The relationship of strategic business alignment and enterprise information management in achieving better business performance.

Enterprise Information Systems (Impact Factor: 9.26). 05/2008; 2:201-220. DOI: 10.1080/17517570802095226
Source: DBLP

ABSTRACT Four constructs are developed and five research hypotheses are tested in a structural equation model focused on the role of strategic business alignment and information management in achieving business performance. The data to develop the constructs and test the model are based on a survey of 226 manufacturing firms in the US automobile components industry. The research is interdisciplinary in nature with a focus on building theory in an under-researched area of study by testing a causal model. The structural equation model analysis supports the general theory that ‘the degree of business strategy alignment affects enterprise information management and time-related operating performance, and through these two intermediate constructs, improves business performance’. Enterprise information management is the key mediating variable in the causal model. Other insights based on statistical evidence are presented such as strategic business alignment, which do not directly improve time-related operating performance but must act indirectly through enterprise information management (the mediation construct) to improve performance.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper proposes a strategic global supply chain (GSC) model that integrates critical-to-quality (CTQ) issues along with other system-based quality requirements that allow a GSC to assure product quality and safety to the primary user, preventing expensive product recall. The proposed model ensures product quality and other critical-to-business (CTB) requirements for GSCs that operate in various, multi-layered, multi-location-based suppliers and manufacturing plants by first integrating a quality-based supply management (QSM) system to GSC operations. The QSM evaluates and affiliates prospective supplier plants to supply inputs based on their performance in CTQ and other crucial quality system-based attributes. The model then integrates a CTQ-based approval process for GSC-operated manufacturing facilities that also considers CTB and standard quality management system factors. Finally, the model provides a procedure for introducing a quality monitoring process for the continuous improvement of supplier plants, as well as GSC-operated plants in its overall strategic decision making process. A numerical example illustrates the model's application among suppliers, manufacturing systems and distribution systems in a global business space.
    International Journal of Production Research 01/2011; 49(1):5-31. DOI:10.1080/00207543.2010.508933 · 1.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The focus of this study is to analyse the management of recalls in a consumer products supply chain, as well as the reasons, costs, and measures to prevent recalls. A Six Sigma DMAIC methodology is used to understand the root causes and management of recalls and also analyse the costs in a consumer products supply chain. There are many variables in a supply chain, so it is essential for manufacturers to have procedures in place to prevent failures that result in a product recall. It is important that companies have traceability capability or containment measures for parts, products and processes throughout a global supply chain in the event a quality or safety issue arises. Companies in the consumer products industry need to consider not only the cost to their financials in an event of a product recall, but also the loss in terms of goodwill and consumer risk. It is clear from recent Toyota recall and others, companies need to seriously examine their strategic business objectives with their priorities in mind. Which is more critical, rapid business growth and profits or quality design of their products that are less vulnerable to failures?
    International Journal of Production Research 01/2011; 49(1):235-253. DOI:10.1080/00207543.2010.508952 · 1.32 Impact Factor