Systematic review and the need for evidence

Citation

Dr Richard Wilding, P. and Beverly Wagner, D. (2012), "Systematic review and the need for evidence", Supply Chain Management, Vol. 17 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/scm.2012.17717daa.001

Systematic review and the need for evidence

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Volume 17, Issue 4

About the guest editors

Professor Richard Wilding, BSc, PhD, CEng, Eur Ing, FIET, FCILT – is Chair (Full Professor) in Supply Chain Strategy at the Centre for Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Cranfield School of Management, UK. Richard works with European and international companies on logistics and supply chain projects in all sectors including pharmaceutical, retail, automotive, high technology, food and drink, and professional services, to name a few. He is a champion for encouraging evidence based decision making within industry and is an advocate for ensuring academic knowledge can create action and impact within the organisations he works with. His work with industry has been recognised at the “European Supply Chain Excellence Awards 2010”, where he won the “Individual Contribution Award”. At the “European Supply Chain Distinction Awards 2008”, he received the “Distinguished Service Award for Thought Leadership and Service to Supply Chain Management”. Richard’s special areas of interest include the creation of collaborative business environments, reducing supply chain vulnerability and risk, time compression and techniques for aligning supply chains to maximise customer value and reduce cost. Richard Wilding can be contacted at: Richard.Wilding@cranfield.ac.uk

Dr Beverly Wagner is Editor of Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. Broadly, her interest lies in the area of buyer/supplier relations, which includes inter-organisational cooperation, supply chain management, network organisations and innovation in SMEs. She has been involved in research into formation and implementation of partnering and business alliances in the drinks and packaging sector, also in the microelectronics and oil and gas industries. Over time, the focus of her research has changed from investigating supplier and retailers relations, to the use of social network techniques so as to understand complex inter-organisation relationships. Her current area of study is to try to better understand how companies implement sustainable business models. Beverly Wagner can be contacted at: beverly.wagner@strath.ac.uk

Systematic reviews of management literature have only become common over the past decade and it can be argued that the purpose of such reviews is to aid evidence-based decision making. Roots of the systematic review approach are to be found in medical and health care research where appraising and synthesising evidence presented in multiple studies has been critical in limiting bias. The recognition by Smith in the early 1990s in his publication in the British Medical Journal (Smith, 1991) that 15 per cent of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence provided an interesting insight into the extent of the problem within medicine and the need for evidence based practise. This and similar insights provided the impetus for systematic review to be utilised more fully within medical research.

When presenting such works, evidence is critical and in order to generate it, a robust auditable methodology needs to be applied. If done well, a researcher repeating the study should come to the same conclusions as the original researcher.

This contrasts with many narrative reviews that tell a story from literature. Such weaker reviews take elements from literature that supports the author’s thesis and ignore any which are not seen to fit! This can result in biased conclusions not repeatable by other researchers and un-auditable and subjective claims.

We launched the call for papers on this special issue after experiencing success in applying systematic reviews in a variety of contexts within our Business Schools. Initially research students starting doctorial studies who applied systematic reviews within some of our Universities (e.g. Cranfield School of Management) found the approach rigorous and empowering. Evidence provided by such techniques clearly identified “gaps in the body of knowledge” and enabled students to quickly and effectively focus on their desired dissertation topic. Systematic review dissertations were also submitted as a part requirement for Master of Research (MRes) degrees leading to doctorial research. On Masters Programmes, a modified systematic approach was also applied by students undertaking research based thesis within the University. This approach allowed students to rigorously review literature in a “scientific” way and methodological steps in the systematic review methodology proved useful by enabling most students to “hit the ground running.” The rigour required by systematic reviews also increased the number of MSc thesis research projects developed into refereed academic papers.

The value of systematic reviews in supply chain management was also recognised by commercial organisations. As part of research interventions, it was found that companies were willing to “pay” for systematic reviews enabling a strong evidence based foundation for commercial leadership.

What makes a good systematic review?

An important question often asked is “what makes a good systematic review?” As will be seen from papers presented in these issues, key components need to ensure that work is evidence based and robust. A variety of different approaches can be applied and papers presented in these special issues have aimed to all follow a systematic and auditable methodology.

When introducing the review context and assessing its quality it is useful to ask the following:

• •

  “Has the researcher identified an appropriate focus and scope?”

This is particularly important, as firstly a systematic review requires focusing on a specific, tightly defined area. Before the review can be undertaken, the researcher will often need to undertake a more traditional review to identify the specific area to focus on in detail.

When the methodology for the review is being implemented, further questions need to be asked including:

• •

  Is the review transparent, repeatable and auditable? Have the procedures for searching, selecting, appraisal, data extracting and synthesising been made explicit and are they logical and defendable? Have journal and publication quality criteria been identified and applied? Has material excluded and included in the review been fully justified? Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria clear and defendable? Does the reviewer clearly demonstrate what is, and what is not, in the field of study?

For sound results and analysis, the following additional questions need to address the descriptive and theoretical analysis elements of the review.

• •

  Does the reviewer provide a comprehensive field map by using a balanced set of characteristics? Has the reviewer provided a descriptive analysis (for example, geographical, analytical, sector, chronological, etc) within the body of literature? Is the review complete with no obvious omissions (key authors, concepts, references, journals commonly utilised etc)?

• •

  Has the reviewer identified and demonstrated an understanding of the main theoretical and methodological debates in the field? Has the reviewer provided a thematic and relational analysis of the body of literature? Does the review make identify potential research gaps and make recommendations for future investigation?

We have been overwhelmed by the response to our call and received a significant number of high quality papers. Our original intention was to publish one special issue but, with the support of the publishers, we have been able to produce a special issue in two parts, with the inclusion of additional papers. It is hoped this special issue will become a benchmark for systematic reviews in the area of supply chain management and will encourage others to undertake such work by further developing theory in the subject area.

An overview of Special Issue Part 1

Part 1 includes six articles summarised as follows.

The governance of supply networks: a systematic literature review and research directions, Pilbeam et al.

This article focuses on the role of formal and informal governance structures to coordinate organisations in supply networks. Informal governance seems to be more successful for the transfer of intangible items such as ideas for innovation, whereas formal instruments are used to regulate processes and in the exchange of products. Theoretical findings suggest that transaction cost economics has limited applicability in such cases, despite it being the most used framework to try and explain inter-organisational exchange in supply networks. Other common theoretical stances, used to explain interactions between members, are network perspectives and theories of social exchange and social capital. Drawing upon their findings, this article presents two contributions; first to synthesise literature on governance of supply networks and provide a tool for analysing the governance of supply networks. Second, to provide a nuanced conceptualisation of relational constructs, power and trust, in order to further explain supply network outcomes. From this review, a number of gaps have been identified in existing empirical knowledge. These include a lack of longitudinal studies that explore the changing dynamics of power and trust relationships within network, also the continuing requirement to investigate how different forms of trust are manifest in governance instruments as policies change over time.

Outcomes of inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationships: a systematic literature review and a meta analysis of the empirical evidence, Delbufalo. The rationale behind the review is the growing debate relating to the influence of trust on the outcomes of supply chain performance. Only articles that measured inter-organisational trust were included in meta-analysis and a number of outcomes were identified and categorised as; direct economic outcomes, indirect outcomes and relational outcomes. With regards to direct economic outcomes, the review provided a strong support for the link between inter-organisation trust and performance, measuring efficiency, productivity metrics and financial performance. There was also strong support for the effect of trust on lowering transaction costs as well as a positive impact on quality. The articles explored inter-organisation in terms of goodwill and competence based trust with each influencing governance choice. As with Pilbeam et al. (in this issue), this article hopes to demonstrate the lack of studies exploring effects and outcomes of inter-organisational trust beyond the dyad and calls for studies to consider network relational mechanisms and trust outcomes. It confirms that many proposed causal models between trust and commitment, trust and co-operation etc. are too simple and require further research to overcome ambiguity and confusion in defining outcomes. Finally cultural influences have been under-explored and a systematic examination of the differences is required across national and cultural influences. From a methodological viewpoint, this article highlights the difficulties in conceptualising trust. The findings and contributions echo those of Pilbeam et al., which indicate that inter-organisational trust continues to be an important topic in supply chain research.

Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic review, Colicchia and Strozzi

This article attempts to describe supply chain risk management (SCRM) as a dynamic process of knowledge creation, transfer and development. The method employed combines a systemic literature review and citation network analysis to demonstrate how the body of knowledge has evolved over time. Presenting a systematic literature review, the authors have selected the most relevant papers that contributed to theory building in the field of SCRM. Using content network analysis, they identified evolutionary patterns and emerging trends in key concepts. Three critical findings promoting robust and resilient supply chains are:

1. 1.

   strategy and structure alignment within the business context;

2. 2.

   dynamic and comprehensive approaches to risk management; and

3. 3.

   collaboration with companies involved in the supply network.

The review also highlighted that most research undertaken in this area underestimated the relevance of the relationship between SCRM and performance. Practically, the review suggests that risk management would benefit from considering the concept of uncertainly in supply chain design, as well as a greater understanding of the impact of risk arising from the collaborative network and interaction of supply chain partners.

Towards a theory of supply chain alignment enablers: a systematic literature review, Wong et al.

Using a systematic review to identify alignment enablers, this article evaluates cross-disciplinary literature concerning supply chain alignment. These include organisational structure, internal relational behaviour, customer relational behaviour, top management support, information sharing and performance measurement systems. The significance of supply chain alignment has been highlighted by Delbufalo (this issue) as an important factor in managing uncertainty; additionally, this article reinforces the necessity of supply chain alignment to achieve a fit of objectives, structures and processes within and between different functions and members in the supply chain. The authors generate a set of hypotheses that present the positive impact of six enablers on shareholder alignment and customer alignment, as well as the relationship between shareholder alignment/value and customer alignment/value. The main contribution of the literature review is that it brings together theoretical arguments and findings from multi-disciplinary sources and synthesises them into enablers and hypotheses of supply chain alignment. This is a significant contribution, given that most companies struggle with supply chain alignment. Enablers identified in the article have the potential to guide organisations by improving both shareholder and customer alignment.

Understanding the role of logistics capabilities in achieving supply chain agility: a systematic literature review, Gligor and Holcomb

As identified by other contributors to this special issue, firms that successfully align with suppliers, customers and competitors, achieve competitive advantage. It has been acknowledged that although alignment is difficult to achieve, it is one of the basic principles creating agility. This article focuses on the relationship between logistics capabilities and supply chain agility. The findings suggest that manufacturing focuses on agility, not only to reduce fixed costs, but that in response to continuous and unanticipated change. Over time the motivation changes to one of delivering customer value. From their research, the authors identified a number of key elements in conceptualising agility. These are: responsiveness, change creating opportunity, flexibility, customisation, mobilisation of resources, integration, organisational structure and speed. This review is relevant, as it presents a conceptual framework that brings together literature regarding the relationship between logistics and supply chain agility. The article assesses literature from a multi-disciplinary perspective and provides and important foundation for future empirical examination.

Theoretical perspectives in purchasing and supply chain management: an analysis of the literature, Chicksand et al.

The study, based on the work of Defee et al. (2010) and Harland et al. (2006), considers the degree to which theories are used in purchasing and supply chain management (P&SCM) and how theory is being developed in the field. The article argues that although theory-based articles are more often cited than non-theoretical ones, the absence of theory in much of the work means that P&SCM is still a long way from becoming a scientific discipline. The article debates the appropriateness of having a “right” theory for understanding supply chains and whether a multi-disciplinary approach and applied diverse theories allow for intellectual pluralism. On the other hand, indiscriminate use of theory can lead to fragmentation and lack of coherence, breadth, depth and quality. Findings suggest that there is no over-arching theory or common approach. The main conclusion drawn from this structured literature review is that there is little evidence that a single dominant paradigm has started to emerge. Indeed, it is apparent that there a many articles where there is no evidence of a distinct intellectual tradition.

Conclusion – Part 1

It can be seen from the foregoing summaries that a number of themes and threads link many of the articles. First, the challenge of going beyond the simple dyad within supply chain research is highlighted in the reviews. Pilbeam et al., Delbufalo, Wong et al., all identify from different literature sources that a simple dyadic view is predominant. This then provides a challenge when recognising the need for alignment with the supply chain. Colicchia and Strozzi further identify that for supply chain risk management to be effective, interactions of supply chain partners and the collaborative network needs to be considered. Gligor and Holcomb further emphasise the importance of alignment and relationships in order to gain competitive advantage. This continues to be an area requiring on-going research so as to assist organisations to respond to uncertainty and change, not only in the supply chain, but also internally within the firm. A synthesis of these articles also highlights the continuing importance of constructs such as power and trust as well as a call for longitudinal studies that continue to explore and conceptualise these research domains.

Secondly a theme inferred by all articles is the lack of theory grounding supply chain management. In their review Chicksand et al. explore this issue and raise the question, that as no dominant theory exists, do academics need to explore the development of one theory or should we be content with a multi-theoretical perspective? Also what does this mean for theoretical development in the area of supply chain management? It would seem supply chain management theory is an aggregate of many theories and this contribution re-ignites the debate concerning lack of a dominant theoretical paradigm. Purchasing and Supply Chain Management research draws from multi-disciplinary studies and reinforces one of the main objectives for publication in Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.

Finally

We hope that readers of these articles will gain novel insights, from the perspective of methodology and themes. A key theme that cannot be ignored is the systematic evidence- based approach utilised by the papers in this issue. For those new to this approach, it is hoped that that lessons can be learned and research and theory development further improved from the application of these principles in the area of logistics and supply chain management. Finally, the reviews in both issues indicate that more “traditional” areas of supply chain research remain relevant and appropriate including, but not limited to, supplier evaluation, governance, buyer-supplier relationships, performance measurement and risk management.

Professor Dr Richard Wilding, Dr Beverly WagnerGuest Editors