Advances in Information Technology Applications for Supply Chain Management

Author(s): Alan J. Stenger

Source: Transportation Journal , Vol. 50, No. 1 (Winter 2011), pp. 37-52
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/transportationj.50.1.0037

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Transportation Journal

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Advances in Information Technology Applications for
Supply Chain Management
Alan J. Stenger

Abstract
This article reviews and summarizes a number of major information
technology (IT) initiatives applicable to supply chain management and
developed over the past 25 years. We begin by differentiating between logis-
tics and supply chain management; and then discuss a process framework
for managing supply chains, useful for organizing and categorizing IT
initiatives. Within the framework, we discuss the various IT applications
designed to support the planning and execution of work in each process.
Finally, we make some comments on the future evolution of IT applica-
tions in supply chain management, fully recognizing that unanticipated
technologies will almost certainly arise to offer new opportunities for more
effectively managing supply chains.

Introduction
For the “25th Anniversary Issue” of Transportation Journal, I wrote an article
dealing with the past, present, and future of information systems and tech-
nology (hereafter, referred to as “IT,” or “technology”) in logistics manage-
ment (Stenger 1986). It seems appropriate to update this review in the “50th
Anniversary Issue,” given the large role IT has played in the application of
logistics, as well as supply chain management principles in business firms.
In doing this I will focus primarily on where we are today with regard to IT
applications, where there are opportunities for further improvement, and
where we might be going in the future. I approach the question of where we
might go in the future with some trepidation, fully recognizing that dis-
ruptive technologies have a habit of discrediting well-meaning forecasts.
For example, in my 1986 article, I mentioned the personal computer, but
did not anticipate the great role it would eventually play; nor did I even
imagine the Internet!

Alan J. Stenger, PhD Transportation Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, 2011

Professor of Supply Chain Management Copyright © 2011 The Pennsylvania State
Penn State University University, University Park, PA
University Park, PA 16802
ajs@psu.edu

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
38 / TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL™

In this article, we (1) begin with a bit of a digression, discussing the

relationship between logistics and supply chain management; (2) update
the taxonomy of IT applications in logistics that I promulgated in the
25th anniversary article; and then (3) review the development and status
of each of the areas of the taxonomy. Finally (4) we suggest initiatives that
need to be developed further as supply chain management moves forward
in time. To contain the scope of this admittedly broad topic, we will only
discuss IT applications related to supply chain management processes and
activities in manufacturing and distributing firms. We will not deal with spe-
cific IT initiatives related to the internal management of supply chain inter-
mediaries such as transportations firms and third-party logistics providers.

Logistics versus Supply Chain Management

Perhaps we need to justify the refocusing of this review from logistics to
supply chain management. In my original review of this subject, I defined
Logistics as “the design, operation, and control of methods to manage the
flow of materials, supplies, and finished goods from raw material sources
to customers” (Stenger 1986, 65). This was a rather broad view of the field;
some authors at that time referred to this conception of logistics as inte-
grated logistics (Bowersox et al. 1987). Around that same time, the term
supply chain management surfaced (Houlihan 1985). During the 1980s and
early 1990s, the two terms were used almost synonymously. However, sup-
ply chain management has since become the broader term. Today supply
chain management implies a wider level of coordination—a total systems
view. A total systems view encompasses not just the “system” from the
direct suppliers to the direct customers, but the total chain from the origin
of the fundamental raw materials to delivery to the ultimate consumers of
the final, finished product; as well as the responsible disposal, recycling,
rebuilding, and resale of that product (or its components) when the user
is finished with it. Furthermore, we recognize that supply chain manage-
ment starts when the product is conceived, designed, and developed; since
many supply chain decisions occur at this stage—including materials to
be used, available supply sources, potential manufacturing processes and
steps, opportunities for postponement, distribution requirements, and the
feasibility of effective recycling or reuse.
To summarize, supply chain management focuses on the broader issues
of influencing product design and development, promoting cross-firm
coordination, and encompassing the cross-functional processes of materials
acquisition, manufacturing, distribution and order fulfillment, and returns.

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Stenger: Advances in Information Technology \ 39

A Process Taxonomy of IT Applications in Supply Chain Management

The purpose of IT is to support, enable, and enhance the key managerial
processes associated with logistics and supply chain management. My
1986 article did not explicitly refer to underlying managerial processes,
but instead identified four key categories of IT systems employed to help
manage logistics initiatives. These were:

1. transaction systems;
2. short-term scheduling and inventory replenishment systems;
3. flow-planning systems; and
4. network planning and design systems.

While these are not invalid today, I have refined and updated the tax-
onomy while relating it more explicitly to the underlying processes that the
technologies support. Figure 1 shows a schematic of these processes.
For the most part, this schematic represents a hierarchy of processes,
with “strategic design and optimization” being at the top of the hierar-
chy, and “execution” at the bottom. Each set of processes is cross-firm
and cross-functional as indicated. In each case, higher-level processes
circumscribe the degrees of freedom within which the lower levels can
plan or execute. For example, once the supply chain has been designed
(usually in terms of a network of facilities, and transportation and com-
munication links), the location and purpose of the facilities are defined.
Then the role of the “tactical planning” process is to plan the aggregate
level of activity needed for each of these facilities and links to meet
future demand forecasts most effectively (lowest total cost or highest
profit). The two vertical processes, “customer relationship” and “supplier
relationship,” are somewhat different. These processes are the direct
interfaces with key customers and suppliers; the relationships may be
strategic, tactical, and operational at the same time. They will certainly
be important in supplying information to the hierarchical supply chain
processes. We do not have space here to go into each of these processes
in detail. Since the processes are well known, the reader can find good
discussions of the hierarchical processes in a supply chain manage-
ment text, such as Sunil Chopra and Peter Meindl (2010), and a discus-
sion of the customer and supplier relationship management processes
in Douglas Lambert (2008). For a discussion of returns and recycling, see
Dale Rogers and Ronald Tibben-Lembke (2006), and Daniel Guide and
Luk Van Wassenhove (2003).

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Suppliers Purchasing Manufacturing Outbound Marketing & Customers
& inbound & engineering logistics sales
logistics

Planning
Strategic Design and Optimization Process
Product design, Conversion process, Customer service, and supply chain planning
40 / TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL™

Tactical Planning Process

Aggregate plans; Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP)

Operational Planning Process

Detailed Flow Planning

Execution Order Management Process & DC* Replenishment

This content downloaded from

Manufacturing Process

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00

Supplier Relationship Process
Customer Relationship Process

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Material Replenishment Process

Return/Recycle/Rebuild/Resell
*DC = Distribution Center

Figure 1 Core Supply Chain Processes

 Stenger: Advances in Information Technology \ 41

We define the planning “dimensions” for each of the processes in the

taxonomy in order to delineate the scope of each. Table 1 summarizes these
dimensions for each process, which we elaborate on further here:

1. “frequency”—states how often the process should be initiated. For

example, the strategic design and optimization process should be
conducted annually, although many companies do not do this;
2. “horizon”—the time into the future over which the process should
plan (e.g., five or more years into the future for strategic design);
3. “time increment”—the length of the individual time periods differ-
entiated in the planning horizon (e.g., by year, for each year in the
horizon in strategic design); and
4. “granularity”—the level of detail related to product, customer, and
supplier data (e.g., by product families for each contiguous group of
customers, and for key raw materials by commodity group in stra-
tegic design).

Again, because the customer relationship and the supplier relationship

processes contribute to all levels of hierarchical planning and execution,
interaction with these processes takes place as appropriate for the level of
planning or execution under consideration.
We do not elaborate further on the return/recycle process here,
because it consists of a variety of further subprocesses beyond the scope

Table 1/Supply Chain Process Dimensions

Time
Process Frequency Horizon Granularity
increment
Strategic design Annually Five years By year Product families by customer
and optimization or more groups, key raw materials
Aggregate planning Monthly One to two By month More detailed product
and S&OP years or week families by customer groups,
distribution centers and
plants; key raw materials
Detailed flow Weekly Three to By week Each finished good SKU at
planning 12 mo. each plant and DC, major
customers or regions, each
raw material SKU by plant
Execution and short Daily or One day up By day, hour Individual SKUs on individual
interval scheduling hourly to one week or minute orders: customer, distribu-
tion center replenishment,
production, and supplier
Customer relationship All the All the above All the above Major customers and/or
above customer groups by product
Supplier relationship All the All the above All the above Major suppliers and/or sup-
above plier groups by commodity

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 / TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL™

of this article. For the business aspects of this process, see pages 17–42 of
Guide and Van Wassenhove (2003).

Discussion of the Respective IT Initiatives Associated with the Processes

In general there has been a steady evolution in the scope, capabilities, and
usability of IT during the last 25 years, continuing the progress made in the
prior 25-year period. Improvements in computing technology, electronic
communications, and mathematical algorithms have enabled the Internet,
interfirm coordination, and the use of sophisticated mathematical optimi-
zation techniques for supply chain planning and execution. Other enablers
include technologies for automatic identification of products and equip-
ment (from simple bar codes to electronic/radio tags), as well as organiza-
tions that foster data standardization and synchronization (such as GS1
in the fast-moving consumer goods industry, and RosettaNet in the high-
technology electronics industry), allowing more accurate and succinct
interfirm communication. All these developments in combination have led
us to where we are today, and can only continue to provide added function-
ality in the future.
Figure 2 provides a schematic and summary of the categories of the
information and decision support technologies (IT) associated with the
supply chain management processes. Clearly, these are numerous and
can be complex. We will proceed with the discussion from the bottom,
or “execution,” level of the hierarchy, because a firm’s “enterprise” data
processing system provides much of the foundational data and informa-
tion used not only in the execution processes, but also in the higher-level
processes.

Execution and Short-Interval Scheduling

Probably the biggest advancement in execution processes has been the
advent of so-called enterprise systems, also referred to as ERP (enterprise
resource planning systems) (for an overview, see Monk and Wagner 2009).
Enterprise systems of today try to incorporate the data and the data-
processing capabilities necessary to support all the functions in a business.
Such systems feature a single, common database, accessible to all functions
and activities in one representation; with any data element extant in one
place, entered only once, and updated only by an authorized user or sys-
tems process. Typically, ERP systems claim to embody “best practices” in
each process covered by the system. For the most part ERP systems support
execution processes, which are transactional in nature. Any planning capa-
bilities generally relate only to the simpler aspects of detailed flow planning

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Suppliers Purchasing Manufacturing Outbound Marketing & Customers
& inbound & engineering logistics sales
logistics
Sharing of Sharing of
engr.
Planning engr.
drawings via Strategic Design and Optimization drawings
XML, Mathematical programming models; Multi-echelon inventory models via XML,
Internet Internet
Collaborative Aggregate Planning: Linear and Mixed Integer Programming Collaborative
planning via planning via
S&OP: Spreadsheets, sometimes linked with ERP and/or Math. Programs EDI, XML, or
EDI, XML, or
Internet; Internet;
Procurement & Detailed Flow Planning Transport
trans. bidding ERP MRP functionality and/or specialized Advanced Planning and bidding
Scheduling (APS); Inventory optimization
EDI, XML, Internet EDI, XML, Internet
order mgmt.; Execution ERP customer order system order mgmt.;

This content downloaded from

Advanced ship Advanced ship

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00

notice; Data synch. ERP manufacturing; specialized detailed scheduling models notice; Data synch.

All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Trans. mgmt. ERP Purchase order system Trans. mgmt.
system; Whse. system; Whse.
mgmt. system ERP Return/Recycle/Rebuild/Resell mgmt. system
“Visibility” data and applications; Automatic Identification

Figure 2 Information Technology Supporting the Processes

Stenger: Advances in Information Technology \ 43
44 / TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL™

and the setting of inventory safety stock targets. Most ERP vendors offer
more sophisticated planning tools (such as advanced planning and sched-
uling), but these are only available for an additional fee.
Besides playing a key enabling role for all the execution processes, the
ERP system can build a database recording all past transactions for some
number of years, which provides data for a variety of regular and ad hoc
analyses. Usually this database resides separately from the ongoing data-
base of the ERP system in a “data warehouse” (also considered an extra
fee add-on by ERP vendors). The higher-level planning systems use data
from the ERP database (e.g., current inventory levels by stock-keeping unit
[SKU]), often combined with data from the data warehouse (e.g., demand
histories), as needed to accomplish their tasks.
Another important capability of ERP systems relates to interfirm con-
nectivity. Most facilitate electronic data interchange (EDI) between firms,
as well as interface with the Internet so that, for example, customers can
place orders via the Internet, or suppliers can access an Internet portal to
get needed information from the firm. Electronic data interchange orders
from customers can go directly into the order management system with-
out further human intervention. Data standardization and synchroniza-
tion facilitate this, not only eliminating errors and confusion, but generally
streamlining the process.
Enterprise resource planning systems also are capable of support-
ing the management of transportation (mode and carrier selection for
orders, consolidating loads, etc.) and warehousing processes (picking, put
away, location, and receiving activities) (see Obal 2007). But a number of
other specialty vendors offer software packages more directly focused on
transportation and warehouse management. These vendors claim to offer
greater functionality and value than that offered by the better-known ERP
systems. However, these so-called best of breed software packages need
a custom interface in order to communicate with the ERP system. Thus,
supply chain managers need to decide if the additional functionality and
capability of such best-of-breed software justifies the effort and expense to
integrate it with the ERP system.
Manufacturers with complex production processes may employ
sophisticated short-interval scheduling algorithms that also are not pro-
vided by the ERP software system. Usually applied to an existing set of
customer orders, such systems may schedule individual production opera-
tions by the minute in order to efficiently use limited production resources.
For an example, see Gerald Brown et al. (2002).

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Stenger: Advances in Information Technology \ 45

One of the key challenges for the future of execution systems and the
underlying ERP system is to incorporate (or make accessible) additional data
on the status of orders, inventories, and products outside the firm. This is the
so-called visibility capability. There is much talk of this concept in the sup-
ply chain orbit, but not a great deal of documented results. The idea is that if
a firm has knowledge of the location and status of its products downstream
in the supply chain, or its raw materials upstream in the supply chain, that
firm can be more proactive in identifying and mitigating potential prob-
lems. Automatic identification technologies will further enable the collec-
tion of the data at the source, but where that data will be stored and how
and when it will be disseminated to the involved participants have yet to be
determined. Walmart has offered data to suppliers concerning movement
and inventories of the supplier’s product in Walmart stores (Walmart 2010),
but anecdotal evidence suggests most firms do not yet have the knowledge
or the tools to take advantage of the information for supply chain purposes.
For an academic view of visibility, see Hsiao-lan Wei and Eric Wang (2010).

Operational Planning Process: Detailed Flow Planning

Manufacturing firms typically update detailed flow plans weekly. The tradi-
tional approach, as embodied in the ERP system, is to develop a forecast of
finished goods demand by week, for a number of weeks into the future, for
each individual SKU, and for each location at which the SKU is stocked. This
forecasting procedure may incorporate specific customer requirements
when such requirements are communicated. These forecasts may feed into
a distribution requirements planning (DRP) system if the firm uses distri-
bution centers (DCs) (the DRP will compute a replenishment schedule for
each SKU). The forecasts (for demand not shipped through DCs) and the
DRP schedules feed into a master production scheduling (MPS) system.
Once the MPS has been created, this schedule is “exploded” into material
requirements using the bill of materials—a procedure known as materials
requirements planning (MRP).
The traditional procedure for detailed flow planning can be summa-
rized as

Forecast => DRP => MPS => MRP

which then saves the results to be used by the ERP order systems.
Vendors of ERP systems generally include these capabilities in the base
ERP product. While this approach is still employed widely, a number of
developments have arisen over the last 20 years to improve the business

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 / TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL™

results of the detailed flow planning process. These includes developments

in forecasting, optimizing production and distribution schedules, and
setting inventory targets (form, location, and levels) for use in planning
processes.
Many firms only update the forecast monthly, and use simple formulas
to break the forecast down by week. In addition, firms do not usually update
the forecast within the month as new sales and shipment data appear. This
is beginning to change in some firms, as new technology for short-term
forecasting is becoming available, which enables fine-tuning of the flow
plan within the planning period (see Reese 2007).
Advanced planning and scheduling system (APS) technologies started
to become popular in the 1990s to simultaneously plan distribution, manu-
facturing, and possibly raw materials in a way that optimizes costs or other
objectives, while not violating any constraints of resources (machines,
people, or materials). Again, APS software is not included in the standard
ERP offering, but may be available as an add-on from the ERP vendor, or
separately from independent vendors. Brown et al. (2001) offer an excellent
example of an APS used to simultaneously plan inventories, distribution,
and production.
For the most part, both the traditional and the advanced planning and
scheduling procedures for detailed flow planning take the inventory man-
agement parameters (safety stock targets and replenishment quantities)
as exogenous to the procedure. Often inventory parameters are set using
ad hoc rules of thumb, but ordinarily this does not produce good results.
A better approach is to consider the demand levels and the uncertainties
faced by each item at each stocking point, and set safety stocks using sta-
tistical analysis (see Silver, Pyke, and Peterson 1998, 313–57). But even this
technique does not “optimize” the form (raw material, work-in-process,
finished goods) or the location of inventories. More recently, firms have
begun to use “multiechelon” approaches to do this more accurate level of
“inventory optimization” and produce superior results (see Billington et al.
2004; Graves and Willems 2000).

Tactical Planning Process: Aggregate Planning and Sales

and Operations Planning
With regard to tactical planning, firms may do both aggregate planning and
sales and operations planning (S&OP), but others may do only one of them.
The tactical planning process usually occurs monthly, but may be exe-
cuted only quarterly in some cases. The two procedures are closely related;

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Stenger: Advances in Information Technology \ 47

where both are utilized, the frequency of each may differ. By aggregate
planning, we are referring to the classical problem of meeting a demand
forecast by balancing distribution center capacity, plant or machine capac-
ity (regular and subcontracting), and workforce scheduling (overtime or
multiple shifts), with inventories or backlogs (or both). The idea is to plan
to meet the forecast with a combination of production and inventories (or
possibly accepting a supply shortage) while not exceeding any resource
limitations (machine capacity, labor, or materials) and meeting mini-
mum inventory targets. Performed on an aggregate of product families or
SKUs for an entire network or for individual facilities, the procedure often
employs techniques utilized by most APS systems—that is, various types
of mathematical programming algorithms—to reach solutions. Typically,
the aggregate planning procedure is firmcentric, rather than encompass-
ing supply chain issues beyond the firm, but this is not due to any particu-
lar limitations of the procedure itself. For a general discussion of aggregate
planning, see Chopra and Meindl (2010, 209–28).
The S&OP procedure also seeks to balance demand and supply with
greater emphasis placed on insuring the demand forecast is realistic,
or even seeking to “shape” the demand through pricing and promotion
initiatives. It also plans aggregations of individual product SKUs. Sales
and operations planning as generally practiced is a multistep process:
(1) computer-generated forecasts are reviewed and modified based on
market and sales input to arrive at a demand plan; (2) supply planners
compute the distribution, production, and (less frequently) materials
implications of the demand; (3) the demand and supply planners meet
to identify and resolve situations where projected demand differs from
supply capabilities, and identify possible ways to overcome the difference
through overt, managerial actions regarding either supply or demand;
(4) the demand and supply planners meet with senior managers of the
firm, or the business unit, to resolve all issues and to provide a picture of
projected operational performance versus the business plan. Most often
the S&OP process deals with physical units only, but in more and more
cases, firms are relating costs and prices to the physical units to pro-
vide a better project of medium-term financial performance. The S&OP
procedure is carried out using only spreadsheets for the most part, but
some firms use APS techniques to more accurately balance the supply and
demand. And some firms extend the procedure over a larger portion of the
supply chain than just the central firm. For a general discussion of S&OP,
see Chopra and Meindl (2010, 229–44).

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
48 / TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL™

Strategic Design and Optimization

The highest level of supply chain planning, strategic design and optimization,
has the potential for the greatest positive impact on the firm, and technology
has an important role to play—primarily with regard to quantifying and
evaluating proposed design alternatives. As indicated in figure 1, design may
include product design, conversion (manufacturing) process design, and
customer service design, in addition to supply chain configuration (all these
are interrelated, of course). This can be a complex process, with many alterna-
tives to be evaluated. Decision support systems play an important role when
dealing with this complexity, and in identifying and evaluating alternatives.
Again, at this level of analysis we deal with groupings of products, customers,
and suppliers.
From a supply chain perspective, we most commonly use mixed-
integer programming algorithms to design and evaluate potential networks
of facilities and transportation links. These techniques are powerful, given
accurate and timely data of the right type; and are now available from a
number of vendors to run on laptop computers. A good overview of the
general and commercial uses related to these techniques can be found in
Ronald Ballou (2004, 483–603). To use such modeling techniques, the ana-
lyst needs to enter the data about the customer locations, demands, and
possibly prices; a set of potentially relevant locations and the associated
costs for the various types of facilities (suppliers, plants, and DCs); and the
transportation options and prices on all the lanes that might connect any
two locations. The algorithm then selects that set of facilities that meet
the demand and minimize total cost, or maximize total profit if prices are
included. An application of network design technology in complex, global
supply chains can be found in Bruce Arntzen et al. (1995).
The network design models that utilize mixed-integer programming
technology work well in the process industries and for fast moving con-
sumer goods, where transportation costs tend to be more important than
inventory-related costs (see Callioni et al. 2005). But many firms produc-
ing higher-valued goods (such as high-technology electronics or fashion
apparel) find that inventory issues are more important than transportation
issues. Network design algorithms can only model inventories from a rela-
tively crude perspective. Some firms use multiechelon inventory technol-
ogy to evaluate supply chain designs (Billington et al. 2004). However, such
technology cannot select the best set of locations; rather, it can only optimize
the form, location, and levels of inventory, given a predetermined network.

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Stenger: Advances in Information Technology \ 49

This network will have transportation, distribution, production, and

materials costs associated with it, of course, but these issues are usually
handled outside the multiechelon decisions. Additional research needs to be
done in this area to combine the two types of analyses.

Connecting with Customers and Suppliers

The IT connected with the customer and supplier processes relates primar-
ily to the sharing of data electronically—that is, in a form capable of being
processed by a computer without human intervention—as indicated in
figure 2. To the extent that customers and suppliers are willing to share the
relevant data, firms may be able to truly extend the planning and execution
of the supply chain across firms. Initiatives range from sharing product
design data and drawings to sharing inventory status and advance ship-
ping notices. Such sharing of information and data usually involves EDI,
the Internet, or both; in connection with software technology at both the
sending and receiving ends. A good illustration of electronically sharing
a wide range of data with a supply base—from engineering drawings to
current status reports—can be seen in the example of Boeing and its 787
aircraft supply chain (Moad 2007). The widely publicized trials of Boeing in
this effort, however, show that technology may be necessary for managing
complex supply chains, but technology by itself is not sufficient.

IT in Supply Chains in the Future

In the future, we will most likely continue to remain the beneficiaries of a
fortuitous confluence of events: improvements in computing and display
technology, communications technology, and algorithm development. We
will collect more and more data about events and the status and location
of products, assets, and people across the supply chain. And some portion
of the software—the processing of data, as well as the data itself—may
well reside at remote locations not owned by the enterprises operating the
supply chain, so-called cloud computing (see Rizza 2010). Such capabili-
ties will enable greater understanding of the trade-offs in complex supply
chains, and more effective response to optimizing across those trade-offs.
But this technology may well also produce an overwhelming amount
of data. Supply chain management will involve higher levels of data min-
ing and analysis—to an extent significantly greater than we have dealt
with previously—in order to make sense of and use that data to advantage.
This data will be available to, and accessible by, numerous individuals in

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
50 / TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL™

many locations, often on mobile devices. Some people believe this will
help make supply chains more “demand driven,” allowing them to “sense
and respond” more quickly to changes in demand and supply (see Kapoor
et al. 2007).
While new technologies will certainly bring new and unimagined pos-
sibilities, anecdotal evidence suggests that many firms do not utilize the
technologies that already exist with anywhere near the effectiveness that
they could. Firms could either better employ many of the technologies dis-
cussed above in their own operations, or extend the application of those
technologies to the greater supply chains in which they participate.

Conclusions
In this article, we have reviewed the various information and decision sup-
port technologies useful in managing supply chains that have evolved over
the last 25 years. We have defined supply chain management and offered a
process framework for accomplishing the management of supply chains.
We then specifically discussed a number of technologies supporting the
management of those processes.
While all these technologies will continue to evolve, and disruptive
new technologies will most certainly appear in the future, it is my observa-
tion that the most important challenge for today’s supply chain managers
continues to be to use more effectively the technologies that already exist.
In some cases this means making use of existing techniques not now
employed effectively in the firm’s own operations. In other cases it means
extending the application of such techniques beyond the firm to other key
members in the supply chain. In either case, doing so will require careful
attention to people (their selection, training, and development), to the
processes (design, redesign, and implementation), and then finally to the
application of the technologies.

References
Arntzen, Bruce C., Gerald G. Brown, Terry P. Harrison, and Linda L. Trafton. 1995. “Global
Supply Chain Management at Digital Equipment Corporation.” Interfaces
25 (1):69–93.
Ballou, Ronald H. 2004. Business Logistics/Supply Chain Management. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Billington, Corey, Gianpaolo Callioni, Barrett Crane, John D Ruark, Julie Unruh Rapp,
Tracy White, and Sean P. Willems. 2004. “Accelerating the Profitability of
Hewlett-Packard’s Supply Chains.” Interfaces 34 (1):59–72.

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Stenger: Advances in Information Technology \ 51

Bowersox, Donald J., Patricia J. Daugherty, Dale S. Rodgers, and Daniel L. Wardlow. 1987.
“Integrated Logistics: A Competitive Weapon/A Study of Organization and
Strategy Practices.” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Council of Logistics
Management 1:1–14.
Brown, Gerald G., Robert F. Dell, Ray L. Davis, and Richard H. Duff. 2002. “Optimizing
Plant-Line Schedules and an Application at Hidden Valley Manufacturing
Company.” Interfaces 32 (3):1–14.
Brown, Gerald, Joseph Keegan, Brian Vigus, and Kevin Wood. 2001. “The Kellogg
Company Optimizes Production, Inventory, and Distribution.” Interfaces
31 (6):1–15.
Callioni, Gianpaolo, Xavier de Montgros, Regine Slagmulder, Luk N. Van Wassenhove,
and Linda Wright. 2005. “Inventory-Driven Costs.” Harvard Business Review
83 (3):135–41.
Chopra, Sunil, and Peter Meindl. 2010. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and
Operation, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Graves, Stephen C., and Sean P. Willems. 2000. “Optimizing Strategic Safety Stock
Placement in Supply Chains.” Manufacturing and Service Operations Management
2 (1):68–83.
Guide, V. Daniel R., Jr., and Luk Van Wassenhove, eds. 2003. Business Aspects of Closed-Loop
Supply Chains. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University Press.
Houlihan, John B. 1985. “International Supply Chain Management.” International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Materials Management 15 (1):22–38.
Kapoor, S., B. Binney, S. Buckley, H. Chang, T. Chao, M. Ettl, E. N. Luddy, R. K. Ravi,
and J. Yang. 2007. “Sense-and-Respond Supply Chain Using Model-Driven
Techniques.” IBM Systems Journal 46 (4):685–702.
Lambert, Douglas M. 2008. Supply Chain Management: Processes, Partnerships, Performance.
Sarasota, FL: Supply Chain Management Institute.
Moad, Jeff. 2007. “Boeing’s Big Supply Chain Wager.” http://www.managingautomation.
com/printableView.aspx?contentid=164056.
Monk, Ellen F., and Bret J. Wagner. 2009. Concepts in Enterprise Resource Planning. Boston:
Course Technology Cengage Learning.
Obal, Philip. 2007. Premier List of Warehousing Software and Warehouse Management
Systems: WMS, WCS, ERP, Labor Management, Yard Management, Slotting, and
Load Optimization Software. Tulsa: Industrial Data & Information.
Reese, Andrew K. 2007. “Planning to Succeed at Procter & Gamble.” Supply and Demand
Chain Executive 1:20–23.
Rizza, Mickey North, Dennis Gaughan, and Karen Carter. 2010. “Significant Benefits
Realized with Supply Chain Management in the Cloud.” Stamford, CA: Gartner
Research Report No. G00205303, August 13.
Rogers, Dale S., and Ronald S. Tibben-Lembke. 2006. Returns Management and Reverse
Logistics for Competitive Advantage. Lombard, IL: Council of Supply Chain
Management Professionals.
Silver, Edward A., David F. Pyke, and Rien Peterson. 1998. Inventory Management and
Production Planning and Scheduling. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
52 / TRANSPORTATION JOURNAL™

Stenger, Alan J. 1986. “Information Systems in Logistics Management: Past, Present, and
Future.” Transportation Journal 25 (4):65–82.
Walmart. 2010. “Supplier Requirements.” http://walmartstores.com/Suppliers/248.aspx
Wei, Hsiao-lan, and Eric T. G. Wang. 2010. “The Strategic Value of Supply Chain Visibility:
Increasing the Ability to Reconfigure.” European Journal of Information Systems
19 (2):238–49.

This content downloaded from

213.55.83.51 on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 06:17:47 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms