Supply chain as knowledge management

International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management

Volumn 1, Issue 2-3, 2005, Pages 267-278

  Nath, Pradosh ^a   Sandhya, G D ^a   Mrinalini, N ^a  

^a National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies India   (India)

Author keywords

automotive industry; innovation; knowledge hierarchy; supply chain

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746600480     PISSN: 17427967     EISSN: 17427975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijlsm.2005.005975     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Coase, R. (1937) ‘Nature of the firms’, Economica, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.386–405.
2. Dyer, J.H. (1996) ‘Specialised supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence from the auto-industry’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp.271–291.
3. Helper, S. (1991) ‘How much has really changed between US auto-makers and their suppliers?’, Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp.15–28.
4. Iansiti, M. and Clark, K. (1994) ‘Integration and dynamic capability: evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 4, pp.557–605.
5. Lazonick, W. (1993) Business Organization: The Myth of the Market Economy, New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Nelson, R. (1998) ‘Different perspectives on technological evaluation’, in: J. Ziman (Ed.) Technological Innovation as an Evolutionary Process, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Pavitt, K. (1998) ‘Technologies products and organization in the innovating firm: what Adam Smith tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn’t’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 3, pp.433–452.
8. Porter, M.E. (1985) Competitive Advantage, New York: The Free Press.
9. Powell, W.W. (1996) ‘Inter-organizational collaboration in the biotechnology industry’, Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, Vol. 152, No. 1, pp.197–220.
10. Rosenberg, N. (1982) ‘Inside the Black Box’, New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Sandhya, G.D. and Mrinalini, N. (2002) ‘Changing buyer – supplier relationships: reflections of dynamism and innovation in automotive industry in India’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 23, Nos. 1–3, pp.155–171.
12. Saxenian, A. (1990) ‘Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley’, California Management Review, Fall, pp.89–112.
13. Saxenian, A. (1991) ‘The origins and dynamics of production networks in Silicon Valley’, Research Policy, Vol. 10, pp.423–437.
14. Spekman, R.E., Kamauff, Jr., J.W. and Myhr, N. (1998) ‘An empirical investigation into supply chain management: a perspective to partnerships’, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.53–67.
15. Stigler, G. (1951) ‘The division of labour is limited by the extent of the market’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 59. pp.185–193.
16. Subramanian, S.K. (1978) ‘Sub-contracting in India, in, Determinants of the extent of international subcontracting: A tool of technology transfer’, Asian Productivity Organisation, Tokyo, pp.84–105.
17. Williamson, O.E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Anti-trust Implications, New York: Free Press.
18. “The traditional view of supply chain management is to leverage the supply chain to achieve the lowest initial purchase prices while assuring supply. Typical characteristics include: multiple partners; partner evaluation based on purchase price; cost based information bases; arms-length negotiations; formal short term contracts; and centralizised purchasing.” (Spekman et al., 1998)
19. A firm produces an artefact. The artefact is the reflection of the technological knowledge it possesses. So, we say that the firm has the technological knowledge for production of body panels for automobiles. In a deconstructed form this knowledge includes “… knowledge of techniques of die design, die modelling, die testing and finishing, for example. Additionally, knowledge can take the form of the skill of die designers in anticipating processing problems, customised software that allows for rapid and effective testing, patterns of communication and informal interaction between die designers and manufacturing engineers that allow for early identification of potential problems, an attitude of co-operation that facilitates coordinated action between die designers and the tool makers that will build the dies. These elements (and many others) define an organizational capability for die design and development.” (Iansiti and Clark, 1994) This knowledge is embodied in various types of physical and human assets and they are made to function in a defined fashion through an appropriate organisational arrangement.