Mell and Grance,
2011; Hayes, 2008; Fingar, 2009; Buyya et al., 2011). More precisely, Cloud-Supported
Logistics is the application of cloud systems to the area of logistics. In Cloud-Supported
Logistics, the information that supports the logistics process is no longer stored on local
systems but hosted and run on distributed networks that can be accessed through a web
browser (Wang et al., 2012; Li et al., 2013; Nowicka, 2014). Cloud-Supported Logistics offers
high computing power and storage capacity and is a powerful tool that can improve logistics
services and make enterprises more efficient than earlier IT systems did (Li et al., 2013;
Oliveira et al., 2014; Trappey et al., 2016). In the literature, one specific type of Cloud
Computing is operationalised through a single variable (Bruque et al., 2016).
IJLM 2.1.3 Supply Chain Integration. SCI consists of cooperation, interaction and collaboration
across all the links in the supply chain (Ellinger et al., 2000; Pagell, 2004) to integrate the
physical, information and financial flows in the chain (Rai et al., 2006). Rai et al. (2006) have
developed a measurement instrument based on this concept of SCI that takes into account
three dimensions: (1) integration of physical flows, (2) integration of information flows and (3)
integration of financial flows. Physical integration indicates the degree to which a focal firm
uses global optimisation with its supply chain partners to manage stock supply and flows of
materials and finished goods and is measured with four variables (inventory minimisation,
inventory managed by suppliers and logistics partners, in-time product and materials
delivery and minimisation of inventory cost in distribution networks). Information
integration indicates the extent of operational, tactical and strategic information-sharing
that occurs between a focal firm and its supply chain members and is measured with five
variables (shared production and delivery schedules, shared performance metrics,
collaboration in arriving at demand forecasts, distributors sharing their real sales data
and visible inventory data). Financial flow integration specifies the degree to which financial
flows between a focal firm and its supply chain partners are driven by workflow events and is
measured with two variables (accounts receivable automatised; accounts payable
automatised) (Rai et al., 2006). This measurement instrument has been used in recent
research studies both in its initial form (Maqueira et al., 2019) and adapted to work with a
smaller number of variables to measure physical, information and/or financial flows (Bruque
et al., 2015, 2016).
2.1.4 Business performance. In the literature, business performance has been approached
from two different perspectives: operational performance and financial performance.
Operational performance represents the company’s flexibility and delivery performance
results (Flynn et al., 2010; Wong et al., 2011; Yu, 2015; Bruque et al., 2015, 2016). Flynn et al.
(2010) have developed a measurement instrument composed of six variables (fast
modification to products for major customers, fast introduction of new products, fast
response to changes in demand, on-time delivery to major customers, short lead time and high
level of customer service to major customers). This instrument has been used in its full form in
a variety of recent studies (Yu, 2015) or adapted with the addition or omission of some
variables or with variables grouped into the flexibility factor and the delivery factor (Bruque
et al., 2015, 2016). Financial performance represents the firm’s value-creating capability and
refers to growth in return-on-sales and profits, market share and return-on-investment (Flynn
et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2013). Flynn et al., (2010) have developed a measurement instrument for
financial performance composed of seven variables (sales growth, return on sales, return on
sales growth, profit growth, market share growth, Return on Investment (ROI) and ROI
growth). This scale has been used in its initial form in some subsequent research (Yu
et al., 2013).

2.2 Dynamic capabilities overview

In combination with one another, unique, valuable and inimitable resources generate what is
known as dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997) and these can represent a sustainable
competitive advantage (e.g. Teece, 1988; Feeny and Ives, 1990; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990).
Certain resources create value when dynamically executed in processes (Teece, 1988). In turn,
these processes allow the organisation to learn and thereby create new capabilities (Hansen
and Møller, 2016). This ability to cope with change is defined (Teece et al., 1997) as a firm’s
dynamic capability or its ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external
competences.
The dynamic capabilities theoretical approach is frequently used as a broad explanatory
framework in business administration research. It has been used in Operations Management
research studies into LP (Lewis, 2000; Anand et al., 2009; Hansen and Møller, 2016) and also to
identify the relationships between the logistics integration capability, SCI and performance LP, Cloud-
(Song et al., 2019). Supported
Logistics and
2.3 Research on Lean Production, IT and business performance relationships SCI
There has been a clear trend towards LP implementation since it was first used (Krafcik, 1988;
Womack et al., 1990; Womack and Jones, 1996). The underlying principles of LP and its effects
on supply chain management have been extensively studied in recent decades and
researchers are showing a growing interest in the area (Shah and Ward, 2003; Cagliano et al.,
2006; Moyano-Fuentes and Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, 2012; Uhrin et al., 2017).
On the one hand, the use of LP practices could improve production efficiency and response
to demand variations, reduce production waiting times and eliminate everything that is not
strictly needed to produce added value for the organisation (Van der Vaart et al., 2012). On the
other hand, one of the main challenges that companies face when they implement Lean is how
to increase integration with their key suppliers and customers for all the activities to be
optimised from the end customer perspective (P
erez et al., 2010). The dynamic capabilities
theory (Teece, 1988; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990) has been used to explain how different
practices associated with LP (such as continuous improvement) generate capabilities in the
company that can be a source of competitive advantage and so impact on business
performance (Lewis, 2000; Anand et al., 2009; Hansen and Møller, 2016).
There is a broad consensus in the previous literature about the role that IT plays in
generating efficiency and competitive advantages (Wang et al., 2010; Subramanian et al.,
2015; Jede and Teuteberg, 2015). Some studies demonstrate that IT can affect the internal
aspects of an organisation’s productive structure, as well as interconnections and
functionality in inter-organisational configurations (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a; Bruque
et al., 2015, 2016). The reason for this is that IT enables companies to better manage
information along the entire supply chain (Brunn and Mefford, 2004). Newer technologies
such as Cloud Computing offer several advantages over traditional IT models, including
faster data transaction speeds, greater elasticity, flexibility, delivery efficacy and increased
organisational performance (Marston et al., 2011; S
anchez et al., 2012; Jede and Teuteberg,
2016; Liu et al., 2016; Maqueira et al., 2019). Cloud Computing can be applied to most business
functions, including logistics (Oliveira et al., 2013; Rai et al., 2015; Al-Jawazneh, 2016).
The dynamic capabilities theory shows that business performance depends on the way
that IT is integrated with other resources or capabilities, such as technical and human
resources and management resources (Clemmons and Row, 1991; Powell and Dent-Micallef,
1997). In addition, mediator or moderator resources and capabilities have a strong effect on
the link between IT use and business performance (Wade and Hulland, 2004).
In the specific field of Cloud Computing use, the dynamic capabilities theoretical
framework (Garrison et al., 2012, 2015; Truong, 2010) explains the influence of Cloud
Computing-related resources on competitive advantages (Truong, 2010; Garrison et al., 2015).
Dynamic capabilities also explain (Garrison et al., 2012) that, while many benefits are
associated with Cloud Computing, one factor that is crucial for success is that the client
organisation uses its IT-related capability to leverage Cloud-provided resources (Maqueira
et al., 2017), generating competitive advantage (Garrison et al., 2012).
Applying LP has made many organisations more efficient (Lamming, 1996; Mason-Jones
and Towill, 1999; Shah and Ward, 2007). Similar benefits have been achieved with the
application of IT (Ghaffari et al., 2014; Rai et al., 2015; Vermula and Zsifkovits, 2016). With
regard to the complementarity between LP implementation and IT use, Ward and Zhou
(2006) consider that the Lean and IT approaches are mutually exclusive. The sources of
organisational knowledge needed to implement LP and IT are very different and may prevent
companies from simultaneously initiating two large-scale development processes, one for
IJLM each of the two tools (Ward and Zhou, 2006). Other research shows that Lean-IT approaches
could be a generator of business efficiency (Herron and Braiden, 2007; Mo, 2009; Riezebos
et al., 2009; Pinho and Mendes, 2017). According to these studies, IT could be a powerful tool
that leads to significant long-term results, especially when complemented with other key
resources such as LP. According to the dynamic capabilities theory, joint IT-LP use could
generate new capabilities (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a) and have a strong impact on
business performance.

2.4 Research on Cloud Computing, Supply Chain Integration and business performance
relationships
In Cloud Computing use, IT resources are not located in companies but in virtualised and
distributed systems (Hayes, 2008; Fingar, 2009; Wang et al., 2010; Buyya et al., 2011;
Abdulaziz, 2012; Ghaffari et al., 2014). Cloud Computing offers several advantages over
traditional IT models, including increased flexibility, configurability and scalability and
reduced IT deployment costs (Tuncay, 2010; Marston et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2016). Cloud
Computing advantages may include the use of instant global platforms and the elimination of
hardware infrastructure and software licensing (Cegielski et al., 2012; Wu et al., 2013).
However, it has some limitations, such as concerns about data security and privacy, service
availability and low compatibility with existing applications and systems (Oliveira et al.,
2014; Doherty et al., 2015; Vermula and Zsifkovits, 2016).
Findings in the literature show that Cloud Computing is being rapidly adopted in
companies’ business processes and in all their functional areas, including SCI (Jede and
Teuteberg, 2015; Vermula and Zsifkovits, 2016). Cloud Computing can be a very effective
technological tool for integrating data by effectively integrating supply chain flows (physical,
information and financial) (Bruque et al., 2015, 2016; Maqueira et al., 2019; Novais et al., 2019).
Authors such as Rai et al. (2012) and Vermula and Zsifkovits (2016) state that Cloud
Computing is a good choice of IT and that it supports the creation of company networks with
integrated flows and processes. Cloud Computing also has important implications for
coordination strategies in supply chain networks and can reduce development and
integration costs (Dermirkan et al., 2010). From the dynamic capabilities perspective, on
the offer side, Cloud Computing would be a flexible and powerful IT infrastructure for
connecting an organisation with its partners and stakeholders and its impact could be said to
be a valuable, scarce and inimitable resource. It would be much more powerful and flexible
than traditional IT due to advantages such as scalability and structural flexibility. Cloud
Computing would provide a flexible tool shared by a network of companies that may
ultimately result in more flexible production in terms of production amounts, which could
imply better operational performance (Bruque et al., 2015, 2016). Meanwhile, on the demand
side, Cloud Computing could be considered a homogeneous resource available to companies
through pay-per-use systems (Garrison et al., 2012, 2015).
Specifically, some research shows that Cloud-Supported Logistics could reduce errors in
the information systems that support companies’ logistics activities, while simultaneously
automating and integrating logistics data collection tasks (Li et al., 2013; Subramanian et al.,
2015). These systems use various innovative technologies, such as the internet of Things,
RFID, Artificial Intelligence, Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality, among others (Yan et al.,
2014; Zhong et al., 2015; Botta et al., 2016). The use of Cloud-Supported Logistics could,
therefore, result in better business performance (Oliveira et al., 2014; Vermula and Zsifkovits,
2016; Al-Jawazneh, 2016).
With respect to the Cloud Computing–business performance relationship, some research
shows that Cloud Computing can affect the internal aspects of an organisation’s productive
structure and interconnections and functionality in inter-organisational configurations (Rai
et al., 2015; Vermula and Zsifkovits, 2016). Specifically, Cloud-Supported Logistics can
improve business efficiency by appropriately integrating information relating to order LP, Cloud-
processing and distribution, as well as help to improve inventory and fleet management Supported
(Oliveira et al., 2013, 2014). As a result, this technology could have a strong impact on the
efficiency of processes and activities across the supply chain and contribute to companies
Logistics and
achieving better results (Rai et al., 2015). However, there is some evidence in the literature that SCI
there is no direct relationship between Cloud Computing use and better business
performance, but that an indirect relationship does exist through other resources and
capabilities (Bruque et al., 2015, 2016).
Finally, the SCI–business performance relationship has been widely analysed in the
literature (Gim
enez et al., 2012). There is some consensus that SCI can have a positive effect on
operational and/or financial business results (Li et al., 2009). Both internal and external
process integration should be considered for it to have a full effect on company performance
(Stank et al., 2001; Gim
enez and Ventura, 2005; Zhao et al., 2011). Supply chain partner
integration plays a crucial role in improving business performance in both the initial and final
production stages (Devaraj et al., 2007; Flynn et al., 2010). Based on the same logic, SCI
development reduces uncertainty and enables greater flexibility and responsiveness to
supply chain members’ needs (Johnston and Wright, 2004; Malhotra and Mackelprang, 2012).
More recent studies show that the integration of physical, information and financial flows
could lead to an integrated system offering synergy benefits and that this would positively
impact business performance (Bruque et al., 2015, 2016; Yu et al., 2017).

3. Hypotheses
3.1 Lean Production implementation and business performance
On the one hand, from the strategic point of view, the dynamic capabilities theory has been
used to explain how different practices associated with LP generate capabilities in companies
that can be a source of competitive advantage and impact on business performance (Lewis,
2000; Anand et al., 2009; Hansen and Møller, 2016). Various LP practices such as continuous
improvement (Anand et al., 2009; Hansen and Møller, 2016), for example, have been found to
generate capabilities in companies that are a source of competitive advantage (Lewis, 2000).
In this line, LP implementation could generate dynamic capabilities in the company that
help improve its competitiveness (Lewis, 2000). The dynamic capabilities of LP
implementation bring about a radical transformation to the way that the company works
by improving a small number of systematic activities. Profound changes occur in
management behaviour, employee competencies, daily routines, with a new form of
organisation, with the introduction of new technology, visual performance boards and much
more. This revolution affects the entire system and does not simply entail the introduction of
new methods, but, rather, represents a holistic transformation (Hansen and Møller, 2016).
Employee learning and quality of work stand out among the capabilities generated by LP
implementation. The significant improvements to product quality that come from
implementing LP can be attributed to a general improvement in the opportunity and
motivation to learn. Workers are aware that their performance contributes to company-wide
results (Sterling and Boxall, 2013). Cultural change, the involvement of people and talent
management (training and career paths) are other capabilities that play key roles as an LP
implementation progresses (Uhrin et al., 2017). These capabilities are developed through the
use of LP tools (Hansen and Møller, 2016) that impact on better business performance (both
economic and operational) (Lewis, 2000; Sterling and Boxall, 2013; Uhrin et al., 2017).
On the other hand, the purpose of LP is to eliminate waste at all stages of the supply chain.
It can reduce the system’s sources of variability and thus increase efficiency and improve
operational and financial performance (Lamming, 1996; Rich and Hines, 1997; Mason-Jones
and Towill, 1999; Li et al., 2005; Hofer et al., 2011).
IJLM LP can affect operational performance and improve the speed, visibility and transparency
of processes by standardising work at the company level (Moyano-Fuentes and Sacrist
an-
D
ıaz, 2012; Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012b). LP could, therefore, increase the accuracy of
information and reduce the sources of variability, allowing supply chain members to
synchronise their collaborative process practices while reducing misconceptions and
information asymmetries (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012b). Consequently, LP could mitigate the
limiting effect on the relationship of certain contingency factors (e.g. the complexity of the
chain’s physical or operational flows and demand variability) and thus improve business
results (Hofer et al., 2011; Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012b).
LP can also have an effect on financial performance by enabling operations to be executed
at a minimum cost and without any waste (Womack et al., 1990). The implementation of some
LP-related practices (e.g. TQM, JIT or TPM) could drive up financial results due to reductions
in per-unit manufacturing costs and inventory levels and resource savings (McKone et al.,
2001; Uhrin et al., 2017; Tortorella et al., 2018a, b). So, LP can facilitate the incremental
improvement of products in terms of maximum quality, cost savings and responsiveness to
customer needs (Mason-Jones and Towill, 1999; Jabbour et al., 2013).
LP implementation could, therefore, have a direct positive effect on business performance
by acting on the causes of waste and inflexibility, improving production efficiency,
eliminating process redundancies and reducing production costs (Hopp and Spearman, 2004;
Stump and Badurdeen, 2012; DeGroote and Marx, 2013; Tortorella et al., 2018a, b).
The following hypothesis is proposed based on the above arguments:
H1. There is a positive relationship between Lean Production implementation and
business performance.

3.2 Lean Production implementation and Cloud-Supported Logistics

Firstly, bearing dynamic capabilities in mind, it can be argued that constant technological
changes in the business environment provide companies with new capabilities that can be
implemented at the organisational level (Wang et al., 2010; Oliveira et al., 2013). The
incorporation of IT enables better coordination with partners (LP practice) and can facilitate
the development of other supply chain capabilities (Wu et al., 2006). New IT has enormous
potential for facilitating collaborative planning by supply chain partners through the sharing
of information on demand forecasts and production schedules (Chen and Paulraj, 2004).
Moreover, a company that adopts LP aims to increase process efficiency (Rich and Hines,
1997; Shah and Ward, 2007; Ugarte et al., 2016). Although LP can be adopted without using
IT, as Toyota did in the 90s (Womack et al., 1990), IT affords greater efficiency (Ghaffari et al.,
2014; Rai et al., 2015; Vermula and Zsifkovits, 2016). In continuous improvement processes,
new and more powerful IT adds new levels of efficiency compared to previous technologies
(Marston et al., 2011). Therefore, companies that adopt LP in pursuit of additional efficiency
gains would be able to use the most powerful innovative technologies, such as Cloud
Computing (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a).
In fact, Mo (2009) considers that jointly developing LP and IT projects is essential.
However, he states that Lean should be a preliminary stage that precedes IT projects for the
obtained results to be successful. Herron and Braiden (2007) state that LP implementation is a
standard process for developing, analysing and implementing productivity improvement
plans and that these are more effective prior to IT implementation. In this sense, in order to
achieve greater IT optimisation and a higher return on investment, IT should be implemented
after the restructuring of the company activities that require its implementation as a
consequence of LP roll-out (Herron and Braiden, 2007; Mo, 2009; Pinho and Mendes, 2017).
On the other hand, the dynamic capabilities theory also supports the argument that
companies based around LP have a highly developed innovation capability (e.g. associated
with the culture of continuous change) (Anand et al., 2009). This strong innovation capability LP, Cloud-
is linked to greater alertness to technology that would enable organisations to detect Supported
technologies with disruptive potential – such as Cloud Computing – at an early stage
(Truong, 2010). Therefore, LP would develop capabilities in the company that would
Logistics and
encourage the use of innovative technologies such as Cloud Computing. In this sense, recent SCI
research finds that companies that use LP are prompted to use Industry 4.0-related IT
intensively (e.g. Big Data, Cloud Computing, the internet of Things, Augmented Reality and
Artificial Intelligence) (Rossini et al., 2019). Higher Industry 4.0 adoption levels may be easier
to achieve for European manufacturers when LP practices are extensively implemented in the
company (Rossini et al., 2019). In contrast, when processes are not robustly designed and
continuous improvement practices are not well-established, companies may be less prepared
to adopt novel technologies (Rossini et al., 2019).
More specifically, recent studies have found that Cloud-Supported Logistics can reduce
errors in the information systems that support companies’ logistics activities while
simultaneously automating and integrating logistics data collection tasks (Li et al., 2013;
Subramanian et al., 2015). LP could thus boost the use of IT such as Cloud-Supported
Logistics by minimising the operational complexities of logistics processes, increasing
efficiency and speed when responding to demand variations and improving integration with
key suppliers and customers (Mo, 2009; Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a; P
erez et al., 2010; Pinho
and Mendes, 2017). Therefore, LP implementation and IT use (Cloud-Supported Logistics use)
could be factors that would help logistics operations to be carried out with maximum stability
and this could result in savings in resources and improved quality of information.
Taking these arguments together, it can be stated that LP implementation could be the
reason why IT use achieves higher efficiency levels. Thus, the following hypothesis can now
be formulated:
H2. There is a positive relationship between Lean Production implementation and Cloud-
Supported Logistics use.

3.3 Cloud-Supported Logistics and business performance

The dynamic capabilities approach has also been widely used to explain the role of IT in the
company (Clemmons and Row, 1991; Powell and Dent-Micallef, 1997). There is a high level of
consensus among researchers that, despite IT providing businesses with major benefits, it
does not on its own provide a strategic advantage, but needs to operate in conjunction with
other resources and capabilities (Ravichandran and Lertwongsatien, 2005). Research has
shown that organisational performance depends on the way that IT is integrated with
organisational, technical and human resources and other business resources and capabilities
(Powell and Dent-Micallef, 1997). In this sense, using IT in conjunction with other resources
and capabilities generates new capabilities in companies, called the IT capability (Yu et al.,
2017) or IT-related capabilities.
From the dynamic capabilities perspective, it has been found that firms that develop an
effective IT capability (Yu et al., 2017) or IT-related capabilities (Managerial, Technical and
Relational IT-related capabilities) achieve greater financial performance than firms with
poorer IT-related capabilities (Bharadwaj, 2000). IT-related Managerial capabilities are
human IT resources that derive from training, experience and insight; IT-related technical
capabilities are IT resources that provide the organisation with functionality, flexibility and
scalability; IT-related relational capabilities are the ability to develop positive links with IT
providers and are characterised by trust (Garrison et al., 2012). Managerial, technical and
relational IT-related capabilities leverage Cloud resources by generating other new and
unique IT-based capabilities in firms (Garrison et al., 2012, 2015; Yu et al., 2017) that produce
differential organisational values (Clemmons and Row, 1991; Powell and Dent-Micallef, 1997;
IJLM Garrison et al., 2015). When Cloud technology is successfully implemented in several different
processes and operations at the same time, business performance is improved (Garrison et al.,
2015). This direct effect occurs because Cloud Computing technology use is successfully
achieved when it is able to more fully focus on its core business (strategic benefits). Cloud
users have access to key technologies and skilled IT personnel (economic benefits) and a
reduced risk of IT obsolescence (technological benefits) (Garrison et al., 2015).
In the Cloud-Supported Logistics operational context, logistics managers have come to
perceive that organisations using this technology can achieve better business results (Al-
Jawazneh, 2016). Thanks to Cloud-Supported Logistics, companies can manage operations
with lower transport costs through better coordination with their partners and this could
improve the company’s financial results (Ghobakhloo and Tang, 2014; Vermula and
Zsifkovits, 2016). Cloud-Supported Logistics improves logistics services and produces
reliable daily planning and operations with less investment, which could also generate better
financial results (Li et al., 2013; Oliveira et al., 2013). Meanwhile, Tao et al. (2011) and
Subramanian et al. (2015) highlight the outcomes of Cloud-Supported Logistics: reduced
delivery times (operational performance) and logistics costs (financial performance). Cloud-
Supported Logistics could, therefore, provide technological capabilities that facilitate greater
management control by increasing coordination and reducing operations and delivery costs
and, thereby, improve operational and financial performance (Li et al., 2013; Oliveira et al.,
2013; Subramanian et al., 2015). Cloud-Supported Logistics could support collaboration
between logistics networks and facilitate the planning and optimisation of location data
capture, route analysis and statistical forecasting processes (Abdulaziz, 2012; Li et al., 2013;
Oliveira et al., 2013; Subramanian et al., 2015). Cloud-Supported Logistics could also support
planning and time allocation applications and long-distance control systems (Abdulaziz,
2012; Vermula and Zsifkovits, 2016; Al-Jawazneh, 2016). Thus, Cloud-Supported Logistics
could help create flexibility, scalability and speed and so improve the visibility of the
company, its processes and its relationship with its logistics partners (Bruque et al., 2015). As
a result, Cloud-Supported Logistics could positively affect operational results (in terms of
flexibility, efficiency, punctuality and delivery accuracy) and financial results (by reducing
warehousing and transport costs).
In short, Cloud-Supported Logistics is changing the way that companies interact with
their internal and external partners (suppliers, consumers and logistics operators) by
generating managerial, technical and relational IT-related capabilities and other unique IT-
based capabilities and could be a key tool for improving business performance.
The following hypothesis can be proposed based on the above arguments:
H3. There is a positive relationship between Cloud-Supported Logistics and business
performance.

3.4 Cloud-Supported Logistics and Supply Chain Integration

From the dynamic capabilities approach, using IT as a tool in conjunction with other
resources and capabilities generates new company capabilities (Yu et al., 2017). The literature
recognises that Cloud Computing is a technological tool that generates other capabilities with
a strong impact on business performance (Bruque et al., 2015, 2016) and SCI is, precisely, one
of these capabilities (Rai et al., 2006; Bruque et al., 2016).
The literature has also suggested that effective supply chain management requires greater
collaboration and integration between chain members (Berman, 2002; Boon-itt and Wong,
2011). To achieve the full potential of supply chain management, the physical, information and
financial flows between partners in the supply chain have to be integrated (Troyer and Cooper,
1995; Rai et al., 2006). In fact, the integration and alignment of internal and inter-company
processes in the supply chain are important factors for value creation in a business context LP, Cloud-
(Cagliano et al., 2006; Bruque et al., 2015). In the logistics field, it has been found that the logistics Supported
information integration capability positively impacts on SCI (Song et al., 2019).
The SCI capability was created to promote cooperation, interaction and collaboration
Logistics and
between supply chain partners (Ellinger et al., 2000; Pagell, 2004; Foerstl et al., 2017). In this SCI
sense, IT in general, and Cloud Computing in particular, could improve the SCI capability by
enabling the company to identify, capture, store and manage information both internally and
externally and provide additional capabilities to manage physical, information and financial
flows (Azevedo et al., 2013; Jede and Teuteberg, 2015, 2016; Bruque et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2017;
Novais et al., 2019). In this sense, the prior literature shows that, on a general level, IT use
allows the generation of an IT capability that has a direct and positive relationship with SCI
(Yu et al., 2017). On a specific level, there is a strong direct and positive relationship between
Cloud Computing use and SCI (Novais, et al., 2019).
From a logistics integration perspective, Cloud-Supported Logistics allows companies to
communicate with transport companies, suppliers and customers (Li et al., 2013;
Subramanian et al., 2015). Cloud-Supported Logistics could, therefore, have a positive
effect on both internal integration and integration between logistics partners (Bruque et al.,
2015, 2016). According to Oliveira et al. (2014), Cloud-Supported Logistics improves the
logistics capability by integrating information on order processing, logistics network design
and distribution and helping to improve inventory and fleet management. Oliveira et al. (2014)
also indicate that Cloud Computing has been increasingly used in logistics as a way of
integrating information on freight forwarding, customs clearance, warehousing and other
value-added services. Cloud Computing also aids logistics integration by virtualising
companies and efficiently equipping users with resources, thus giving logistics providers
real-time integration through different channels (Li et al., 2013; Bhoir and Principal, 2014).
Maqueira et al. (2019) also find that there is a direct relationship between the use of Cloud
Computing and SCI. Thus, Cloud Computing use integrates physical, information and
financial flows between members of the supply chain (Maqueira et al., 2019). Regarding
physical flow integration, new types of IT in the manufacturing industry (Industry 4.0)
integrate physical objects with business processes. So, Cloud Computing is useful for
enhancing suppliers’ and logistics partners’ inventory management and Just-In-Time
deliveries; regarding Information flow integration, Cloud Computing integrates data across
the entire supply chain so that information relating to inventory management and production
and ordering processes can be easily shared in real-time; regarding financial flow integration,
a Cloud Computing-based upgraded computational capability and faster data analysis would
streamline real-time payment to suppliers and from customers (Maqueira et al., 2019). In
addition, from the dynamic capabilities theory perspective, it is clear that a high level of SCI
can be achieved when IT use allows the development of the IT-related capability (Yu et al.,
2017) and the use of an IT resource on the demand side that is considered to be more
homogeneous, such as Cloud Computing, would develop this type of IT capability.
So, Cloud-Supported Logistics could be an effective way of integrating logistics data
throughout the entire supply chain by providing ubiquitous and reliable real-time
information on warehouse management, inventory, order processing and distribution
(Wang et al., 2010; Jede and Teuteberg, 2015). As a result, Cloud-Supported Logistics could
build cooperation and collaboration relationships between suppliers, focal companies and
customers and would thus enable and develop the SCI capability.
Taking these arguments together, the following hypothesis can be formulated:
H4. Cloud-Supported Logistics enables the Supply Chain Integration capability.
IJLM 3.5 Supply Chain Integration and business performance
In line with the arguments for the preceding hypothesis and according to the dynamic
capabilities approach, SCI can be considered a capability that can generate a competitive
advantage. There is also some consensus in the previous literature that a positive effect could
exist between SCI and operational and financial business performance (Paulraj et al., 2006; Li
et al., 2009; Shou et al., 2017; Song et al., 2019) as SCI is an inimitable and non-substitutable
capability.
Supplier–customer integration has a stronger interaction effect on operational
performance than when the relationships with customers and suppliers have separate
impacts (Romano, 2003; Devaraj et al., 2007). In fact, both internal and external process
integration should be considered if companies aspire to achieve a strong effect on their
performance (Stank et al., 2001; Gim
enez and Ventura, 2005; Devaraj et al., 2007; Flynn et al.,
2010). One of the main objectives of SCI is to rapidly share information between business
units through cooperation, interaction and collaboration between chain partners (Pagell,
2004; Fantazy et al., 2009). In addition, developing the SCI capability reduces uncertainty and
provides greater flexibility in responses to chain members’ needs (Malhotra and
Mackelprang, 2012). The SCI capability could encourage shared planning and flexible
arrangements to counter unexpected situations and thus contribute positively to improved
business performance (Johnston and Wright, 2004).
In this sense, authors such as Bruque et al. (2015, 2016) emphasise the importance of
physical, information and financial flows for improving business performance. Once the
supply chain flows are integrated, companies can expect benefits in terms of greater
flexibility, efficiency and timely production/delivery (Stank et al., 1999; Gunasekaran and
Ngai, 2004). Consequently, business performance would be improved due to the response to
changes in demand, improved delivery times, reduced production times and reduced
production/delivery costs (Marinagi et al., 2014). New capabilities generated by the use of IT
(IT-related capabilities or IT capability) also enable SCI (Yu, 2015; Yu et al., 2017) and,
consequently, have a strong impact on business performance (Garrison et al., 2015; Yu, 2015).
Based on the above arguments, SCI can be expected to have a positive effect on business
performance. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. There is a positive relationship between Supply Chain Integration and business
performance.
Figure 1 presents the five hypothesised links in a theoretical research model.

Lean H1
Production
implementation Business
Performance

H2 H3

Cloud-supported H5
Logistics

H4
Figure 1. Supply Chain
Theoretical Integration
baseline model
4. Methodology LP, Cloud-
4.1 Population, questionnaire and data gathering Supported
This study focuses on enterprises in a single country, Spain. The literature recommends
selecting a sample of firms located in a relatively homogeneous geographical, cultural, legal
Logistics and
and political space to minimise the impact of other variables that cannot be controlled in SCI
empirical research (Adler, 1983; Rojo et al., 2016). To test the stated hypotheses, the Iberian
Balance Sheet Analysis System (SABI) was used to identify a population of 1,717 active
Spanish companies with ≥ 50 employees. These were companies in an intermediate position
in the supply chain, so firms very near the customer end or the raw materials end of the chain
have not been considered. The companies were classified by sector according to the National
Classification of Economic Activities (CNAE), with any sectors of economic activity omitted
that were not considered relevant for this analysis (any industries or sectors purely related to
extractive activities or to raw materials and their transformation). The selection of the sample
units was carried out randomly (simple random sampling) and fieldwork conducted from
November 13th 2017 to February 5th 2018. The final sample comprised 260 companies
(15.1% response rate). Several recent studies on SCM have used a similar or even smaller
sample size than this study (Qrunfleh and Tarafdar, 2013; Bruque et al., 2015, 2016; Rojo et al.,
2016). The sample size in this study is thus appropriate and does not jeopardise the reliability
of the results.
The questionnaire items were drawn from the literature. As in other studies on similar
research topics (Rai et al., 2006; Flynn et al., 2010; Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a; Bruque et al.,
2015, 2016), a Likert scale was used to score responses to questions on the key research
themes. The questionnaire was pre-tested by seven internationally recognised researchers in
the specific areas related to this study, Lean Production and Supply Chain Management (4)
and IT use and adoption (3). The preliminary test resulted in the reformulation of several
items in the questionnaire, which was also simplified and modified in line with the
researchers’ recommendations. A pilot test was then carried out in which the authors
conducted telephone interviews with 15 companies randomly obtained from the SABI
database. The objective of this step was to check whether respondents were in agreement
with the terms used in the questionnaire and understood what was being asked. Following
this process, the questionnaire was again modified and adapted according to the companies’
suggestions and the final version was produced for its use in the fieldwork stage. The 15 pilot
test results were not considered in the subsequent analysis.
Data collection was carried out by telephone survey using a Computer-Aided Telephone
Interviewing (CATI) method. In CATI, interviewers have access to an information system
that randomly displays the contact details of potential respondents. Appointments can be
made with respondents and their responses are saved in real time (Hair et al., 2009). The data
were collected by four interviewers who received specific training as to the purpose,
objectives and background of the research. In addition, on the first working day, one of the
researchers instructed, supervised and supported interviewers in the company interviewing
process. The four members of the interview team worked simultaneously for four hours a day
throughout the fieldwork period.
The questionnaire was subdivided into two different areas depending on the respondent
(two respondents: SCM manager and IT manager). The first section was targeted at heads of
Supply Chain Management, Logistics and Operations Management. This section contained
questions related to LP implementation, SCI and business performance. The second section
was directed at the IT manager, who answered questions on Cloud-Supported Logistics. Since
there were two different respondents in each company, the survey was considered complete
only when the responses were returned by both respondents. If this was not the case, i.e. if the
questionnaire of one of the two respondents in a company remained unanswered, it was put in
an annexed database of “Incomplete surveys”, and the manager who had not responded was
IJLM again contacted by the interviewers. A web-based questionnaire was also designed for
companies that had completed only one section, for companies that preferred to answer via
the web and for some respondents that stated that they would only be able to answer the
questions outside their normal working hours. Respondents who had not yet answered were
thus able to complete the outstanding fieldwork in their own time.
The potential for common method bias was considered by adopting a series of procedural
measures before collecting the data (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The use of two respondents, both
experts in a specific area (SCM manager and IT manager) and a survey pre-test (7 experts and
15 firms) to avoid question ambiguity (Podsakoff et al., 2003) minimised potential common
method bias. Statistical analysis was also conducted based on Harman’s one-factor test
(Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). This showed that in a one-factor test with seven first-order
factor inputs (all observable variables), only 27.634% of the variance is explained by the first
factor and the remaining variance is explained by a balanced distribution across the other
factors.
No evidence of response bias was found in a comparison of respondents with non-
respondents. Thus, no significant differences were found between the population and the
sample for distribution by annual sales (for 2015 and 2016). Population distribution by this
variable was taken from the SABI database. Subsequently, phone calls were also made to a
random selection of firms that had not responded to the questionnaire. No specific
characteristics were observed in those that decided not to participate and no pattern in the
reasons given to justify their refusal to do so. In general, there does not seem to have been any
non-response bias in the sample.
In addition, the first 50 responses were compared with the last 50 responses (Armstrong
and Overton, 1977; Corsten and Felde, 2005) and no significant differences (α 5 0.05) were
found for any of the variables included in the questionnaire, which confirms that there was no
late response bias.
Finally, the make-up of the population and of the sample was very similar in terms of
industrial sectors (Table 1). The most highly represented sector in the population was Food
products (36.6%), as it was in the sample (41.5%), followed by Chemicals (14.6 and 15.8%, in
the population and sample, respectively) and Motor Vehicles (11.2 and 12.3%, population and
sample, respectively). In short, the above analyses confirm that the sample used in the study
corresponds to a random pattern and is representative of the population. Regarding the
descriptive statistics of the obtained data, Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of
the observable variables.

No. of companies No. of companies

Sector in population in sample Response rate

Food products 629 36.6% 108 41.5% 17.2%

Tobacco and related products 7 0.4% 1 0.4% 14.6%
Beverages 89 5.2% 13 5.0% 14.6%
Fabrics and textile 86 5.0% 11 4.2% 12.8%
Leather and shoes 75 4.4% 8 3.1% 10.7%
Chemicals 251 14.6% 41 15.8% 16.3%
Pharmaceuticals 85 5.0% 15 5.8% 17.6%
Table 1. Informatics, electronics and optical 91 5.3% 13 5.0% 14.3%
Sample, population Electrical machinery and equipment 97 5.7% 11 4.2% 11.3%
distribution and Motor vehicles 192 11.2% 32 12.3% 16.7%
response rate by Furniture 115 6.7% 7 2.7% 6.1%
industry Total 1717 100% 260 100% 15.1%
 Std. LP, Cloud-
Variable Factor Item/observable variable Source Item code Mean dev. Supported
Cloud-supported – Degree of Cloud Computing Bruque et al. (2016) CL-S_LOG 2.77 2.18 Logistics and
logistics use in logistics operations SCI
Lean Production Cellular Location of machines and Moyano-Fuentes LP_1 5.90 1.30
implementation manufacturing nearby process in plant et al. (2012a), Uhrin
Manufacturing cells et al. (2017) LP_2 5.67 1.49
Layout permits reduced LP_3 5.52 1.47
inventory levels and faster
manufacturing
Lean practices Total quality management LP_4 6.05 1.21
(TQM)
Single minute exchange of LP_5 5.64 1.44
die (SMED)
A portion every day to LP_6 5.92 1.24
planned equipment
maintenance related
activities involving workers
(total productive
maintenance, or TPM)
Maintain all equipment LP_7* 4.75 1.97
regularly*
Just-in-time (JIT)* LP_8* 4.22 2.27
Kanban LP_9 5.10 1.49
Supply Chain Physical Inventory holdings are Rai et al. (2006), PHY_1* 5.47 1.52
Integration integration minimised across the Bruque et al. (2015,
supply chain* 2016), Maqueira
Supply chain-wide et al. (2019) PHY_2 5.51 1.50
inventory is jointly
managed with suppliers and
logistics partners
Suppliers and logistics PHY_3 5.51 1.32
partners deliver products
and materials just-in-time
Distribution networks are PHY_4* 4.57 1.88
configured to minimise total
supply chain-wide
inventory costs*
Information Production and delivery INF_1 5.04 1.49
integration schedules are shared across
the supply chain
Information of performance INF_2* 5.24 1.59
are shared with providers
and clients across the
supply chain*
Supply chain members INF_3 5.59 1.41
collaborate in arriving at
demand forecasts
Our downstream partners INF_4* 5.22 1.56
share their actual sales data
with us*
Inventory data are visible at INF_5 5.27 1.57
all steps across the supply
chain
Financial Account receivables FIN_1 4.08 1.86
integration processes are automatically
triggered when we ship to
our customers
Account payable processes FIN_2 5.26 1.80
are automatically triggered
when we receive supplies Table 2.
from our suppliers Survey items, primary
factors and descriptive
(continued ) analysis
IJLM Std.
Variable Factor Item/observable variable Source Item code Mean dev.

Business Operational Our company can quickly Flynn et al. (2010); OP_1* 5.21 1.59
performance performance modify products to meet our Wong et al. (2011),
major customer’s Yu et al. (2013); Yu
requirements* (2015), Bruque et al.
Our company can quickly (2015, 2016) OP_2 4.80 1.71
introduce new products into
the market
Our company can quickly OP_3 5.27 1.48
respond to changes in
market demand
Our company can quickly OP_4 5.20 1.45
modify products to respond
to our major competitors’
innovations
Our company has an OP_5* 6.00 1.38
outstanding on-time
delivery record to our major
customers*
The lead time for fulfilling OP_6 6.17 1.01
customers’ orders is short
Our company provides a OP_7 6.41 0.78
high level of customer
service to our major
customer
Financial We are satisfied with FP_1 5.16 1.59
performance growth in sales
We are satisfied with return FP_2 4.73 1.52
on sales
We are satisfied with FP_3 4.67 1.52
growth in return on sales
We are satisfied with FP_4 4.71 1.45
growth in profit
We are satisfied with FP_5* 4.93 1.41
growth in market share*
We are satisfied with return FP_6* 4.98 1.21
on investment (ROI)*
We are satisfied with FP_7 4.90 1.23
growth in ROI
Table 2. Note(s): *Items excluded after exploratory and reliability analyses. The final items marked in italic (item code)

In summary, the data and analysis confirm that the sample used in this study was randomly
obtained and that it is statistically representative of the population.

4.2 Variables
4.2.1 Cloud-Supported Logistics use. Variable measured by a direct question addressed to the
chief IS or IT officer. Respondents were asked to assess the degree of Cloud Computing use in
logistics operations (see Table 2). Answers were given on a 1–7 point Likert scale, with
1 5 “not used” and 7 5 “in all cases”. Asking a direct question to capture the level of Cloud
technology use has been used in the previous literature (Bruque et al., 2016).
4.2.2 Lean Production implementation. Second-order construct composed of two first-
order factors or dimensions. A factorial analysis of the usual LP practices used to measure
Lean Production (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a; Uhrin et al., 2017) identified two first-order
factors or dimensions: (1) a first dimension, which has been called Cellular Manufacturing
(composed of three items: efficient layout; manufacturing cells or the grouping of workers and
machines performing specialised operations, and reduced inventory level in rapid LP, Cloud-
manufacturing), and (2) a second dimension which has been called Lean practices Supported
(composed of six items: TQM; SMED; TPM; regular maintenance of all equipment; JIT,
and Kanban systems) (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a; Uhrin et al., 2017) (see Table 2).
Logistics and
Respondents were asked to evaluate statements on the implementation of these LP-related SCI
practices (Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a). In this case, the questions were targeted at the
Supply Chain Management, Logistics or Operations Manager with answers on a 1–7 Likert
scale (1 5 “totally disagree” to 7 5 “totally agree”).
4.2.3 Supply Chain Integration. Second-order construct composed of three dimensions:
physical flow integration; information flow integration, and financial flow integration (Rai
et al., 2006). Physical flow integration was composed of four items (inventory minimisation in
the supply chain, inventory in the supply chain jointly managed with suppliers and logistics
partners, efficient delivery of products and materials by suppliers and logistics partners and
minimisation of inventory costs in distribution networks). Information flow integration was
composed of five items (production and delivery schedules across the supply chain,
performance information shared with suppliers and customers, demand forecasts across the
supply chain, sales data shared by downstream partners and inventory visible across the
supply chain). Financial flow integration was composed of two items (accounts receivable
processes automatically triggered when a firm ships to its customers and accounts payable
processes automatically triggered when a firm receives supplies from its suppliers) (Rai et al.,
2006; Bruque et al., 2015, 2016; Maqueira et al., 2019) (see Table 2). This questionnaire was
targeted at the Supply Chain Management, Logistics or Operations Manager and a 1–7 Likert
scale was used for all items (1 5 “totally disagree” to 7 5 “totally agree”).
4.2.4 Business performance. Second-order construct composed of two dimensions: (1)
Operational performance and (2) Financial performance. The decision was taken to use
perceptual measures due to the difficulty of comparing the performance of firms operating in
different industries (Flynn et al., 1995, 2010; Yu et al., 2013; Bruque et al., 2015, 2016).
Operational performance represents the company’s flexibility and delivery performance
results (Flynn et al., 2010; Bruque et al., 2015, 2016) and was measured with seven items (fast
modification of products for major customers; fast introduction of new products; fast
response to demand changes; rapid modification of products to respond to competitors’
innovations; on-time delivery to major customers; short lead time, and high customer service
to major customers). Financial performance represents the firm’s value-creating capability
and refers to growth in return-on-sales and profits, market share and return-on-investment
(Flynn et al., 2010; Yu et al., 2013). It was measured with seven items (growth in sales; return-
on-sales; growth in return-on-sales; growth in profit; growth in market share; return-on-
investment (ROI) and growth in ROI) (see Table 2). Respondents were asked to rate the
importance of this set of performance indicators for their company (Flynn et al., 2010). The
questions were addressed to the Supply Chain Management, Logistics or Operations
Manager, with answers given on a 1–7 Likert scale (1 5 “totally disagree” to
7 5 “totally agree”).

4.3 Data analysis: factorial analysis and structural equation model

Factorial analysis is the methodology used to confirm scale dimensionality. There are two
different modalities: exploratory factorial analysis (EFA), which enables measurement model
identification, and confirmatory factorial analysis (CFA), which enables evaluation of the
final measurement model (Gorsuch, 1983; Gerbin and Hamilton, 1996). The standardised load
values of the scale items should be ≥ 0.5 in both types of analysis (Kaplan, 2000).
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) (Satorra, 1993) (measurement model and structural
model) has been used in this study, firstly, to determine how the unobservable construct is
IJLM measured by means of indicators and, secondly, to estimate the effects and relationships
between variables (Hair et al., 2009). SEM has been used quite extensively in the Supply Chain
Management field (Bernardes and Zsidisin, 2008; Li et al., 2009; Acar et al., 2017). The
measurement model’s reliability has been verified using Cronbach’s alpha criterion. The
validity of the construct was also confirmed (content, convergent and divergent).

5. Analysis and results

5.1 Measurement model
Firstly, the content validity of the questionnaire was ensured by the use of a measurement
instrument accepted in the literature, a construct review by experts in the field (seven
internationally renowned researchers in the areas included in this research: LP and Supply
Chain Management and IT Adoption) and a pre-test on firms. Next, exploratory factorial
analysis was used to test scale dimensionality using SPSS software. Items with a
standardised factor load of < 0.5 were eliminated after an initial exploratory factorial analysis
(Kaplan, 2000) (see Table 2; items with an asterisk were eliminated). A similar process has
been used in previous studies to respecify the measurement model so that any subsequent
exploratory and confirmatory analyses would ensure the validity of the final measurement
model (Bruque et al., 2015, 2016; Maqueira et al., 2019). A second exploratory factorial analysis
was, therefore, performed omitting the items with < 0.5 factor loads. This new analysis
indicated that the remaining items complied with the requirement (standardised load
values ≥ 0.5) (Table 3). The scale’s reliability was also tested using Cronbach’s alpha. In this

%
Item Cronbach’s Standardised Explained
Variable Factor code α factor loading Barlett test variance

Lean Cellular LP_1 0.74 0.845 X2 5 178.521 66.224%

Production manufacturing LP_2 0.820 df 5 3
implementation LP_3 0.775 Sig. 5 0.00
Lean practices LP_4 0.75 0.735 X2 5 241.074 58.054%
LP_5 0.810 df 5 6
LP_6 0.794
LP_9 0.704 Sig. 5 0.00
Supply Chain Physical PHY_2 0.63 0.857 X2 5 64.383 73.517%
Integration integration PHY_3 0.857 df 5 1
Sig. 5 0.00
Informational INF_1 0.67 0.805 X2 5 131.516 61.351%
integration INF_4 0.826 df 5 3
INF_5 0.714 Sig. 5 0.00
Financial FIN_1 0.79 0.908 X2 5 140.040 82.384%
integration FIN_2 0.908 df 5 1
Sig. 5 0.00
Business Operational OP_2 0.84 0.809 X2 5 643.518 61.979%
performance performance OP_3 0.846 df 5 10
OP_4 0.838 Sig. 5 0.00
OP_6 0.704
OP_7 0.729
Financial FP_1 0.93 0.853 X2 5 1175.646 78.785%
performance FP_2 0.916 df 5 10
Table 3. FP_3 0.947 Sig. 5 0.00
Exploratory factor FP_4 0.898
analysis FP_7 0.818
test, scores of 0.7 or higher are considered acceptable and 0.6 adequate as a high coefficient LP, Cloud-
alpha does not always mean a high degree of internal consistency since the alpha is also Supported
affected by the length of the test or number of items per construct (Nunnally, 1978;
Merschmann and Thonemann, 2011). Hence, we considered a 0.6 limit to be reasonable
Logistics and
(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994), as is broadly accepted in the literature (Malhotra, 2004). SPSS SCI
software confirmed that all the factors met this requirement (Cronbach’s α > 0.6).
Divergent validity was verified by comparing Cronbach’s α coefficient (Table 3) with
correlations between scale items (Table 4) (Anand and Ward, 2004). This analysis confirmed
divergent validity, as the scales’ Cronbach’s α coefficients were higher than the correlation
coefficients with other scales in every case.
A confirmatory factorial analysis was performed with EQS 6.1 software to confirm scale
dimensionality and construct convergent validity. Data exploration was performed using
standardised estimation (Mardia test) and confirmed the data’s multivariate non-normality.
This result indicated that it was feasible to apply the Robust Maximum Likelihood Method to
the data analysed in this study (Satorra, 1993). Finally, a model was designed with the above
24 items and Cloud-Supported Logistics observable variables to check the confirmatory
factorial analysis fit. The obtained results were as follows: scaled, Satorra–Bentler,
x2 5 496.4920, with 238 degrees of freedom, x2/df 5 2.086; RMSEA 5 0.06; MFI 5 0.608;
NFI 5 0.787; NNFI 5 0.854; CFI 5 0.875; IFI 5 0.877. Thus, the final confirmatory factorial
analysis fit was satisfactory, indicating convergent validity (O’Leary-Kelly and Vokurka,
1998). Table 5 shows the standardised factor loads and the R2 of the variables in the
confirmatory factorial analysis.
As the scale dimensionality confirmation process was successful, the final measurement
model for each of the factors included in this study and the theoretical structural model
(Figure 2) can now be presented. The measurement model (thin lines) shows that each latent
variable is measured by observable variables (items). The structural model (thick lines)
shows the relationships between the three latent variables (LP implementation, SCI and
business performance) and one directly observable variable (Cloud-Supported Logistics).
5.2 Structural model results
The Robust Maximum Likelihood Method running on EQS 6.1 software was used to develop
the structural model. This is considered to be the most accurate method for non-standard
environments (Satorra, 1993) and was used to test the five hypotheses. The results show that
this model yields a good overall fit (scaled, Satorra–Bentler, x2 5 436.6503, with 256 degrees
of freedom, x2/df 5 1.706; RMSEA 5 0.05; MFI 5 0.707; NFI 5 0.821; NNFI 5 0.901;
CFI 5 0.915; IFI 5 0.917) (Satorra, 1993). The relationships in H1, H2, H4 and H5 were seen to
be significant (p < 0.05), while the relationship in H3 did not receive sufficient support
(Figure 3). H5 received the highest support with a load of 0.75, followed by H1, which received
support with a substantial ratio load of 0.42. H2 and H4 also received ample support but with
slightly lower standardised parameters (0.25 and 0.15, respectively).

6. Discussion
The aim of this work has been to analyse the interrelationships between mechanisms and
management systems that seek to raise efficiency and, consequently, improve business
performance. It specifically aims to answer the research questions: (1) What kind of
relationship exists between LP and Cloud-Supported Logistics and what is its effect on
business performance? (using the results of empirical tests of hypotheses H1, H2 and H3), and
(2) What effect does Cloud-Supported Logistics have on business performance when LP and
SCI are in place? (using the results of the empirical tests of hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H4 and H5).
The following discussion is possible based on the obtained results and the confirmation or
rejection of the hypotheses.
 IJLM

Table 4.

scale items
Correlations between
PHY_2 PHY_3 INF_1 INF_3 INF_5 FIN_1 FIN_2 OP_2 OP_3 OP_4 OP_6 OP_7 FP_1 FP_2 FP_3 FP_4 FP_7 LP_1 LP_2 LP_3 LP_4 LP_5 LP_6 LP_9

PHY_2 1
PHY_3 0.70** 1
INF_1 0.24** 0.23** 1
INF_3 0.17** 0.22** 0.46** 1
INF_5 0.22** 0.29** 0.37** 0.40** 1
FIN_1 0.24** 0.30** 0.30** 0.29** 0.49** 1
FIN_2 0.18** 0.26** 0.27** 0.35** 0.40** 0.40** 1
OP_2 0.18** 0.22** 0.16** 0.33** 0.25** 0.27** 0.26** 1
OP_3 0.23** 0.25** 0.24** 0.36** 0.32** 0.30** 0.35** 0.72** 1
OP_4 0.15* 0.19** 0.19** 0.33** 0.30** 0.33** 0.27** 0.69** 0.71** 1
OP_6 0.18** 0.22** 0.22** 0.30** 0.35** 0.32** 0.32** 0.34** 0.41** 0.41** 1
OP_7 0.09 0.12 0.16* 0.21** 0.30** 0.26** 0.32** 0.38** 0.44** 0.43** 0.69** 1
FP_1 0.15* 0.23** 0.15* 0.22** 0.22** 0.25** 0.16* 0.28** 0.28** 0.33** 0.26** 0.27** 1
FP_2 0.26** 0.23** 0.28** 0.26** 0.24** 0.32** 0.22** 0.30** 0.28** 0.30** 0.26** 0.22** 0.72** 1
FP_3 0.26** 0.26** 0.29** 0.25** 0.27** 0.29** 0.19** 0.30** 0.28** 0.34** 0.28** 0.25** 0.71** 0.89** 1
FP_4 0.21** 0.25** 0.22** 0.20** 0.24** 0.24** 0.21** 0.24** 0.28** 0.26** 0.24** 0.24** 0.24** 0.66** 0.71** 1
FP_7 0.22** 0.25** 0.31** 0.26** 0.26** 0.28** 0.26** 0.31** 0.33** 0.33** 0.26** 0.27** 0.60** 0.64** 0.71** 0.70** 1
LP_1 0.19** 0.23** 0.16** 0.24** 0.22** 0.27** 0.28** 0.15* 0.30** 0.29** 0.30** 0.26** 0.14* 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12* 1
LP_2 0.21** 0.26** 0.17** 0.26** 0.27** 0.21** 0.23** 0.18** 0.26** 0.25** 0.27** 0.18** 0.18** 0.15* 0.13* 0.09 0.13* 0.50** 1
LP_3 0.18** 0.19** 0.22** 0.33** 0.32** 0.35** 0.25** 0.25** 0.37** 0.29** 0.22** 0.24** 0.17** 0.21** 0.22** 0.21** 0.19** 0.40** 0.39** 1
LP_4 0.17** 0.30** 0.20** 0.28** 0.36** 0.40** 0.26** 0.19** 0.28** 0.30** 0.37** 0.29** 0.23** 0.21** 0.24** 0.21** 0.23** 0.31** 0.35** 0.34** 1
LP_5 0.10 0.19** 0.24** 0.22** 0.36** 0.39** 0.27** 0.20** 0.27** 0.27** 0.24** 0.22** 0.28** 0.16** 0.18** 0.24** 0.26** 0.26** 0.21** 0.28** 0.46** 1
LP_6 0.22** 0.28** 0.25** 0.26** 0.37** 0.41** 0.24** 0.13* 0.22** 0.24** 0.23** 0.26** 0.19** 0.19** 0.19** 0.23** 0.24** 0.22** 0.25** 0.32** 0.45** 0.57** 1
LP_9 0.25** 0.24** 0.27** 0.27** 0.38** 0.33** 0.26** 0.23** 0.34** 0.29** 0.29** 0.25** 0.25** 0.20** 0.24** 0.23** 0.28** 0.30** 0.25** 0.46** 0.32** 0.43** 0.37** 1
Note(s): **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05
Factor Factor/observable variable Standardised factor loading R2
LP, Cloud-
Supported
Lean Production implementation Cellular manufacturing 0.77 0.59 Logistics and
Lean practices 0.73 0.53
Supply Chain Integration Physical integration 0.84 0.70 SCI
Informational integration 0.85 0.72
Financial integration 0.50 0.25
Business performance Operational performance 0.60 0.37
Financial performance 0.59 0.35
Cellular manufacturing LP_1 0.76 0.57
LP_2 0.70 0.49
LP_3 0.66 0.44
Lean practices LP_4 0.62 0.39
LP_5 0.71 0.50
LP_6 0.73 0.53
LP_9 0.60 0.37
Physical integration PHY_2 0.70 0.49
PHY_3 0.68 0.46
Informational integration INF_1 0.73 0.53
INF_3 0.69 0.48
INF_5 0.53 0.28
Financial integration FIN_1 0.71 0.51
FIN_2 0.91 0.82
Operational performance OP_2 0.82 0.67
OP_3 0.84 0.71
OP_4 0.83 0.69
OP_6 0.52 0.27
OP_7 0.55 0.30
Financial performance FP_1 0.78 0.61
FP_2 0.93 0.86
FP_3 0.97 0.94 Table 5.
FP_4 0.84 0.71 Confirmatory factor
FP_7 0.73 0.54 analysis

H1 receives sufficient support in the model. The findings identify a positive and direct
relationship between LP and business performance that is in line with the prior literature (e.g.,
Lamming, 1996; Mason-Jones and Towill, 1999; Li et al., 2005; Van der Vaart et al., 2012). This
relationship indicates that the implementation of LP practices (Manufacturing Cells—
efficient layout, grouping workers and machines for specialised operations, reduced
inventory level and rapid manufacturing—and other common Lean practices—TQM, SMED,
TPM and Kanban) generates dynamic capabilities in companies that enable competitive
advantages to be obtained. So, this study can be added to the substantial research group that
finds that LP implementation has a positive effect on business performance (Negr~ao et al.,
2017; Sangwa and Sangwan, 2017). But it also presents the novelty that, whereas the majority
of the previous work only considers LP’s effect on one specific type of performance
(operational or financial) (Negr~ao et al., 2017; Sangwa and Sangwan, 2017), this study finds
that LP has a direct, positive effect with simultaneous impacts on the operational and
financial results. The H1 result has a knock-on effect with improvements to both economic
and operational results (Negr~ao et al., 2017; Sangwa and Sangwan, 2017). Since the
relationship between LP implementation and business performance is a known finding, this
result meets expectations.
This study also shows a positive effect of LP implementation on Cloud-Supported
Logistics (H2 is confirmed), demonstrating that LP implementation and IT use can have a
IJLM LP_1

Cellular LP_2
manufacturing

LP_3

LP_4

LP_5
Lean
practices
LP_6 OP_2

Lean Production LP_9 OP_3

implementation
Operational OP_4
Performance
H1
OP_6

H2 OP_7
Business
Performance
FP_1

H3 FP_2

Cloud-supported Financial
FP_3
Logistics performance

FP_4

H5 FP_7

H4 PHY_2
Physical
integration
PHY_3

INF_1
Supply Chain Information
Integration integration
INF_3

INF_5

Figure 2. FIN_1
Theoretical and Financial
integration
measurement model
FIN_2

complementary relationship, as previously suggested by other authors (e.g., Mo, 2009;

Moyano-Fuentes et al., 2012a; Pinho and Mendes, 2017). The prior literature (Li et al., 2013;
Subramanian et al., 2015; Maqueira et al., 2019) indicates that Cloud Computing offers several
advantages over traditional IT models that are conducive to increased efficiency. Thus, since
LP pursues efficiency and Cloud Computing IT achieves higher levels of efficiency than more
traditional IT, LP implementation induces organisations to use Cloud Computing in Logistics
processes. The LP implementation process (with the application of Manufacturing Cells and
LP practices such as TQM, SMED, TPM and Kanban systems), therefore, requires support
from powerful IT on the supply chain level to achieve higher efficiency levels. So, this
complementary relationship would facilitate the extension of Lean practices along the supply
chain through Cloud-Supported Logistics use, which is in line with the recent interest in Lean
 H1
LP, Cloud-
Lean
Production
0.42 Supported
implementation Business Logistics and
Performance
H3
SCI
H2 -0.18
0.25

Cloud-supported H5
Logistics 0.75

H4
Supported hypothesis 0.15 Supply Chain
Integration Figure 3.
Non-supported hypothesis Structural model

Supply Chain Management research (Marodin et al., 2017; Tortorella et al., 2018a, b). This
study is, therefore, also novel as it does not consider LP in isolation but complements it with
the use of another mechanism that impacts efficiency, IT, to be specific, Cloud-Supported
Logistics. It is also one of the first studies to analyse the LP–Cloud Computing technologies
relationship (specifically, Cloud-Supported Logistics).
This research also finds that Cloud-Supported Logistics does not have a direct effect on
business performance (H3 receives no empirical support). This finding is consistent with the
previous literature, which concluded that operational performance does not benefit directly
from the application of IT such as Cloud Computing (Thun, 2010; Bruque et al., 2015, 2016). It
is also in line with other later research that shows that, from the dynamic capabilities
perspective, using IT in isolation does not improve the company’s competitive advantage.
Instead, it must be used in conjunction with other complementary resources and capabilities
for a competitive advantage to be achieved and, consequently, for better business
performance to be obtained (Powell and Dent-Micallef, 1997). Therefore, using Cloud-
Supported Logistics on its own does not enable better results to be obtained.
In this sense, H4 has also received sufficient support in the analyses described in the
previous section: Cloud-Supported Logistics improves the SCI capability. This is consistent
with Bruque et al. (2015, 2016) and Maqueira et al. (2019), who found that Cloud Computing
implementation is directly and positively related to the generation of the SCI capability by
virtue of physical, information and financial flow integration. The novelty of the present
study is that the specific use of Cloud Computing for logistics purposes also provides an
effective channel for integrating the supply chain and sharing logistics information. Thus,
this research emphasises the ability of Cloud-Supported Logistics to support physical
integration (inventory managed by suppliers and logistics partners and in-time product and
materials delivery), information integration (shared production and delivery schedules;
collaboration in arriving at demand forecasts, and visible inventory data) and financial flow
integration (accounts receivable automatised, and accounts payable automatised), thus
improving company adaptation to changes in demand, as was also suggested by DeGroote
and Marx (2013) and Liu et al. (2016). Furthermore, our findings are in line with those of
Gangwar et al. (2015), according to which Cloud Computing requires cooperation and
coordination with supply chain partners to obtain the maximum potential (Gangwar et al.,
2015) and this work shows that this is achieved when Cloud Computing is applied to the
logistics function. However, this study also supports the idea that Cloud Computing used in
the logistics function could add new integration effects to existing IT-supported logistics-.
IJLM These findings are in line with Maqueira et al. (2019). These results, therefore, indicate Cloud
Computing’s usefulness for business and that it is important for it to be analysed for specific
purposes rather than as a broader construct. Cloud Computing use can generate different and
powerful capabilities in companies, especially in the logistics function – and SCI is precisely
one of these dynamic capabilities.
This study’s findings also indicate that the SCI capability plays a positive direct effect on
business performance (operational and financial) (H5 is confirmed). They are, therefore,
consistent with the findings of Bruque et al. (2015; 2016), who identified that the supply chain
flow integration capability is significantly related to operational performance. The novelty of
this study is that, unlike Bruque et al. (2015, 2016), it also considers financial performance. As
noted in several previous studies in the production and operations management field (e.g.,
Stank et al., 1999; Pagell, 2004; Flynn et al., 2010), integrating the links in supply chain flows
can bring the supply chain partners multiple benefits. If a supply chain’s flows are integrated,
benefits can be expected in the form of operational performance (fast introduction of new
products, fast response to demand changes, rapid modification of products to respond to
competitors’ innovations, short lead time and high customer service to major customers) and
financial performance (growth in sales, return-on-sales, growth in return-on-sales, growth in
profit and growth in ROI). Thus, better business performance can be achieved in supply
chains with capabilities that technologically integrate physical, information and
financial flows.
In addition, an indirect effect is observed between Cloud-Supported Logistics and
business performance via the SCI capability (H4 and H5). The SCI capability is seen to play a
full mediating role between Cloud-Supported Logistics and business performance
(operational and financial). This finding is also in line with findings in the previous
literature that show an indirect role between IT use and performance (Powell and Dent-
Micallef, 1997; Bruque et al., 2015; Yu, 2015). In fact, Cloud-Supported Logistics provides
strong logistics integration capabilities and emphasises the need to carefully consider how IT
is used in intra/inter-organisational logistics processes.
Finally, it must again be stressed that this study takes into account both the operational
and the financial performance to firmly focus on the business performance. The prior
literature shows that using LP has a direct and positive effect on the operational or the
financial performance (Negr~ao et al., 2017; Sangwa and Sangwan, 2017). But this study shows
that when LP and one specific type of IT (Cloud-Supported Logistics) are implemented
together, there is a much more powerful effect on business performance than when LP
practices are implemented alone. So, this work joins the current in the literature that shows
that when LP and IT are implemented at the same time, their relationship is complementary
or synergistic and they have a strong effect on business performance (Pinho and Mendes,
2017). Although this powerful joint LP-IT effect has already been highlighted in the literature
(Pinho and Mendes, 2017), this study contributes by showing that there is both a direct and an
indirect effect (via the SCI capability) in the LP–business performance relationship
(operational and financial). So, the results highlight that, apart from LP implementation
having a direct effect on business performance (H1), there is also a strong indirect effect (LP–
Cloud/Supported Logistics–SCI–business performance path; H2, H4 and H5) that is stronger
than the direct effect. This means that Cloud-Supported Logistics use in LP implementation
contexts generates SCI capabilities that enable much better results to be obtained than when
LP is used in isolation. This is partly due to the direct effect of Lean implementation on
business performance and, also, to the very powerful indirect effect of Cloud-Supported
Logistics on business performance via the SCI capability.
With respect to the measurement instrument used, it has to be indicated that some of the
items in the original instrument were omitted after an initial EFA (10 directly-observable
variables omitted out of 36 considered). For example, two items were omitted from the
operational performance factor in the business performance construct: (1) modify products to LP, Cloud-
major customer’s requirements and (2) on-time delivery to major customers. Nevertheless, Supported
after respecification of the measurement instrument, a new EFA presented 0.84 Cronbach’s
alpha value with 61.98% explained variance, which confirmed the measurement instrument’s
Logistics and
validity and reliability without these items, while other items that were not omitted measured SCI
aspects closely related to those that were (quick launch of new products into the market and
short lead time for fulfilling customers’ orders, respectively). In this sense, a construct (latent
variable or factor) cannot be measured directly and is measured by a set of observable
variables (items) that are all equally important and whose joint value provides a measure of
the construct. When the data are not a good fit with the measurement model, this is
respecified with the elimination of the directly observable variables that present problems.
However, this issue is not important as the subsequent EFA and CFA demonstrated the
instrument’s validity and reliability. This is the usual process used in similar research
(Bruque et al., 2015, 2016; Maqueira et al., 2019) to justify the validity of the results achieved.

7. Conclusions, implications and future research lines

7.1 Conclusions and implications
This study has applied the dynamic capabilities theory to examine the way that Cloud-
Supported Logistics use in an LP implementation and SCI context impacts business
performance. Results point to Cloud-Supported Logistics playing an important role in
explaining business results in Lean Production environments. Lean Production has been
found to have both a direct effect and an even more powerful indirect effect on performance
through the Cloud-Supported Logistics and Supply Chain Integration that Cloud technologies
produce. Supply Chain Integration is also found to have a mediating effect in the Cloud-
Supported Logistics-performance relationship.
This work makes several contributions and has academic implications. Firstly, this study
joins the large theoretical current that demonstrates that a direct effect exists between LP and
business performance (Negr~ao et al., 2017; Sangwa and Sangwan, 2017) and it makes a novel
contribution compared to other works in that it simultaneously considers operational
performance and financial performance. Secondly, it also joins the current in the prior
literature that shows that when both LP and IT have been implemented, their relationship is
complementary or synergistic and together they have a strong effect on the business
performance (Pinho and Mendes, 2017). It also makes a novel contribution in this sense, as it
focuses on the joint use of LP and one specific type of IT that pursues efficiency in Supply
Chain Management, Cloud-Supported Logistics. It also finds that LP helps intensify the use of
IT (in this specific case, Cloud-Supported Logistics), a relationship that has only been
analysed to a limited extent in the prior literature (Pinho and Mendes, 2017). Thirdly, it joins
the prior literature that finds that IT is a resource that does not directly impact the
performance, but which generates dynamic capabilities (in this case, SCI) which is what
impacts the business performance (Bruque et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2017; Novais et al., 2019).
Fourthly, this work adds to the literature that finds that when LP and IT are in place at the
same time (Pinho and Mendes, 2017), their effect on the business performance is very strong.
This study is also novel as it focuses on the LP-IT interrelationship in a very specific
functional area, logistics. Specifically, the four confirmed hypotheses (and the one that is
rejected) show that when LP and Cloud-Supported Logistics are used concurrently, the effect
on business performance is much more powerful (there are both direct and indirect LP-
business performance effects). This is due to Cloud-Supported Logistics generating a strong
SCI capability that acts as a full mediating variable between Cloud-Supported Logistics and
business performance. So, the interaction between LP and Cloud-Supported Logistics
produces a much greater effect on business performance than when Cloud-Supported
Logistics is not in place. Therefore, LP implementation and Cloud-Supported Logistics
IJLM complement each other to produce better results in both the financial and operational areas.
Cloud-Supported Logistics use would enable LP practices to be expanded from the company
internal level to the supply chain level to achieve better results.
Although some findings in the previous literature indicate that LP can lead companies to
use IT in order to make efficiency gains, this is the first paper to demonstrate that using IT,
specifically Cloud-Supported Logistics in an LP implementation context, results in LP having
greater direct and indirect impacts on business performance. This is the outcome of the
mediating effect of the SCI capability between Cloud-Supported Logistics and business
performance.
This paper also provides findings and has implications that can affect the way that
managers perceive and organise resources in their pursuit of better results.
Managers should be aware that they can use LP and its various practices to directly
improve both financial and operational performance. However, when Lean practices are
combined with IT in general, and Cloud-Supported Logistics, in particular, new IT-related
capabilities are created that multiply the effect on business performance. One of the
capabilities created through the combined LP-Cloud-Supported Logistics effect is SCI.
Although Cloud-Supported Logistics use does not have a direct effect on business
performance, the integration capability that it affords the supply chain does have a
powerful impact on business performance. It is important for supply chain managers to be
aware that when Cloud Computing is applied to logistics with LP already implemented, it not
only facilitates SCI but has a strong indirect impact on business performance. Managers
could, therefore, consider LP implementation-Cloud-Supported Logistics complementarity as
a means to leverage business performance. This complex and unique combination of tools
would result in the creation of valuable, rare, inimitable and organisationally embedded
resources and capabilities that provide a competitive advantage. For example, the Spanish
Inditex corporation, which includes the Zara brand among others, has simultaneously
implemented Lean practices and Cloud-based technologies during the past few years and also
presents a strong case for the SCI capability. The combination of these elements is new,
complex and difficult to imitate and embed in an organisation, but could deliver stronger,
sustainable, performance gains. This study, therefore, provides new evidence that might
prove useful for managers initiating comprehensive projects to implement IT solutions and
the soft managerial skills of LP across a better-integrated supply chain.
Managers should recognise the powerful tools that exist in the Cloud Computing universe
and, particularly, the benefits of using this technology in logistics operations. When applied
to logistics, Cloud Computing enhances cooperation and collaboration mechanisms (SCI
capability) and facilitates logistics processes (purchase forecasting, warehouse integration
and resource sharing, among others). There are some signs of this effect. For example, the
traditional technology providers specialising in Supply Chain Management, SAP, who
currently offer Cloud-based solutions for logistics operations, collaborate with another IT
provider, Fujitsu. Cloud Computing services are used for inbound, outbound, distribution and
reverse logistics by organisations such as Volvo, DHL and FedEx to improve inventory and
delivery management. Amazon has also created an immense cloud capable of providing its
customers with the necessary means to integrate with the Amazon platform and to use it to
manage their sales, as well as their own capability to link in with the Amazon storage system
and use the American company’s logistics and distribution systems.
This complementarity of resources described by dynamic capabilities means that
managers have new evidence to draw on as they proceed with Cloud-Supported Logistics
integration and LP. Resource complementarity is hard to achieve and hard to understand (as
has been argued by the causal ambiguity hypothesis). However, thanks to results such as
those described in this paper, managers have new tools with which to persuade other
managers and operations co-workers who might be reluctant to implement new technological
solutions, particularly at the outset. Results in this study might also provide valuable support LP, Cloud-
to previous managers who could have been disappointed by poor outcomes in the initial Supported
stages of combined LP and cloud application implementation. These results could also be
used as a way to curb organisational criticism from opponents of LP or Cloud technology who
Logistics and
might resist the implementation of Lean, Cloud technology or both, especially at the SCI
beginning of the process. Resource complementarity, as described in so-called time
compression diseconomies, is a time-dependent effect that requires the joint action of both
sets of variables over a period of time. Although the effect of time has not been explicitly
analysed here, this study does provide support for the existence of the combined effect itself,
even if it is not felt immediately.

7.2 Limitations and future research lines

This study focuses on industrial sectors that are in an intermediate position in the supply
chain and companies that frequently interact with upstream and downstream supply
members. The implications of the findings are, therefore, both far-reaching and robust.
However, more research and analysis must be conducted in a variety of industrial and
geographical settings to confirm the paper’s findings.
In addition, results have only been obtained from Spanish industrial sectors. The study
needs to be conducted and replicated with company samples from other geographical
environments to confirm the obtained results. A logical extension of this work would consist
of empirically replicating the obtained results in other contexts, with the identified
relationships tested with larger samples and several informants in each company. It would
also be advisable to use longitudinal methodology in the future to examine causality in the
observed relationships, since the cross-sectional nature of the data used here does not allow
any causal inferences to be determined. The lag between progress being made in the Lean
Production implementation level and the time when the company goes ahead with Cloud-
Supported Logistics also needs to be examined.

References
Abdulaziz, A. (2012), “Cloud computing for increased business value”, International Journal of
Business Society Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 234-239.
Acar, M., Tarim, M., Zaim, H., Zaim, S. and Delen, D. (2017), “Knowledge management and ERP:
complementary or contradictory?”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 37
No. 6, pp. 703-712.
Adler, N.J. (1983), “A typology of management studies involving culture”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 29-47.
Al-Jawazneh, B. (2016), “The prospects of cloud computing in supply chain management. A theoretical
perspective”, Journal of Management Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 145-158.
Anand, G. and Ward, P.T. (2004), “Fit, flexibility and performance in manufacturing: coping with
dynamic environments”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 369-385.
Anand, G., Ward, P.T., Tatikonda, M.V. and Schilling, D. (2009), “Dynamic capabilities through
continuous improvement infrastructure”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 6,
pp. 444-461.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating non response bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Azevedo, S., Prata, P. and Fazendeiro, P. (2013), “Assessment of supply chain agility in a cloud
computing-based framework”, Scalable Computing: Practice and Experience, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 295-301.
IJLM Berman, B. (2002), “Should your firm adopt a mass customization strategy?”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 51-60.
Bernardes, E.S. and Zsidisin, G.A. (2008), “An examination of strategic supply management benefits
and performance implications”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 209-219.
Bharadwaj, A. (2000), “A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm
performance: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 169-197.
Bhoir, H. and Principal, R.P. (2014), “Cloud computing for supply chain management”, International
Journal of Innovations in Engineering Research and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 1-9.
Boon-itt, S. and Wong, C.Y. (2011), “The moderating effects of technological and demand uncertainties
on the relationship between supply chain integration and customer delivery performance”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 253-76.
Botta, A., de Donato, W., Persico, V. and Pescap
e, A. (2016), “Integration of cloud computing and
internet of things: a survey”, Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 56, pp. 684-700.
Brunn, P. and Mefford, R.N. (2004), “Lean production and the internet”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 89 No. 3, pp. 247-260.
Bruque, S., Moyano, J. and Maqueira, J.M. (2015), “Use of cloud technology, Web 2.0 and operational
performance: the mediating role of supply chain integration”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 426-458.
Bruque, S., Moyano, J. and Maqueira, J.M. (2016), “Supply chain integration through community cloud:
effects on operational performance”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 22
No. 2, pp. 141-153.
Buyya, R., Broberg, J. and Goscinski, A. (2011), Cloud Computing: Principles and Paradigms, Wiley &
Sons Press, New York.
Cagliano, R., Caniato, F. and Spina, G. (2006), “The linkage between supply chain integration and
manufacturing improvement programmes”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 282-99.
Cegielski, C.G., Jones-Farmer, L.A., Wu, Y. and Hazen, B.T. (2012), “Adoption of cloud computing
technologies in supply chains: an organizational information processing theory approach”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 184-211.
Chen, I. and Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a theory of supply chain management: the constructs and
measurements”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 119-150.
Clemmons, E.K. and Row, M. (1991), “Sustaining IT advantage: the role of structural differences”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 275-292.
Corsten, D. and Felde, J. (2005), “Exploring the performance effects of key-supplier collaboration. An
empirical investigation into Swiss buyer-supplier relationship”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistic Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 445-461.
DeGroote, S.E. and Marx, T.G. (2013), “The impact of IT on supply chain agility and firm performance: an
empirical investigation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 909-916.
Dermirkan, H., Cheng, H.K. and Bandyopadhyay, S. (2010), “Coordination strategies in SaaS supply
chain”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 119-143.
Devaraj, S., Krajewski, L. and Wei, J.C. (2007), “Impact of e-business technologies on operational
performance: the role of production information in the supply chain”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1199-1216.
Doherty, E., Carcary, M., Conway, G. and Matlay, H. (2015), “Migrating to the cloud–examining the
drivers and barriers to adoption of cloud computing by SMEs in Ireland. An exploratory
study”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 512-527.
Ellinger, A.E., Daugherty, P.J. and Keller, S.B. (2000), “The relationship between marketing/logistics LP, Cloud-
interdepartmental integration and performance in US manufacturing firms. An empirical
study”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-21. Supported
Fantazy, K.A., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2009), “An empirical study of the relationships among
Logistics and
strategy, flexibility and performance in the supply chain context”, Supply Chain Management: SCI
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 177-188.
Feeny, D.F. and Ives, B. (1990), “In search of sustainability: reaping long-term advantage from
investments in information technology”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 27-46.
Fingar, P. (2009), Dot. Cloud. “The 21st Century Business Platform”, Meghan-Kiffer Press, Tampa,
Florida.
Flynn, B.B., Sakakibara, S. and Schroeder, R.G. (1995), “Relationship between JIT and TQM: practices
and performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 5, pp. 1325-1360.
Flynn, B.B., Huo, B. and Zhao, X. (2010), “The impact of supply chain integration on performance: a
contingency and configuration approach”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 28 Nos 1-2,
pp. 58-71.
Foerstl, K., Schleper, M.C. and Henke, M. (2017), “Purchasing and supply management: from efficiency
to effectiveness in an integrated supply chain”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,
Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 223-228.
Gangwar, H., Date, H. and Ramaswamy, R. (2015), “Understanding determinants of cloud computing
adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-130.
Garrison, G., Kim, S. and Wakefield, R. (2012), “Factors leading to the successful deployment of cloud
computing”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 55 No. 9, pp. 62-68.
Garrison, G., Wakefield, R.L. and Kim, S. (2015), “The effects of IT capabilities and delivery model on
cloud computing success and firm performance for cloud supported processes and operations”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 377-393.
Gerbin, D. and Hamilton, J. (1996), “Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to
confirmatory factor analysis”, Structural Equation Modelling, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 62-72.
Ghaffari, K., Delgosha, S.M. and Abdolvand, N. (2014), “Towards cloud computing: a swot analysis on
its adoption in SMEs”, International Journal of Information Technology Convergence and
Services, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 13-20.
Ghobakhloo, M. and Tang, S.H. (2014), “IT investments and business performance improvement: the
mediating role of lean manufacturing implementation”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 52 No. 18, pp. 5367-5384.
Gim
enez, C. and Ventura, E. (2005), “Logistics-production, logistics-marketing and external
integration: their impact on performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 20-38.
Gim
enez, C., Van der Vaart, T. and Van Donk, P. (2012), “Supply chain integration and performance:
the moderating effect of supply complexity”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 583-610.
Gorsuch, R. (1983), Factor Analysis, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Gunasekaran, A. and Ngai, E.W.T. (2004), “Information systems in supply chain integration and
management”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 159 No. 2, pp. 269-295.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2009), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall,
New Jersey.
Hansen, D. and Møller, N. (2016), “Conceptualizing dynamic capabilities in lean production: what are
they and how do they develop?”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 194-208.
Hayes, B. (2008), “cloud computing”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 51 No. 7, pp. 9-11.
IJLM Herron, C. and Braiden, P.M. (2007), “Defining the foundation of lean manufacturing in the context of
its origins (Japan)”, IET International Conference on Agile Manufacturing (ICAM 2007), 9-11,
July, Durham, UK, pp. 148-157.
Hofer, A.R., Hofer, C., Eroglu, C. and Waller, M.A. (2011), “An institutional theoretic perspective on
forces driving adoption of lean production globally: China vis- a-vis the USA”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 148-178.
Holweg, M. (2007), “The genealogy of lean production”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 420-37.
Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L. (2004), “To pull or not to pull: what is the question?”, Manufacturing
and Service Operations Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 133-48.
Jabbour, C.J.C., de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Govindan, K., Teixeira, A.A. and de Souza Freitas, W.L.
(2013), “Environmental management and operational performance in automotive companies in
Brazil: the role of human resource management and lean manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 47, pp. 129-140.
Jede, A. and Teuteberg, F. (2015), “Integrating cloud computing in supply chain processes. A comprehensive
literature review”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 72-94.
Jede, A. and Teuteberg, F. (2016), “Towards cloud-based supply chain processes: designing a reference
model and elements of a research agenda”, International Journal of Logistics Management,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 438-462.
Johnston, D.A. and Wright, L. (2004), “The e-business capability of small and medium sized firms in
international supply chains”, Information Systems and E-Business Management, Vol. 2 Nos 2/3,
pp. 223-40.
Kaplan, D. (2000), Structural Equation Modelling: Foundations and Extensions, Sage, Newbury Park.
Krafcik, J.F. (1988), “Triumph of the lean production system”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Lamming, R.C. (1996), “Squaring lean supply with supply chain management”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-96.
Lewis, M.A. (2000), “Lean production and sustainable competitive advantage”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 959-978.
Li, S., Rao, S.S., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Ragu-Nathan, B. (2005), “Development and validation of a
measurement instrument for studying supply chain management practices”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 618-41.
Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L. and Sohal, A.S. (2009), “The impact of IT implementation on supply chain
integration and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 120 No. 1,
pp. 125-138.
Li, W., Zhong, Y., Wang, X. and Cao, Y. (2013), “Resource virtualization and service selection in cloud
logistic”, Journal of Network and Computer Applications, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1696-1704.
Liu, S., Yang, Y., Qu, W.G. and Liu, Y. (2016), “The business value of cloud computing: the partnering
agility perspective”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 6, pp. 1160-1177.
Malhotra, M.K. and Mackelprang, A.W. (2012), “Are internal manufacturing and external supply chain
flexibilities complementary capabilities?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 180-200.
Malhotra, N.K. (2004), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, 4th ed., Pearson Education, New
Jersey.
Maqueira, J.M., Bruque, S. and Minguela-Rata, B. (2017), “Environment determinants in business adoption
of cloud computing”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 117 No. 1, pp. 228-246.
Maqueira, J.M., Moyano, J. and Bruque, S. (2019), “Drivers and consequences of an innovative
technology assimilation in the supply chain: cloud computing and supply chain integration”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 2083-2103.
Marinagi, C., Trivellas, P. and Sakas, D. (2014), “The impact of information technology on the LP, Cloud-
development of supply chain competitive advantage”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 147, pp. 586-591. Supported
Marodin, G.A., Tortorella, G.L., Frank, A.G. and Filho, M. (2017), “The moderating effect of lean
Logistics and
supply chain management on the impact of lean shop floor practices on quality and inventory”, SCI
Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 473-485.
Marston, S., Li, Z., Bandyopadhyay, S., Zhang, J. and Ghalsasi, A. (2011), “Cloud computing – the
business perspective”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 176-189.
Mason-Jones, R. and Towill, D.R. (1999), “Total cycle time compression and the agile supply chain”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 Nos 1/2, pp. 61-73.
McKone, K.E., Schroeder, R.G. and Cua, K.O. (2001), “The impact of total productive maintenance on
manufacturing performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 39-58.
Mell, P. and Grance, T. (2011), The NIST Definition of Cloud Computing, Recommendations of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Merschmann, U. and Thonemann, U.W. (2011), “Supply chain flexibility, uncertainty and firm
performance: an empirical analysis of German manufacturing firms”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 130 No. 1, pp. 43-53.
Mo, J.P.T. (2009), “The role of lean in the application of information technology to manufacturing”,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 266-276.
Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, M. (2012), “Learning on lean: a review of thinking and research”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 551-582.
Moyano-Fuentes, J., Mart
ınez-Jurado, P.J., Maqueira-Mar
ın, J.M. and Bruque-C
amara, S. (2012a), “Impact
of use of information technology on lean production adoption: evidence from the automotive
industry”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 57 Nos 1-3, pp. 132-148.
Moyano-Fuentes, J., Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, M. and Mart
ınez-Jurado, P.J. (2012b), “Cooperation in the supply
chain and lean production adoption: evidence from the Spanish automotive industry”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1075-1096.
Negr~ao, L.L., Filho, M. and Marodin, G. (2017), “Lean practices and their effect on performance: a
literature review”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 33-56.
Novais, L., Maqueira, J.M. and Ort
ız-Bas, A. (2019), “A systematic literature review of cloud computing
use in supply chain integration”, Computers and Industrial Engineering, Vol. 129, pp. 296-314.
Nowicka, K. (2014), “Smart city Logistics on cloud computing model”, Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 151, pp. 266-281.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.
O’Leary-Kelly, S.W. and Vokurka, R.J. (1998), “The empirical assessment of construct validity”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 387-405.
Oliveira, R.R., Noguez, F.C., Costa, C.A., Barbosa, J.L. and Prado, M.P. (2013), “SWTRACK: an
intelligent model for cargo tracking based on off-the-shelf mobile devices”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 2023-2031.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. and Espadanal, M. (2014), “Assessing the determinants of cloud computing
adoption: an analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors”, Information and
Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 497-510.
Pagell, M. (2004), “Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the integration of operations,
purchasing and logistics”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 459-487.
Paulraj, A., Chen, I.J. and Flynn, J. (2006), “Levels of strategic purchasing: impact on supply integration
and performance”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 107-122.
IJLM P
erez, C., de Castro, R., Simons, D. and Gimenez, G. (2010), “Development of lean supply chains: a case
study of the Catalan pork sector”, Supply Chain Management. An International Journal, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Pinho, C. and Mendes, L. (2017), “IT in lean-based manufacturing industries: systematic literature
review and research issues”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 24,
pp. 7524-7540.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Powell, T.C. and Dent-Micallef, A. (1997), “Information technology as competitive advantage: the role of
human, business and technology resources”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 375-405.
Prahalad, C. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-92.
Prajogo, P. and Olhager, J. (2012), “Supply chain integration and performance. The effects of long-term
relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 514-522.
Qrunfleh, S. and Tarafdar, M. (2013), “Lean and agile supply chain strategies and supply chain
responsiveness: the role of strategic supplier partnership and postponement”, Supply Chain
Management: International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 571-582.
Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R. and Seth, N. (2006), “Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply
chain integration capabilities”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 225-246.
Rai, A., Pavlou, P.A., Im, G. and Du, S. (2012), “Interfirm IT capability profiles and communications for
cocreating relational value: evidence from the logistics industry”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 233-262.
Rai, R., Sahoo, G. and Mehfuz, S. (2015), “Exploring the factors influencing the cloud computing
adoption: a systematic study on cloud migration”, SpringerPlus, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Ravichandran, T. and Lertwongsatien, C. (2005), “Effect of information systems resources and
capabilities on firm performance: a resource-based perspective”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 237-276.
Rich, N. and Hines, P. (1997), “Supply-chain management and time-based competition: the role of the
supplier association”, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management,
Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 210-225.
Riezebos, J., Klingenberg, W. and Hicks, C. (2009), “Lean production and information technology:
connection or contradiction?”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 237-247.
Rojo, A., Llorens-Montes, J. and Perez-Arostegui, N. (2016), “The impact of ambidexterity on supply
chain flexibility fit”, Supply Chain Management: International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 433-452.
Romano, P. (2003), “Coordination and integration mechanisms to manage logistics processes
across supply networks”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 9 No. 3,
pp. 119-34.
Rossini, M., Costa, F., Tortorella, G.L. and Portioli-Staudacher, A. (2019), “The interrelation
between Industry 4.0 and lean production: an empirical study on European manufacturers”,
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 102 Nos 9-12,
pp. 3963-3976.
noz, J.E., Garc
ıa, S., P
erez, R., Maqueira, J.M. and Bruque, S. (2012), “Real-
S
anchez, A.J., Yuste, A.J., Mu~
time image texture analysis in quality management using grid computing: an application to the
MDF manufacturing industry”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 58 Nos 9-12, pp. 1217-1225.
Sangwa, N.R. and Sangwan, K.S. (2017), “Leanness assessment of organizational performance: a LP, Cloud-
systematic literature review”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 768-788. Supported
Satorra, A. (1993), “Multi-sample analysis of moment-structures: asymptotic validity of inferences
Logistics and
based on second order moments”, in Haagen, K., Bartholomeusz, A. and Deistler, M. (Eds), SCI
Statistical Modelling and Latent Variables, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2003), “Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles and performance”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 129-49.
Shah, R. and Ward, P.T. (2007), “Defining and developing measures of lean production”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 785-805.
Shah, R., Chandrasekaran, A. and Linderman, K. (2008), “In pursuit of implementation patterns: the
context of lean and six sigma”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23,
pp. 6679-99.
Shou, Y., Li, Y., Park, Y. and Kang, M. (2017), “Supply chain integration and operational performance:
the contingency effects of production systems”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management.
Song, G., Song, S. and Sun, L. (2019), “Supply chain integration in omni-channel retailing: a logistics
perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 527-548.
Stank, T.P., Crum, M. and Arango, M. (1999), “Benefits of inter-firm co-ordination in food industry
supply chains”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 21-41.
Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B. and Daugherty, P.J. (2001), “Supply chain collaboration and logistical service
performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Sterling, A. and Boxall, P. (2013), “Lean production employee learning and workplace outcomes: a case
analysis through the ability-motivation-oportunity framework”, Human Resource Management
Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 227-240.
Stump, B. and Badurdeen, F. (2012), “Integrating Lean and other strategies for mass customization
manufacturing: a case study”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 109-124.
Subramanian, N., Abdulrahman, M.D. and Zhou, X. (2015), “Reprint of integration of logistics and
cloud computing service providers: cost and green benefits in the Chinese context”,
Transportation Research, Vol. 74, pp. 81-93.
Tao, F.Z.L., Venkatesh, V.C., Luo, Y. and Cheng, Y. (2011), “Cloud manufacturing: a computing and
service-oriented manufacturing model”, Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 225 No. 10,
pp. 1969-1976.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Teece, D. (1988), “Capturing value form technological innovation: integration, strategic partnering,
and licensing decisions”, Interfaces, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 46-61.
Thun, J.H. (2010), “Angles of integration: an empirical analysis of the alignment of internet based
information technology and global supply chain management”, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 30-44.
Tortorella, T., Giglio, R., Fettermmann, D.C. and Tlapa, D. (2018a), “Lean supply chain practices: an
exploratory study on their relationship”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 1049-1076.
Tortorella, G.L., Giglio, R. and Lim
on-Romero, J. (2018b), “Supply chain performance: how lean
practices efficiently drive improvements”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 829-845.
Trappey, A.J.C., Trappey, C.V., Chang, S.W.C. and Tun Nien Hsu, W.T.L. (2016), “A one-stop logistic
services framework supporting global supply chain collaboration”, Journal of Systems Science
and Systems Engineering, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 229-253.
IJLM Troyer, C. and Cooper, R. (1995), “Smart moves in supply chain integration”, Transportation and
Distribution, Vol. 36, pp. 55-62.
Truong, D. (2010), “How cloud computing enhances competitive advantages: a research model for
small businesses”, The Business Review Cambridge, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 59-65.
Tuncay, E. (2010), “Effective use of cloud computing in education institutions”, Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 938-942.
Ugarte, G.M., Golden, J.S. and Dooley, K.J. (2016), “Lean versus green: the impact of lean logistics on
greenhouse gas emissions in consumer goods supply chains”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 98-109.
Uhrin, A., Bruque-C
amara, S. and Moyano-Fuentes, J. (2017), “Lean production, workforce
development and operational performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 103-118.
Van der Vaart, T., Van Donk, P., Gim
enez, C. and Sierra, V. (2012), “Modelling the integration-
performance relationship. Collaborative practices, enablers and contextual factors”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 1043-1074.
Vermula, R. and Zsifkovits, H. (2016), “Cloud computing for supply chain management”, Berg- und
H€uttenm€annische Monatshefte, Vol. 161 No. 5, pp. 229-232.
Wade, M. and Hulland, J. (2004), “The resource-based view and information systems research: review,
extension, and suggestions for future research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 107-142.
Wang, Y., Wang, Y. and Yang, Y. (2010), “Understanding the determinants of RFID adoption in the
manufacturing industry”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 77 No. 5, pp. 803-815.
Wang, X., Li, W.F., Zhong, Y. and Zhao, W. (2012), “Research on cloud logistics-based one-stop service
platform for logistics center”, IEEE 16th International Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work in Design, May 23-25, Wuhan, China, pp. 558-563.
Ward, P. and Zhou, H. (2006), “Impact of information technology integration and Lean/ just-in-time
practices on lead-time performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 177-203.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996), Lean Thinking. Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Ross, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, MacMillan, New York.
Wong, C.Y., Boon-itt, S. and Wong, C.W.Y. (2011), “The contingency effects of environmental
uncertainty on the relationship between supply chain integration and operational performance”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 604-615.
Wu, F., Yeniyurt, S., Kim, D. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2006), “The impact of information technology on
supply chain capabilities and firm performance: a resource based view”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 493-504.
Wu, D., Greer, M.J., Rosen, D.W. and Schaefer, D. (2013), “Cloud manufacturing: strategic vision and
state-of-the-art”, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 564-579.
Yan, J., Xin, S., Liu, Q., Xu, W., Yang, L., Fan, L., Chen, B. and Wang, Q. (2014), “Intelligent supply
chain integration and management based on cloud of things”, International Journal of
Distributed Sensor Networks, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-15.
Yu, W., Jacobs, M.A., Salisbury, W.D. and Enns, H. (2013), “The effects of supply chain integration on
customer satisfaction and financial performance: an organizational learning perspective”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 146 No. 1, pp. 346-358.
Yu, W., Jacobs, M.A., Chavez, R. and Feng, M. (2017), “The impacts of IT capability and marketing
capability on supply chain integration: a resource-based perspective”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 14, pp. 4196-4211.
Yu, W. (2015), “The effect of IT-enabled supply chain integration on performance”, Production
Planning and Control, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 945-957.
Zhao, X., Huo, B., Selen, W. and Yeung, J.H.Y. (2011), “The impact of internal integration and LP, Cloud-
relationship commitment on external integration”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 17-32. Supported
Zhong, R.Y., Lan, S., Xu, C., Dai, Q. and Huang, G.Q. (2015), “Visualization of RFID-enabled shopfloor
Logistics and
logistics big data in cloud manufacturing”, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing SCI
Technology, Vol. 84 Nos 1-4, pp. 5-16.

Further reading
Voss, C.A. (2005), “Paradigms of manufacturing strategy revisited”, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, Vol. 25 No. 12, pp. 1223-1227.

Corresponding author
Luciano Novais can be contacted at: lurono@doctor.upv.es

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com