Oper Manag Res (2017) 10:1–9

DOI 10.1007/s12063-016-0122-z

Information technology and firm performance: the role of supply

chain integration
Hyun Jung Kim 1

Received: 17 April 2016 / Revised: 20 November 2016 / Accepted: 7 December 2016 / Published online: 3 February 2017
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract This study analyzes the correlation among integra- organizational (i.e., among suppliers and customers) processes
tive information technology (IT), supply chain integration (Flynn et al. 2010; Zhao et al. 2011). Most previous studies on
(SCI), and firm performance. The results show that integrative the relationship among information technology (IT), SCI, and
IT is positively associated with firm performance through SCI. firm performance have been constantly increasing. Most of
However, the results of this study show that integrative IT the previous studies argued that the correlation between IT
does not have a positive correlation directly with firm perfor- and firm performance (Albadvi et al. 2007; Carr and Kaynak
mance. It is considered that in the relationship between inte- 2007; Liang et al. 2010), and that between SCI and firm per-
grative IT and firm performance, a new approach such as formance (Boyer and Lewis 2002; Prajogo and Olhager 2012;
business process-oriented view arguing that performance is Cao and Zhang 2011; Khanchanapong et al. 2014) were pos-
yielded through the primary influence of IT is necessary rather itive. Also, there exist multiple studies, which argued that IT
than a traditional view that sets up their direct correlations. played a role of an enabler of SCI (Fawcett et al. 2011; Wu
The findings have the following implications. First, this study et al. 2014).
presents an endeavor to investigate the consequences of inte- Nevertheless, there remain many research areas that previ-
grative supply chain strategy. Second, this study provides im- ous studies could not address satisfactorily. First, while many
plications in decision making so that supply chain managers previous studies dealt with the business utilizing IT in manag-
can use IT in an effective way. ing supply chain, in-depth studies on the relationship between
the use of IT and firm performance from the process-oriented
perspective in the area of supply chain management are rare
Keywords Information technology . Firm performance .
(Tippins and Sohi 2003; Wu et al. 2006; Vijayasarathy 2010;
Supply chain strategy . Supply chain integration
Qrunfleh and Tarafdar 2014; Pavlou and El Sawy 2011; Wang
et al. 2012). Therefore, studies on what process IT as an im-
portant resource of a company takes to improve firm perfor-
1 Introduction mance need to be consistently made (Tippins and Sohi 2003;
Melville et al. 2004; Wang et al. 2012).
Supply chain integration (SCI) is defined as the strategic col- Second, although previous studies managed to show that
laboration of the manufacturer with its supply chain partners integrative information technology (IT) has a positive impact
and the degree of collaborative management in both intra- on SCI, what could be the consequences of integrative supply
organizational (i.e., among departments) and inter- chain strategy has not been clearly described yet. An integra-
tive supply chain strategy is defined as a business process that
creates values by integrating not only firms but also suppliers
* Hyun Jung Kim
and customers (Stevens 1989; Tan et al. 1998; Vickery et al.
hjkim@sy.ac.kr 2003). Integrative IT and SCI are the core constituents of an
integrative supply chain strategy. Integrative IT is defined as
1
Sangji Youngseo College, 660 Woosan-dong, technology that facilitates the collection of vital information
Wonju-si, Gangwon-do 26339, Republic of Korea concerning key business processes and the sharing of such
2 H.J. Kim

information across functional areas and across firm bound- a synergy effect, potentially greater than the sum of its parts,
aries. In other words, integrative IT means IT that enable the from inter-organizational exchange of resources. They have
achievement of integration both internally and externally. been highlighted as the main benefits of corporate partner-
Therefore, this study is aimed at contributing to the achieve- ships. Lastly, effective governance refers to a governance
ments of previous studies on the integrative supply chain strat- structure that minimizes transaction costs and improves effi-
egy (Vickery et al. 2003; Prajogo and Olhager 2012) by ex- ciency between companies. For sustainable advantage, rela-
amining the impact of integrative IT on firm performance. tional view emphasizes building a network with suppliers and
This paper is structured as follows: Section 1 explores the customers. In short, relational view emphasizes supplier inte-
research purpose and need; Section 2 reviews recent literature gration and customer integration.
on theoretical background, integrative supply chain strategy, Meanwhile, Lavie (2006) proposed an extended resource-
supply chain integration, and firm performance, and suggests based view that represents a compromise between resource-
hypotheses; Section 3 explains the research sample and mea- based view and relational view. Whereas resource-based view
sures; Section 4 presents the results of analysis; and Section 5 conventionally argues that an organization must own or have
summarizes the findings and discusses the research complete control over its value-creating resources, extended
implications. resource-based view argues that access to resources, rights to
use the resources, authority to enjoy the benefits associated
with resources, and so forth comprise an organization’s
2 Literature review and hypotheses development sustained competitive advantage (Hunt and Davis 2012).
According to extended resource-based view, organizations
2.1 Theoretical background can create a sustainable competitive advantage not only
through internal integration but also through supplier integra-
This study is largely based upon three strategic theories, which tion and customer integration. In other words, extended
are resource-based view, relational view, and extended resource-based view contends that organizations should ex-
resource-based view. The resource-based view maintains that tend their resources by tapping into those of their suppliers
firms have a sustained competitive advantage because their and customers.
resources have heterogeneous and immobile qualities (Hunt
and Lambe 2000). Firm-specific resources include the total 2.2 Integrative supply chain strategy and firm
assets, capabilities, organizational processes, firm attributes, performance
information, and knowledge that organizations manage in or-
der to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. If all com- An integrative supply chain strategy as a business process
panies had homogeneous resources that could be duplicated, integrates suppliers and customers as well as firms, and there-
then those companies would apply the same strategies and fail by creates values (Stevens 1989; Tan et al. 1998; Vickery et al.
to achieve competitiveness. According to resource-based 2003). Integrative IT and SCI are the core constituents of an
view, firms must develop new products and new technologies integrative supply chain strategy. Integrative IT is divided into
and build internal capability through training and communi- IT capabilities and information sharing, both of which had
cations for sustained competitive advantage. In other words, significant effects on logistics integration (Prajogo and
resource-based view emphasizes internal integration Olhager 2012). Integrative IT plays a crucial role in supply
(Leuschner et al. 2013). chain management. Wu et al. (2006) argued that IT could not
Relational view asserts that resources important to an orga- enhance firm performance on its own, and information would
nization can be expanded beyond organizational perimeters need to be shared with suppliers and customers outside of the
because they are embedded in the relationship between orga- firm after firm-specific IT capabilities have been in place
nizations (Dyer and Singh 1998). According to relational the- based on the resource-based view. Sharing of accurate infor-
orists, an organization’s sustained competitive advantage de- mation saves costs attributable to excessive inventories and
pends on its relationship with other organizations. Therefore, shortages (Lee et al. 2000; Liu et al. 2013). Kulp et al.
organizations must cooperate with suppliers and customers in (2004) found that information sharing may have given com-
their network. Relational theorists propose that competitive panies a competitive advantage, which constituted a first step
advantage stems from relationship-specific assets, comple- in supply chain integration. Li et al. (2009) revealed that IT
mentary resources and capabilities, and effective governance. did not directly affect firm performance, but the supply chain
Relationship-specific assets are embedded in the relationship integration of the logistics system.
between an organization and its corporate partner (Teece et al. In addition, various researchers investigated the impact of
1997), and comprise site specificity, physical asset specificity, the integrative IT on the performance of companies. A consid-
human asset specificity, and dedicated asset specificity. erable number of studies argued that integrative IT has vast
Complementary resources and capabilities refer to generating potential for improving a firm’s financial performance
Information technology and firm performance: the role of supply chain integration 3

(Hendricks and Singhal 2003). Bharadwaj (2000) emphasized and cooperative intra-organizational efforts to satisfy custom-
that the integrative IT was important in estimating the im- er needs and maintain low costs in product design, procure-
proved firm performance. Sanders and Premus (2005) verified ment, production, distribution, and sales. Additionally, cus-
empirically that integrative IT influenced the internal and tomer integration is a strategic action that improves visibility
external cooperation of a company, and had a direct and and makes possible joint planning by sharing company infor-
indirect impact on firm performance, and thereby mation and collaborating with customers (Fisher et al. 1994).
emphasized the importance of the information technology. Many existing studies have explored the relationship be-
Vijayasarathy (2010) elucidated the direct effect of informa- tween SCI and firm performance (Handfield et al. 2009;
tion technology on firm performance by performing a com- Vachon et al. 2009; Wagner and Krause 2009). Most SCM
parative analysis of the direct effect and mediating factors of literature argued that supply chain performance improves in
information technology on supply chain and firm perfor- more integrated chains. Through integration, individual orga-
mance. In addition, some researchers presented the results of nizations within the supply chain system improve their robust-
the empirical analysis suggesting that the relationship between ness and agility, on the one hand, they exchange information
the integrative IT and firm performance was not direct but and knowledge that should minimize the probability of dis-
indirect based upon the logic of process-oriented perspective ruption and, on the other hand, overall impacts should be
(Tippins and Sohi 2003; Kim et al. 2011). Based on these minimized because information will flow quickly thus en-
studies, this study proposes the following hypotheses. abling faster and more meaningful reactions (Gualandris and
Kalchschmidt 2014, 2015).
H1: Integrative information technology has a positive Study results vary depending on how supply chain integra-
correlation with supply chain integration. tion dimensions and components and firm performance
H2: Integrative information technology has a positive components are treated. For example, Shin et al. (2000) took
correlation with firm performance. a single-dimensional approach. They proposed the concept of
supply management orientation, identified as long-term sup-
plier–buyer relationships, supplier-involved product develop-
2.3 Supply chain integration and firm performance ment, quality focus in selecting suppliers, and reduced suppli-
er base. Their results showed that supplier management orien-
Companies are realizing that they can secure competitive ad- tation significantly affects supplier and customer performance.
vantage through a mutual integration of partner companies Among the performance indicators, delivery and quality per-
within the supply chain (Horn et al. 2014). Supply chain inte- formance have a more significant effect than do cost and flex-
gration (SCI) is defined as the strategic collaboration of the ibility outcomes.
manufacturer with its supply chain partners and the degree of Next, Das et al. (2006) divided supplier integration into two
collaborative management in both intra-organizational and dimensions: internal and external. The authors argued that
inter-organizational processes (Flynn et al. 2010; Zhao et al. optimal configuration in each dimension can maximize firm
2011). performance. This study examined both the positive and neg-
Despite a consensus among many contemporary scholars ative effects of supplier integration. Supplier integration
that supply chain integration consists of multiple dimensions, lowers transaction costs in developing, negotiating, and mon-
earlier studies offered a wide range of suggestions for how itoring and achieves economies of scale and economies of
supply chain integration is constructed. Previous research scope to improve firm performance. On the other hand, sup-
has classified supply chain integration using a single dimen- plier integration can also reduce performance because of de-
sion (Rosenzweig et al. 2003; Marquez et al. 2004), two di- creased flexibility and costs generated from coordination and
mensions (i.e., internal integration and external integration) compromise. As a result, the study revealed a non-linear rela-
(Stanley and Wisner 2001; Pagell 2004; Petersen et al. tionship in which performance gradually drops as supplier
2005), or multiple dimensions (e.g., supplier integration, in- integration efforts move farther away from the optimal point.
ternal integration, and customer integration) (Narasimhan and Lastly, some studies have divided supply chain integration
Kim 2002; Droge et al. 2004; Campbell and Sankaran 2005; into three dimensions and explored their relationship with firm
Koufteros et al. 2007; Vickery et al. 2003). SCI is mainly performance. Lee et al. (2007) distinguished supply chain in-
divided into supplier integration, internal integration, and cus- tegration as supplier integration, internal integration, and cus-
tomer integration (Narasimhan and Kim 2002; Flynn et al. tomer integration. They empirically showed that all three in-
2010; Zhao et al. 2011). Supplier integration represents stra- tegrations positively affect supply chain performance. The
tegic collaborations between an organization and its supplier study revealed that internal integration has the largest impact
through information sharing and strategic alliance (Lai et al. on organizational costs containment, and that supplier integra-
2008), enabling costs reduction and profit sharing (Koufteros tion is the best strategy for achieving reliable performance.
et al. 2007). Internal integration represents the collaborative Similarly to Lee et al. (2007), Flynn et al. (2010) divided
4 H.J. Kim

supply chain integration into supplier integration, internal in- Table 1 Profile of respondents
tegration, and customer integration. Further, they divided per- Industry Frequency
formance into operational and business, wherein operational
performance includes process efficiency and logistics service Food/grocery manufacturer 5
performance and business performance includes financial per- Semiconductor/electronic manufacturer 12
formance and market share. Study results showed that internal Chemicals/oil/rubber/plastic products 9
integration had a significantly positive effect on both opera- Apparel/textile/leather products 24
tional and business performances. While customer integration Machinery products 11
strengthened operational performance, it had no significant Automotive products 37
effect on business performance. On the other hand, although Mineral products 4
supplier integration had no significant effect on any of the Furniture/fixtures products 20
performance measures, the interaction between supplier inte- Computer/communication equipment products 25
gration and customer integration had a significant effect on Other sectors 14
operational performance.
Based on the studies above, this study proposes the follow-
ing hypothesis. (strongly agree). Similarly a five-point scale, ranging from 1
(strongly worse) to 5 (strongly better) was deployed to each
H3: Supply chain integration has a positive correlation question item for firm performance.
with firm performance.
3.2.1 Integrative IT

Integrative IT is defined as technology that facilitates the col-

3 Methodology lection of vital information concerning key business processes
and the sharing of such information across functional areas
3.1 Research sample and across firm boundaries. In other words, integrative IT
means IT that enable the achievement of integration both in-
An online survey company was contracted to compile surveys ternally and externally. This study measured integrative IT on
from manufacturing organizations in Korea. The target re- a three-item scale adapted from Vickery et al. (2003).
spondents were supply chain managers or production man-
agers who understands the overall process of the firm well. 3.2.2 Supply chain integration
Through this, it can be considered that all the respondents are
in the position to answer the questionnaire. The contracted Supply chain integration (SCI) is defined as the strategic col-
company sent out an email detailing the purpose of the study laboration of the manufacturer with its supply chain partners
along with a survey URL to 2,000 participants on August and the degree of collaborative management in both intra-
2016. Thirty five percent of the email recipients clicked on organizational (i.e., among departments) and inter-
the URL. Upon two follow-up emails, 161 respondents re- organizational (i.e., among buyers, suppliers, and customers)
plied, which accounted for 21.5%. Since it was an online processes (Flynn et al. 2010; Zhao et al. 2011). It was mea-
survey, there were no missing data. The responses to the sur- sured on a five-item scale based on Li et al. (2009).
vey were made from the position of the focal firm that is the
responding company, not the entire supply chain. 3.2.3 Firm performance
Table 1 presents the profile of respondents.
In order to measure firm performance, this study used eight
3.2 Measures items adapted from Boyer and Lewis (2002), and
Khanchanapong et al. (2014). These items included product
All the measurements were developed via the following stages quality, lead-time, flexibility, and cost.
in order to ensure the content validity: literature review to
identify previously validated measures, development of a draft 3.2.4 Control variables
version, review of draft by invited academics and practi-
tioners, pre-testing, and refinements to the questionnaire. This study considered five control variables, namely, firm size,
Each question item except firm performance was scored using the industry, and alternative explanations (demand and supply
a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 uncertainty, supply chain complexity, and environmental and
Information technology and firm performance: the role of supply chain integration 5

social pressure). Specially, the firm size may be crucial to a 4 Results

firm’s ability and firm performance (Zhou and Li 2010), so this
study treated firm size as the control variable and measured it by 4.1 Measurement model reliability and validity
the number of employees based on Koufteros et al. (2007). In
addition, the industry may have significant effects on manage- In order to evaluate the measurement model prior to testing the
ment (Frohlich and Westbrook 2001). Therefore, this study research model, Amos 18.0 was used to run a confirmatory
treated industry type as the control variable based on Golicic factor analysis (CFA). This study broadly investigated
and Smith (2013). Finally, given that this study focuses on previous studies and identified each construct with proven
integrative IT, other drivers/antecedents such as demand and reliability and validity. Furthermore, a CFA was used to test
supply uncertainty (Lee 2002), supply chain complexity whether the measured items, which are observed variables,
(Christopher et al. 2011), and environmental and social pressure appropriately constitute the latent variables. Tables 2 presents
(Gualandris and Kalchschmidt 2016) may affect the integrative measurement model reliability and validity. The measurement
IT. Therefore, this study controlled for these alternative expla- model is supported by a number of goodness-of-fit indices
nations. Demand and supply uncertainty were measured with a (χ2/df = 1.475; CFI = 0.952; TLI = 0.964; RMSEA = 0.051)
two-item scale excerpted from Lee (2002). Demand and supply which satisfy the recommended cut-off values.
uncertainty increases as product life cycles are becoming To test for reliability, Cronbach’s α, CR, and AVE must be
shorter and product diversity greater. Supply chain complexity examined. Cronbach’s α value must be above 0.7 (Hair et al.
was measured with a six-item scale excerpted from Bozarth 2010). Analysis results show that all the constructs have a
et al. (2009). They measured supply chain complexity by the Cronbach’s α value greater than 0.7. Furthermore, CR must
number of suppliers and customers, product diversity, and so be above 0.7 and AVE must be above 0.5 to confirm construct
on. Environmental and social pressure was measured with a reliability (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Analysis results show that
three-item scale excerpted from Gualandris and Kalchschmidt all the constructs meet this requirement.
(2016). They proposed environment-related regulations that In addition, convergent validity and discriminant validity
corresponds to environmental and social pressure. must be determined in order to evaluate construct validity.

Table 2 Measurement model

Construct (Source) Loading Reliability and
validity

Integrative information technology (Vickery et al. 2003) α = 0.925;

Using integrative electronic data interchange (i.e. integration of paper-less 0.81 CR = 0.859;
(electronic) documents into business systems with no manual intervention) AVE = 0.713
Using integrative information systems (i.e. use of information technology 0.91
that enables all functional areas to access and transmit information from
one to another)
Using computerized production systems (i.e. use of computer systems 0.87
(such as MRP or MRP II) for planning, tracking, and ordering components
and products throughout the manufacturing operations)
Supply chain integration (Li et al. 2009) α = 0.897;
Understanding of market trends and accuracy of demand forecasting 0.84 CR = 0.824;
Accuracy and adaptability of SCM planning 0.87 AVE = 0.683
Control and tracking of inventory: accuracy and visibility 0.78
Process standardization and visibility 0.75
Strategies for optimizing logistics system resources based on design for logistics 0.89
Firm performance (Boyer and Lewis 2002; Khanchanapong et al. 2014)
Product durability 0.77 α = 0.854;
Conformance to specifications 0.84 CR = 0.782;
Procurement lead time 0.78 AVE = 0.632
Delivery speed 0.83
Easily change the production volume of a manufacturing process 0.85
Easily modify products to a specific customer need 0.74
Production cost 0.91
Inventory turnover 0.82
6 H.J. Kim

Convergent validity is related to indicators that show the ex- positive correlation between integrative IT and SCI, and this
tent of correspondence or convergence among variables that hypothesis was supported by a standardized path coefficient
measure the same or similar constructs (Anderson and of 0.37 (t = 3.065, p < 0.01). H2 proposed a positive correla-
Gerbing 1988). Discriminant validity is related to indicators tion between integrative IT and firm performance. H2 was not
that show dissimilarity among variables that measure unrelat- supported given a standardized path coefficient of 0.15 (t =
ed constructs. Generally, a construct reliability (CR) value 1.182, p > 0.05). Moreover, H3 stated that there was a positive
greater than 0.7 and average variance extracted (AVE) value correlation between SCI and firm performance. Since the stan-
greater than 0.5 establish convergent validity (Bagozzi et al. dardized path coefficient was 0.43 (t = 3.927, p < 0.01), this
1991). Analysis results show that the CR was higher than 0.7 hypothesis was supported. This result means that SCI im-
and AVE was higher than 0.5, thus indicating convergent va- proves firm performance. Additionally, this study uses a sobel
lidity. Discriminant validity is assessed by examining whether test to attest that the overall indirect effect of integrative IT on
a square root of the AVE is higher than the correlation coeffi- firm performance through SCI is statistically significant
cient between the constructs (Hair et al. 2010). Analysis re- (Baron and Kenny 1986; Gualandris and Kalchschmidt
sults showed that all square roots of the AVE were higher than 2016). The independent variable is integrative IT, the mediat-
the correlation coefficient between the constructs, thus ing variable is SCI, and the dependent variable is firm perfor-
confirming discriminant validity of the constructs (Table 3). mance. Result of the sobel test suggests that the indirect effect
of integrative IT on firm performance via SCI is significantly
4.2 Common method variance different from zero (F = 29.84, p < 0.01). Taken overall, find-
ings suggest that for manufacturers, integrative IT and SCI
Common method bias is possible when the data for both lead to enhanced firm performance.
predictor and criterion variables were obtained from one sin-
gle person in the same measurement context. It may exert 4.4 Comparison between research model and alternative
great influence on measurement validity, thus distorting re- structural model
search results by increasing or decreasing the correlation be-
tween variables (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Harman’s single- To enhance the adequacy and validity, this study investigated
factor test is the representative technique to account for com- not only the model proposed but also alternative structural
mon method bias. The results of Harman’s single-factor test model. Table 4 shows the comparison between the research
conducted in this study showed that the largest factor ex-
plained 29% of the covariance, which indicates that there is
no significant evidence of severe common method bias
Table 4 Comparison of research model and alternative model
(Flynn et al. 2010).
Model 1 Model 2
4.3 Hypotheses testing
Structural paths
IIT → SCI 0.37** 0.37**
In examining the fit indices of the structural model, it was
IIT → FP 0.15
shown that χ2/df = 1.628, CFI = 0.929, TLI = 0.931,
RMSEA = 0.057 indicating a fitting model that satisfies the SCI → FP 0.43** 0.41*
criteria for each index. Model fit indices
Next, the hypotheses were verified by examining the stan- χ2/df 1.719 2.965
dardized path coefficients of the model. H1 proposed a CFI 0.925 0.874
TLI 0.924 0.855
RMSEA 0.061 0.073
Table 3 Correlation of constructs PNFI 0.704 0.657
AIC 152.425 173.509
Mean Standard deviation IIT FP SCI CAIC 263.857 282.635
Variance explained (R2)
IIT 3.25 0.76 0.713
FP 0.149 0.152
FP 3.71 0.82 0.398** 0.632
SCI 3.80 0.59 0.450** 0.427** 0.683 IIT Integrative information technology, SCI Supply chain integration, FP
Firm performance, CFI Comparative fit index, TLI Tucker-Lewis Index,
AVE is on the diagonal RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation, PNFI
IIT Integrative information technology, FP Firm performance, SCI Parasimonious Normed Fit Index, AIC Akaike’s Information Criterion,
Supply chain integration CAIC Consistent Akaike’s Information Criterion
** p < 0.01 ** p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
Information technology and firm performance: the role of supply chain integration 7

model and alternative structural model according to the chain management using IT, they first need to establish a sys-
criteria proposed by previous studies (Morgan and Hunt tem for information integration within a focal firm, and pos-
1994; Paulraj et al. 2008), and subsequently found that our sess the integrative IT. Subsequently, they have to seek infor-
proposed model was the more adequate. mation integration with partners in the supply chain
(Narasimhan and Kim 2001).
This study has a few limitations, and the direction of future
5 Conclusions studies to overcome these are as follows. First, this study has a
limitation that only a mediating variable SCI was taken into
This study analyzes the correlation among integrative IT, SCI, consideration. It is expected to better understand the impact of
and firm performance. The findings of this research are sum- integrative IT on firm performance by measuring more diverse
marized as follows. The results show that integrative IT is mediating variables in future studies. Second, this study did
positively associated with firm performance through SCI not closely examine the integrative supply chain strategy since
(H1 and H3). This suggests that firm performance is engen- a cross-sectional survey was conducted. In future studies, a
dered by integrative supply chain strategy (integrative IT and longitudinal survey can lead to more in-depth investigation.
SCI). This result is consistent with that of the study by Vickery Finally, the survey based on the perception of respondents was
et al. (2003), which emphasized the importance of integrative performed in this study. Although Murphy and Callaway
supply chain strategy. However, the results of this study show (2004) revealed that subjective measures based on perception
that integrative IT does not have a positive correlation directly of respondents were highly correlated with objective mea-
with firm performance (H2). Such a result is in agreement with sures, higher reliability is expected if firm performance is
the study by Tippins and Sohi (2003), Kim et al. (2011), but measured using the secondary data in future studies.
not with that of Sanders and Premus (2005). If this is
interpreted on the basis of the results of the study by
Vijayasarathy (2010), it can be seen that the use of IT has
different impacts on performance depending on the extent of
References
partnership on the supply chain. Thus, it is considered that in
the relationship between IT and firm performance, a new ap-
Albadvi A, Keramati A, Razmi J (2007) Assessing the impact of infor-
proach such as business process-oriented view arguing that mation technology on firm performance considering the role of in-
performance is yielded through the primary influence of IT tervening variables: organizational infrastructures and business pro-
is necessary rather than a traditional view that sets up their cesses reengineering. Int J Prod Res 45(12):2697–2734
direct correlations. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in prac-
tice: a reviews and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull
The findings of this study have the following academic and 103(3):411–423
practical implications. First, this study presents an endeavor to Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models.
investigate the consequences of integrative supply chain strat- J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94
egy. This study contributes to research related integrative sup- Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW (1991) Assessing construct validity in
ply chain strategy by examining the relationship between in- organizational research. Adm Sci Q 36(3):421–458
Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinc-
tegrative IT and firm performance through SCI and expands tion in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and sta-
the scope of available research. The result of this study sup- tistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51(6):1173–1182
ports previous researches which concluded that integrative IT Bharadwaj AS (2000) A resource-based perspective on information tech-
within supply chain networks leads to higher level of SCI nology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation.
(Zhang et al. 2005; Koh and Saad 2006; Prajogo and MIS Q 24(1):169–196
Boyer KK, Lewis MW (2002) Competitive priorities: investigating the
Olhager 2012). Prajogo and Olhager (2012) highlighted that need for trade-offs in operations strategy. Prod Oper Manag 11(1):9–
information integration is important for SCI, having signifi- 20
cant effects on firm performance. Second, this study provides Bozarth CC, Warsing DP, Flynn BB, Flynn EJ (2009) The impact of
practical implications in decision making so that supply chain supply chain complexity on manufacturing plant performance. J
Oper Manag 27(1):78–93
managers can use IT in an effective way. Supply chain man-
Campbell J, Sankaran J (2005) An inductive framework for enhancing
agers of today know that IT is important, but often do not supply chain integration. Int J Prod Res 43(16):3321–3351
succeed in using it in an effective way (Gunasekaran and Cao M, Zhang Q (2011) Supply chain collaboration: impact on collabo-
Ngai 2004). And it is not because companies have these IT rative advantage and firm performance. J Oper Manag 29(3):163–
systems that they outperform. There are also a lot of failures in 180
this respect. The results of this study show that integrative IT Carr AS, Kaynak H (2007) Communication methods, information shar-
ing, supplier development and performance: an empirical study of
was found to have positive correlations with firm performance their relationships. Int J Oper Prod Manag 27(4):346–370
through SCI. This suggests the direction and order in building Christopher M, Mena C, Khan O, Yurt O (2011) Approaches to managing
an information system. When companies conduct supply global sourcing risk. Supply Chain Manag 16(2):67–81
8 H.J. Kim

Das A, Narasimhan R, Talluri S (2006) Supplier integration–finding an Lai F, Li D, Wang Q, Zhao X (2008) The information technology capa-
optimal configuration. J Oper Manag 24(5):563–582 bility of third-party logistics providers: a resource-based view and
Droge C, Jayaram J, Vickery SK (2004) The effects of internal versus empirical evidence from China. J Supply Chain Manag 44(3):22–38
external integration practices on time-based performance and overall Lavie D (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an
firm performance. J Oper Manag 22(6):557–573 extension of the resource-based view. Acad Manag J 31(3):638–658
Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and Lee HL (2002) Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncer-
sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manag tainties. Calif Manag Rev 44(3):105–119
Rev 23(4):660–679 Lee HL, So KC, Tang CS (2000) The value of information sharing in a
Fawcett SE, Wallin C, Allred C, Fawcett AM, Magnan GM (2011) two-level supply chain. Manag Sci 46(5):626–643
Information technology as an enabler of supply chain collaboration: Lee CW, Kwon IWG, Severance D (2007) Relationship between supply
a dynamic-capabilities perspective. J Supply Chain Manag 47(1): chain performance and degree of linkage among supplier, internal
38–59 integration, and customer. Supply Chain Manag 12(6):444–452
Fisher ML, Hammond JH, Obermeyer WR, Raman A (1994) Making Leuschner R, Rogers DS, Charvet FF (2013) A meta-analysis of supply
supply meet demand in an uncertain world. Harv Bus Rev 72:83–93 chain integration and firm performance. J Supply Chain Manag
Flynn BB, Huo B, Zhao X (2010) The impact of supply chain integration 49(2):34–57
on performance: a contingency and configuration approach. J Oper Li G, Yang H, Sun L, Sohal AS (2009) The impact of IT implementation
Manag 28(1):58–71 on supply chain integration and performance. Int J Prod Econ
Frohlich MT, Westbrook R (2001) Arc of integration: an international 120(1):125–138
study of supply chain strategies. J Oper Manag 19(2):185–200 Liang TP, You JJ, Liu CC (2010) A resource-based perspective on infor-
Golicic SL, Smith CD (2013) A meta-analysis of environmentally sus- mation technology and firm performance: a meta analysis. Ind
tainable supply chain management practices and firm performance. J Manag Data Syst 110(8):1138–1158
Supply Chain Manag 49(2):78–95 Liu H, Ke W, Wei KK, Hua Z (2013) The impact of IT capabilities on firm
Gualandris J, Kalchschmidt M (2014) A model to evaluate upstream performance: the mediating roles of absorptive capacity and supply
vulnerability. Int J Log Res Appl 17(3):249–268 chain agility. Decis Support Syst 54(3):1452–1462
Gualandris J, Kalchschmidt M (2015) Supply risk management and com- Marquez AC, Bianchi C, Gupta JND (2004) Operational and financial
petitive advantage: a misfit model. Int J Log Res Appl 26(3):459– effectiveness of e-collaboration tools in supply chain integration.
478 Eur J Oper Res 159(2):348–363
Melville N, Kraemer K, Gurbaxani V (2004) Review: information tech-
Gualandris J, Kalchschmidt M (2016) Developing environmental and
nology and organizational performance: an integrative model of IT
social performance: the role of suppliers’ sustainability and buyer–
business value. MIS Q 28(2):283–322
supplier trust. Int J Prod Res 54(8):2470–2486
Morgan RM, Hunt SD (1994) The commitment-trust theory of relation-
Gunasekaran A, Ngai EW (2004) Information system in supply chain
ship marketing. J Mark 58(3):20–38
integration and management. Eur J Oper Res 159(2):269–295
Murphy GB, Callaway SK (2004) Doing well and happy about it?
Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R (2010) Multivariate data analysis.
explaining variance in entrepreneurs’ stated satisfaction with perfor-
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
mance. N Engl J Entrep 7(2):15–20
Handfield R, Petersen K, Cousins P, Lawson B (2009) An organizational Narasimhan R, Kim SW (2001) Information system utilization strategy
entrepreneurship model of supply management integration and per- for supply chain integration. J Bus Logist 22(2):51–75
formance outcomes. Int J Oper Prod Manag 29(2):100–126
Narasimhan R, Kim SW (2002) Effect of supply chain integration on the
Hendricks KB, Singhal VR (2003) The effect of supply chain glitches on relationship between diversification and performance: evidence
shareholder wealth. J Oper Manag 21(5):501–522 from Japanese and Korean firms. J Oper Manag 20(3):303–323
Horn P, Scheffler P, Schiele H (2014) Internal integration as a pre- Pagell M (2004) Understanding the factors that enable and inhibit the
condition for external integration in global sourcing: a social capital integration of operations, purchasing and logistics. J Oper Manag
perspective. Int J Prod Econ 153:54–65 22(5):459–487
Hunt SD, Davis DF (2012) Grounding supply chain management in Paulraj A, Lado AA, Chen IJ (2008) Inter-organizational communication
resource-advantage theory: in defense of a resource-based view of as a relational competency: antecedents and performance outcomes
the firm. J Supply Chain Manag 48(2):14–20 in collaborative buyer–supplier relationships. J Oper Manag 26(1):
Hunt SD, Lambe CJ (2000) Marketing’s contribution to business strategy: 45–64
market orientation, relationship marketing and resource-advantage Pavlou PA, El Sawy OA (2011) Understanding the elusive black box of
theory. Int J Manag Rev 2(1):17–43 dynamic capabilities. Decis Sci 42(1):239–273
Khanchanapong T, Prajogo D, Sohal AS, Cooper BK, Yeung AC, Cheng Petersen K, Handfield R, Ragatz G (2005) Supplier integration into new
TCE (2014) The unique and complementary effects of manufactur- product development: coordinating product, process, and supply
ing technologies and lean practices on manufacturing operational chain design. J Oper Manag 23(3):371–388
performance. Int J Prod Econ 153:191–203 Podsakoff PM, Mackenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common
Kim G, Shin B, Kim KK, Lee HG (2011) IT capabilities, process-oriented method bias in behavioural research: a critical review of the litera-
dynamic capabilities, and firm financial performance. J Assoc Inf ture and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903
Syst 12(7):487–517 Prajogo D, Olhager J (2012) Supply chain integration and performance:
Koh SL, Saad SM (2006) Managing uncertainty in ERP-controlled the effects of long-term relationships, information technology and
manufacturing environments in SMEs. Int J Prod Econ 101:109– sharing, and logistics integration. Int J Prod Econ 135(1):514–522
127 Qrunfleh S, Tarafdar M (2014) Supply chain information systems strate-
Koufteros XA, Cheng TE, Lai KH (2007) BBlack-box^ and Bgray-box^ gy: impacts on supply chain performance and firm performance. Int
supplier integration in product development: antecedents, conse- J Prod Econ 147:340–350
quences and the moderating role of firm size. J Oper Manag 25(4): Rosenzweig ED, Roth AV, Dean JW (2003) The influence of an integra-
847–870 tion strategy on competitive capabilities and business performance:
Kulp SC, Lee LH, Ofek E (2004) Manufacturer benefits from information an exploratory study of consumer products manufactures. J Oper
integration with retail customers. Manag Sci 50(4):431–444 Manag 21(4):437–456
Information technology and firm performance: the role of supply chain integration 9

Sanders NR, Premus R (2005) Modeling the relationship between firm IT Vijayasarathy LR (2010) An investigation of moderators of the link be-
capability, collaboration, and performance. J Bus Logist 26(1):1–23 tween technology use in the supply chain and supply chain perfor-
Shin H, Collier DA, Wilson DD (2000) Supply management orientation mance. Inf Manag 47(7):364–371
and supplier/buyer performance. J Oper Manag 18(3):317–333 Wagner SM, Krause DR (2009) Supplier development: communication
Stanley LL, Wisner JD (2001) Service quality along the supply chain: approaches, activities and goals. Int J Prod Res 47(12):3161–3177
implications for purchasing. J Oper Manag 19(3):287–306 Wang N, Liang H, Zhong W, Xue Y, Xiao J (2012) Resource structuring
Stevens GC (1989) Integrating the supply chain. Int J Phys Distrib 19(8): or capability building? an empirical study of the business value of
3–8 information technology. J Manag Inf Syst 29(2):325–367
Tan KC, Kannan VR, Handfield RB (1998) Supply chain management: Wu F, Yeniyurt S, Kim D, Cavusgil ST (2006) The impact of information
supplier performance and firm performance. J Supply Chain Manag technology on supply chain capabilities and firm performance: a
34(3):2–9 resource-based view. Ind Mark Manag 35(4):493–504
Wu L, Chuang CH, Hsu CH (2014) Information sharing and collaborative
Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic
behaviors in enabling supply chain performance: a social exchange
management. Strateg Manag J 18(7):509–533
perspective. Int J Prod Econ 148:122–132
Tippins MJ, Sohi RS (2003) IT competency and firm performance: is orga- Zhang Z, Lee MK, Huang P, Zhang L, Huang X (2005) A framework of
nizational learning a missing link? Strateg Manag J 24(8):745–761 ERP systems implementation success in China: an empirical study.
Vachon S, Halley A, Beaulieu M (2009) Aligning competitive priorities Int J Prod Econ 98:56–80
in the supply chain: the role of interactions with suppliers. Int J Oper Zhao X, Huo B, Selen W, Yeung JHY (2011) The impact of internal
Prod Manag 29(4):322–340 integration and relationship commitment on external integration. J
Vickery SK, Jayaram J, Droge C, Calantone R (2003) The effects of an Oper Manag 29(1):17–32
integrative supply chain strategy on customer service and financial Zhou KZ, Li CB (2010) How strategic orientations influence the building
performance: an analysis of direct versus indirect relationships. J of dynamic capability in emerging economies. J Bus Res 63(3):224–
Oper Manag 21(5):523–539 231