Performance and Innovation in Supply Chain Management

Supply Chain Management Study Review

Singhry (2015) identifies a number of issues that affect supply chain management effectiveness. This identification serves as the problem or gap in literature that the study attempts to address. The problems are several, from "weak corporate technological culture" to "technological paradox" (a phrase that is not defined), and the apparent issues are technology-related (Singhry, 2015, p. 259). However, Singhry (2015) also cites the conflicting data produced by studies related to the relationship of supply chain tech and performance. The main goal of the study is to provide a guide for how to improve performance in the supply chain management area.

Singhry's research (2015) is effective in its ability to address specific issues, such as establishing a theoretical background for the study. He defines technology adequately by stating that it is a "dynamic capability" against the concept of collaboration which he posits is a "dynamic process." The point is that the two work together, with technology acting as the tool in the process of collaboration. The more dynamic a company is, the more likely it is to be competitive. This is a reasonable assertion in terms of establishing a framework and it serves the purposes of the study well by providing an adequate lens through which to view the data.

The hypothesis holds that innovative capabilities are essential to the relationship of supply chain tech and performance, asserting that this previously undefined role can be clarified through the application of this study. The researcher states that "Innovation capability mediates the relationship" between tech and performance (Singhry, 2015, p. 261). It is a legitimate hypothesis based on the analysis of several factors within the industry and a study of the relevant literature. It is supported by various studies and their findings so does not come across as mere hyperbole or a shot in the dark. It is sound, well-researched and a satisfying thesis that is tested quantitatively using a cross-sectional survey (Singhry, 2015, p. 261). The instruments used in the research are shown to "have been validated" by other studies so there is no question of whether they are adequate (Singhry, 2015, p. 261). The Likert scale is used to define data and this is an acceptable practice and the "construct, convergent and discriminant validities were assessed" (Singhry, 2015, p. 264). In this portion of the study, previous research was used as a guide for how to assess these various validities.

Likewise, the structural model of the research was based on the work of Baron, Kenny (1986) as well as Taylor (2006), all of whom have provided adequate guidance for this type of research. The data charts and comparisons that Singhry (2015) provides bear out this guidance and indicate a strong sense of quantitative assessment using a refined mathematical analysis method that can measure collaborative and correlative relationships between technology capabilities and performance in the supply chain mechanism.

The findings of the study are significant and consistent with those of other researchers in the past, such as Panayides, Lun (2009), who show that innovation is a factor that impacts the performance level of supply chain infrastructures. Singhry's (2015) findings bear out this conclusion by showing that the mediator role of innovation can be quantitatively measured and defined using the Likert scale and the models of previous researchers.

The study's significance is somewhat mitigated by its limitations which the researcher addresses by proposing a case study for further research, asserting that such a study could help to address some of the shortcomings. Likewise, the addition of alternate variables could help to improve the overall study by bringing concepts like organizational culture into the mix to see how it interacts with and impacts the relationship between performance, technology and innovation in the supply chain mechanism.

Not only could such inclusion shed more light on the functionality of supply chain management and the dynamic that impacts it but it could also shed light on the workings of organizational culture and how disruption factors into the equation. In short, there are a number of ways in which this study could strengthen its position in the field of academic research. Expanding its scope to include more variables and deepening its focus on the complex relationship and interaction of distinct factors such as culture, technology, collaborative spirit, spirit of mission, ethical behavior, innovation, and physical location could give the study a far-reaching significance for business researchers and students.