Mehmet Seyhan
Faculty of Economics
and Administrative Sciences, Gaziantep University, Turkey
E-mail: mseyhan@gantep.edu.tr
Şemsettin
Çiğdem
Faculty of Economics, Management
and Law, Gaziantep University, Turkey
Khoja Akhmet Yassawi
International Kazakh-Turkish University, Kazakhstan
E-mail: scigdem@gantep.edu.tr
Bülent Yildiz
Faculty of Economics
and Administrative Sciences, Kastamonu
University, Turkey
E-mail: byildiz@kastamonu.edu.tr
Ieva
Meidute-Kavaliauskiene
General Jonas Žemaitis
Military academy of Lithuania, Lithuania
E-mail: ieva.meidute@gmail.com
Submission: 11/11/2020
Revision: 12/1/2020
Accept: 12/18/2020
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, one of the factors that enable
businesses to adapt to markets that are constantly renewed and changing due to
the ever-increasing flow of information, and perhaps the most important, is
innovation. Innovation is a topic that is frequently studied by both markets
and academics. However, the increase in the quantity of studies conducted is
far from meeting the need in this field. As a result of the shortening of
product life cycles in current market conditions, companies are obliged to
continuously innovate in order to sustain their existence. Increasing raw
material and resource diversification requirement due to the increasing need
for innovation made it necessary to examine and understand the supply chain in
the context of innovation. The importance of innovation, especially in the case
of participation by suppliers in innovation for a competitive advantage, has
resulted in many in-depth studies published in research papers in the field. In
this study, articles published in the Web of Science database between 1996-2020
and covering the topics of supply chain
and innovation were analyzed in order to reveal the patterns of supply chain
management and innovation research, identify relative deficiencies and provide
some guidelines. For this purpose, a systematic literature review and
bibliometric analysis related has been made. It has been possible to determine
the effective actors in the field by including the distribution of the concepts
in question according to time, countries, universities and journals. In
addition, as a result of the keyword analysis, the evolution and open points of
the field over time are among the findings of the study.
Keywords: Supply Chain; Innovation; Systematic Literature Review; Bibliometric Analysis; Thematic Evolution
1.
INTRODUCTION
The survival of institutions, nowadays, is closely
related to whether they can develop innovations that their clients prefer (Song
et al., 2017). Especially in the globally competitive environment in which we
live, factors, such as quality, reliability, and low prices, all of which
create differences between rival companies, can be found in almost every
institution these days. For this reason, it has been widely accepted that the
most significant characteristic which creates a contrast between institutions is
the ability to develop innovations (Kiliç & Bilginoğlu, 2010).
Innovation is the primary resource necessary to obtain a
competitive advantage for an institution. The rules of the global economy
dictate that, for a company to survive in the current competitive market
conditions, it either needs to follow up on innovations and absorb them into
their systems in an appropriate way or develop its innovations. Although
innovation seems to be an output belonging to a single institution, there may
be many parties contributing to the process of producing this output.
Considering that the supply chain consists of suppliers and buyers with the
common goal of providing products and services to the end customer, it can be
understood that innovation is not an individual but a collective phenomenon.
Therefore, institutions improve the innovation process by taking advantage of
both internal resources and the collaboration of external actors (Zimmermann,
et al., 2016).
Despite the importance of the relationships between supply
chain management and innovation, there is no clear answer to the question,
"What is the academic situation of this field, respectively?"
Although there is a great deal of evidence about the importance of the
participation of the supply chain members in the innovation process (Ageron et
al., 2013; Arlbjørn & Paulraj, 2013;
Bouncken, 2011; Oke et al., 2013), the amount of studies that predict this
participation in what form or in which areas in the future will be relatively
sparse.
As a relatively new approach, it would be beneficial to
review the relevant research regularly to obtain an overall view of the
intellectual structure in the field and to predict in which directions the
field can proceed (Bakker et al., 2005; Line & Runyan, 2012). Due to the qualitative and
subjective nature of previous literature review studies on supply chain and
innovation (Leung et al., 2013), conducting a literature review through
quantitative methods may facilitate the understanding of the nature of the
relationships between studies in this area. Besides, the classification of
published articles improves the connection between different research fields
and enables academicians to position their contributions to the research field.
The integrative role of the literature analysis is vital for the observation of
the development of a scientific field (Denyer & Tranfield, 2006).
Currently, literature reviews on supply chain and
innovation are generally based on methods such as co-authoring and citation
(Ding et al., 2001; Leung et al., 2013). Related studies are general
documentation of the studies in the field. It is imperative to provide a useful
classification for mapping and evaluating studies to advise on the future of
the area. Also, the dimension of time is an issue that should not be ignored.
In this study, articles published in the Web of Science
database between 1996-2020 and covering the topics of supply chain and
innovation were analyzed in order to reveal the patterns of supply chain
management and innovation research, identify relative deficiencies and provide
some guidelines. The reason to choose the Web of Science database as the source
of articles is that it is accessible to everyone, and it includes many journals
within the scope of SCI, SSCI, ESCI and AHCI. In order to reveal the course of
the publications, the study was carried out in four time periods: 1995-2000,
2001-2006, 2007-2012 and 2013-2019. The tendency of the literature was tried to
be determined by analyzing the co-occurrence of the keywords used in the
specified period. The importance of co-occurrence analysis stems from its
ability to demonstrate the integration of the mentioned concepts.
In this context, the problems of the research can be
expressed as follows:
· Which
concepts are enabling the integration of supply chain and innovation topics
· How
has supply chain management and innovation context evolved?
Also, the contributions of actors who are influential in
this field - researchers, journals and countries - over time are also among the
topics evaluated within the scope of the research.
In the ongoing part of the
study, primarily the literature on supply chain and innovation issues are
included. Then there is the methodology and findings section. In the last part,
the outputs, limitations and suggestions obtained from the research are
mentioned.
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The essential opinion defended by the management in a
supply chain is to offer the product and the service at the lowest price
possible. When this is understood, a strong bond between the individuals who
constitute the supply chain could form, and long-term relations between these
individuals would be established to provide a maximum competitive power
(Andraski, 1998).
The philosophy behind supply chain management is to
emphasize the necessity of establishing a strong bond between the trading
partners in order to boost the quality of the service provided to the client at
the lowest cost. Companies need integration between suppliers and customers
along the line, starting from the supply of the raw materials to offering the
products and services to the customers (Stank, 2001). One of the main tools
where supply chain relations are used is in information technology. The
integration of information technology into a company's operations requires
expenditure. Cooperation within supply chains can, at the same time, result in
increased coordination, reconciliation and flexibility costs (Cao & Zhang,
2011).
When one considers that suppliers tend to contribute to
the innovative processes of buyers due to internal dynamics, it becomes
necessary for both sides to interact with each other (Schiele, 2006). Suppliers
who have advanced innovation techniques are expected to contribute more to
innovations for the purchaser (Pulles et al., 2014). Suppliers play a
significant role in developing and marketing innovative products. Besides,
suppliers represent a resource for the development of product innovation. In
the literature, it has been stated that suppliers are the most enthusiastic
about making investments in technology. When buyer-supplier relations are based
on strategic cooperation and are open, suppliers share their ideas with their
customers. Innovation by suppliers directly influences the performance of the
buyer because the product of the supplier is embedded in the product of the
buyer (Jajja et al., 2017).
Developing and realizing innovative ideas increase the
activities of both suppliers and the purchasing companies and make them
stronger as against their rivals; and as a result of this, customer
satisfaction and performance of the company increases (Porter, 1990). Due to
increasing global competitiveness in the modern age, companies now need to
renew themselves in order to keep up with changes in the world and to produce
high-quality products. In an environment experiencing more dynamic conditions,
companies need to form a more robust supply chain in order to estimate the
demand for customer satisfaction and to survive in this competitive environment
(Lii & Kuo, 2016). The primary goal of institutions is to decrease costs
and to circulate their products and services within the supply chain in order
to keep their customers satisfied. The fact that the lifetime of products has
become shorter has increased the significance of Supply Chain Management.
It is generally stated in the literature that supplier
sourced innovation will contribute to the performance of the central business
in a chain (Veugelers, 1997). Outsourced innovation enhances central business'
capabilities to the extent that contributes to the learning process (Quinn
& Hilmer, 1994). Components provided by innovative suppliers increase the
performance of the products they contribute. Process innovations of an
innovative supplier can reduce production costs for the central business.
Therefore, the procurement strategy must consider the innovative identity of
the suppliers (Chesbrough & Schwartz, 2007).
Innovations, effective product launch and new product development
activities significantly affect the competitiveness of organizations in the
market (Story et al., 2015; Wagner & Hoegl, 2006). The tremendous technical
knowledge required to develop new products in order to respond to the demand in
the market in a short time pushes businesses to cooperate with suppliers during
the development of new products. Manceau et al. (2012) states that firms have
to establish trust-based relationships with partner organizations in the supply
chain system in order to innovate efficiently and effectively. Collaborations
allow open innovation, a critical phase in the service or product development
process. Narayanan et al. (2015) stated that the partnership's impact on
performance in the focal enterprise-supplier relationship could be neutral,
positive or negative, depending on the extent of trust. A high degree of trust
in the focal business-supplier relationship will provide open communication and
a tendency to take risks.
Although examining the current literature reviews on the
subject is not one of the main aims of the study, it is a crucial component to
reveal the situation in the literature. Thus, the specificity of this study and
its contribution to the literature can be put forward more clearly. In the
supply chain literature, most studies on the subject refer to supply chain
management, innovation, and sustainability issues separately (Gao et al.,
2017). These studies reveal many outputs on all three subjects.
The existence of various outputs and opinions in terms of
the effects of innovation in the context of supply chain management makes a
comprehensive literature review even more necessary. Besides, although there
are many literature reviews in the field of the supply chain, the proportion of
literature reviews explicitly made for the innovation concept is very low. As
to our knowledge, no study in the literature was highly similar to our study.
Researchers have generally put forward studies focusing on a specific supply
chain area (e.g. green supply chains (Srivastava, 2007)), industry (e.g. food
supply chains (Nosratabadi et al., 2020)), or innovation type (e.g. product or
process innovation (Marzi et al., 2017)), rather than taking a holistic view of
supply chain and innovation concepts.
Studies that deal with the subject from our point of view
and are thought to have made the most significant contribution to the relevant
literature in this regard, Gao et al. (2017),
Tebaldi et al. (2018), Wong and Ngai (2019), Yuan et al. (2019),
Zimmermann et al. (2016). Zimmermann et al. (2016) dealt with the aspect of
innovation being affected by external factors and examined the articles
investigating the effects of supply chains on firm innovation performance. The
starting point of the researchers is the view that a company cannot have all
the resources required for the innovation process. Therefore, companies will
use external resources to improve the innovation process and achieve higher
performance. Companies that make up the supply chain come first among these
external resources.
The researchers emphasized the situations in which the
multi-participant innovation process was affected positively and negatively
throughout the supply chain and tried to reveal the necessary strategies for
companies to manage this process correctly based on the literature. Gao et al.
(2017) examined the relationship between the concepts of supply chain,
innovation and sustainability. They revealed the distribution of the articles
they chose on the subject according to the sector, country and research
methodology. In addition, the authors classified the types of innovation
examined in the articles they chose in terms of incremental and radical and
emphasized the innovation theories discussed in terms of sustainability.
Tebaldi et al. (2018) analyzed the literature on
sustainable supply chains and innovation and presented a study similar to Gao
et al. (2017). Wong and Ngai (2019) categorized published articles on supply
chain innovation in terms of organizational action, outcome and output. The authors
examined innovation under three headings in terms of organizational action.
These headings are logistics-centered innovation activities, marketing-centered
innovation activities and technological development-centered innovation
activities.
According to the authors, the outcome obtained as a
result of innovation activities is production efficiency and service
efficiency. The authors classify the outputs of this process under three
categories: economic, environmental and social. Yuan et. al. (2019) conducted a
bibliometric study and tried to reveal the cooperation network between
countries and authors. Also, the authors tried to identify the prominent topics
in the relevant literature by dividing the dataset into two periods (1987-2011
/ 2012-2018).
Although our study is similar to the other studies
mentioned above, it differs from the others in terms of dataset creation,
analysis method and outputs. In these studies, the authors kept the search
terms very limited. We think that the reason for this is to exclude articles
that are not related to the subject. However, this constraint also includes the
possibility that some articles that should be in the data set may be
overlooked. For example, the terms "product development" or "new
product" contains innovation semantically.
Although there is no term innovation in the title,
summary, or keywords, there are studies that emphasize innovation in the supply
chain (e.g. (Tang et al., 2009)). Besides, a direct search for the term
"innovation" may exclude the articles (e.g. (Hilletofth &
Eriksson, 2011)) in which the concepts of "innovative" or
"innovativeness" are used instead of "innovation" in the
title, abstract or keywords.
When the above studies are examined, we can see that
these two concepts are evaluated only in the study of Zimmermann et al. (2016). This situation may
cause some studies that are considered to be important in terms of the
literature to be excluded from evaluation. For example, Wong and Ngai (2019)
did not mention a detailed data collection process in their study. The authors
stated that they conducted a literature review on the concepts of "supply
chain, innovation, supply chain innovation, instrument development, scale
validation, and measurement model" and that they created the data set as a
result of this search.
The dataset of the authors starts in 1999, and the
authors describe the work of Desbarats (1999) as the first leading paper.
However, in our screening, we come across the work of Ragatz et al. (1997).
When this study is examined, it will be seen that it is an important study in
terms of the literature.
3.
METHODOLOGY
In
this paper, a bibliometric analysis of 1132 articles published between
1996-2020 on the "supply chain" and "innovation" subjects
in the Web of Science Core Collection was performed. In this context, in order
to determine the articles written on related subjects, using the search command
"TS = (" supply chain ") AND TI = (innovat *) AND DOCUMENT
TYPES: (Article)" in the advanced search section of the Web of Science
database, At the same time, studies containing the concept of innovation in its
title were determined. Later, considering their direct relationship with
innovation, the search was repeated by substituting the terms "new
process", "new product", "process develop *" and
"product develop *" for "innovation *". Later, by combining
these five search results and deducting the repeated studies, 1132 works were
reached as of 14.09.2020.
Bibliometrix
and biblioshiny tools with R source code were used for the analysis and
visualization of the obtained data. Although many different tools can be used
in the bibliometric analysis, the fact that the biblioshiny package contains
most of the analyzes needed and its success in visualization can be presented
as a reason for its use in this research.
The
findings of the study include the distribution of the publications included in
the data set by years, countries, universities and journals, and the map and
thematic evolution of the keywords in the data set. In addition, the
contributions of these publications to the relevant literature in the context
of the citation levels by years, the level of influence of the journals and the
citation levels of the countries are also given in the findings section of the
study.
4.
FINDINGS
The number of studies in the data set by years is
indicated by the blue line, the total number of year-based citations of these
publications with the orange line and the average number of citations per year
with the grey line. It is seen that studies examining supply chain and
innovation issues together started in 1996. As it is a new concept, the number
of citations received in the early periods is relatively high.
Graph 1:
Supply Chain-Innovation Concept Research Documents 1996-2020
In the following years, when it comes to 2010, it is seen
that the number of published works exceeded the average number of citations
received. The reason could be the decrease in the visibility of the works with
the increasing number of publications. However, as it is a field and concept
continues to develop, it is seen in Graph 1 that the increase in the number of
publications continues despite the decrease in speed.
Country Statistics
When examined in terms of countries, it is seen that the
studies published in the supply chain innovation concept are mostly realized in
China. In Figure 1 colors show a transition from dark blue to grey depending on
the number of publications. In this context, it is expected that China and the
USA, which are the world's largest exporters, have darker colors on the map.
Figure 1:
Supply Chain-Innovation Concept Scientific Production Distribution
Although China ranks first in terms of number of papers,
it lags behind the USA in terms of number of citations per work. While the blue
parts of the columns in Graph 2 indicate the total number of papers on country
basis, the orange parts show the total number of citations.
Graph 2:
Publication and Citation Numbers of Countries
According to Graph 2, the fact that the USA is ahead of
China in terms of number of citations can be interpreted as being more
effective in the academic platform. In addition to these countries, the United
Kingdom and Italy have an important place in terms of the studies and citations
received in the supply chain and innovation concept. Again, considering the
export dimensions of these countries, it is a predictable situation.
The top 20 universities, which are the centers of
academic studies, are listed in Graph 3 according to the number of works
published in the concept of supply chain and innovation.
Graph 3:
Supply Chain-Innovation Concept – Top 20 Universities
According to Graph 3, the most active university in this
field is Hong Kong Polytech University. Among the top 20, universities of
Chinese and US origin are concentrated, while from different countries such as
Islamic Azad University (Iran), Lund University (Sweden), University of
Southern Denmark, University of Toledo (Spain), Luela University (Sweden), and
University of Vaasa (Finland). Universities are also active in this field.
The identity, structure and activities of the country
have a guiding characteristic for academics and universities. Although it is
expected that the works produced by universities and countries in the context
of supply chain and innovation are in proportion to their exporter identities,
it is also an indication that the academic community is not disconnected from
the market.
Journal Statistics
One of the main pillars of the development of an academic
field is the structure of journals published in the related field. Among the
factors that determine how many people will reach the paper or how effective it
will be, are the qualifications of the journal it is published in (Kim et al.,
2020). The frequency and impact levels of the studies dealing with the supply
chain and innovation concept discussed in this study were examined in the
context of the journal.
The ranking of the first 20 journals according to the
number of publications is given in Graph 4 Sustainability was determined as the
journal with the highest number of works published in the related concept.
Other journals that are most active ones in the field are International Journal
of Production Economics and Journal of Cleaner Production.
Graph 4:
Supply Chain-Innovation Concept – Top 20 Journals
Sustainability was the journal that gained the most
significant momentum in the related concept. Although it started to operate
later than other magazines in terms of entering the field, it has become one of
the most active sources in the supply chain and innovation concept since 2016.
There are quite a few different tools available to
measure the effectiveness of an academic study or journal. The H index is among
the most widely used tools today. The advantages of the H index over other
tools include its objective, testable and understandable features (Costas &
Bordons, 2007). The ranking of the journals according to their H indexes regarding
the works published in the supply chain and innovation concept is given in
Graph 5 below.
Graph 5:
Journal H Indexes
Considering the H index as a criterion, International Journal
of Production Economics ranks first in terms of impact level. Another journal
that has a high impact in terms of citation distribution is the Journal of
Cleaner Production. Sustainability journal, which ranks first in terms of
number of publications and development, is in the middle in terms of H index.
Keyword Analysis
Keyword refers to the concepts covered by an article and
is a summary of the topic covered. Therefore, the analysis of keywords in the
relevant literature in a particular field helps to examine research topics in
this area. The word tree map created for the keywords of the papers published
on supply chain and innovation in the Web of Science has been shaped as
follows.
Since the supply chain and supply chain management in the
second column of the map are considered as two separate subjects, these
expressions are not subjected to the merging process. Although the concepts of
“new product development” and “product development” have similar
characteristics when considered in the context of innovation, they have been
evaluated separately in terms of being two different subjects.
Figure 2:
Treeword Map of Supply Chain-Innovation Concept
The frequencies of keywords in the data set in Figure 2
are given in Table 4. As seen in both the word tree map and the frequency
table, the most relevant concepts in supply chain and innovation issues are
sustainability and green innovation. Based on changing environmental awareness,
both consumers and producers prefer sustainable business plans in the long
term. There is no consensus here on which side leads the other.
In other words, is the preferences of the consumers
driving the producers towards green innovation, or does the producers' use of
green innovation and sustainability as a social marketing tool lead consumers
to these preferences? Although the answer to this question is a different
research topic, it can be easily stated that green innovation and
sustainability are of great importance in supply chain and innovation.
Table 4: Keyword Frequencies
Keywords |
Frequency |
Keywords |
Frequency |
Innovation |
276 |
Product
innovation |
30 |
Supply chain
management |
125 |
Development |
25 |
Supply chain |
115 |
Eco-innovation |
23 |
Sustainability |
63 |
China |
22 |
Green
innovation |
56 |
Supply |
22 |
New product development |
53 |
Supply chain
innovation |
22 |
Performance |
41 |
Open innovation |
20 |
Product
development |
40 |
Process
innovation |
20 |
Management |
36 |
Innovativeness |
19 |
Collaboration |
32 |
Environment |
18 |
In
bibliometry, cluster analysis is created by statistically processing the
network structure of keywords according to the frequency of using them together
in order to obtain a smaller and simpler view. The basis of cluster analysis is
to treat high-frequency keywords as a class and to combine the related
categories after the statistics of these classes are calculated. This process
is done by the program until each keyword is included in the relevant category.
The tree dendrogram is shaped according to the findings (Cobo et al., 2011;
Ding, 2011).
Figure 3: Tree Dendrogram of
Clustering Analysis of Keywords In The Field of Supply Chain-Innovation
Multidimensional scaling analysis is an exploratory data
analysis method that enables the reduction of dimensions for localization,
analysis and classification of the variables of the universe while preserving
the relationship between the investigated phenomena. In the graph resulting
from the multidimensional scaling analysis, the analyzed keywords are
distributed on the plane, and the relative position of each keyword reflects
the convergence between keywords. The more converging words form a cluster. A
keyword is a basis for the relevant literature to the extent that it is close
to the middle of the cluster (Hoffman & Leeuw, 1992).
Figure 4:
Multidimensional Scaling Analysis of Supply Chain-Innovation Concept Keywords
The categories presented visually in Figure 3 and Figure 4
represent the categories of the relevant literature in the context of supply
chain and innovation. The first category in the field, which is reduced to four
dimensions, is shaped around abilities. The first category also includes
external factors such as market orientation and cooperation. When considered
from the perspective of a firm, cooperation and competitiveness are criteria
that affect its relations with the market and thus, its performance (Allred et
al., 2011).
In the second category, supply chain management is
observed as the most dominant node. If the firm sees supply chain management as
a part of its strategic plans and handles its different strategies in a
holistic framework, it will increase the probability of reaching the targeted
strategies (Sukati et al., 2012).
In the third category, the management element is in the
center. The management concept, in which the firm structure, innovation, supply
chain, performance, and technology gather around, maintains its importance in
the context of supply chain and innovation. The critical impact of senior
management's influence on all other units (Schultz et al., 2019) is among the
results of this study.
In the fourth and last category, it is a research and
development center. The concept of research and development, which gathers the
cognitive abilities and absorptive capacity of the firm, also has an impact on
the networking behavior of companies. The fact that the R&D activities
exceed the capacity of the firm in many cases may bring along a tendency to
cooperate (Czarnitzki et al., 2007).
With thematic evolutionary analysis, the changing rules,
evolutionary relationships and trends of thematic content, power and structure
that have emerged in the literature over time can be revealed. Using thematic
evolution analysis, outputs such as visualizing the development in the field,
in which direction this development took place, and making future inferences
about trends in the field can be obtained
(Cobo et al., 2011).
Each node in the thematic diagram represents a topic, and
the size of the node varies in proportion to the number of keywords included in
the theme. Connections between nodes express the evolutionary aspect of the
concepts discussed. The historical continuity of these connections is an indication
that the concepts continue to be important in terms of space over time. The
color difference in the connecting lines makes it possible to separate. The
thickness of these lines indicates the number of keywords shared. That is, the
stronger the connection between the subjects, the wider the line (Cobo et al.,
2011).
Figure 5:
Thematic Evolution of Supply Chain-Innovation Concept
Between 1996-2012, which was considered as the first
period, while observing the topics development, performance, knowledge
management, etc., the concepts of innovation and supply chain will be
interpreted due to the scope of the research. The concept of innovation;
Innovation (2013-2017) constitutes the basis for supply chain innovation,
supply and supply chain management concepts. Supply chain management observed
between 1996-2012; development, production, and supply chain management
(2013-2017) concepts.
The concept of innovation examined in the second period;
while providing resources for green innovation, innovation, service innovation,
performance, open innovation, and new product development concepts, it is
influenced by the concepts of development and supplier selection and innovation
(1996-2012).
The concept of supply chain management in the second
period is influenced by entrepreneurship, supply chain management (2018-2020),
and new product development topics, while innovation (1996-2012) affects supply
chain management (1996-2012), digital innovation and information management
concepts.
Although many types of innovation emerged between
2018-2020, the third and last period, it is seen that the concept of
innovation, which was addressed in line with the purpose of the research, was
affected by innovation (2013-2017), collaboration, supply chain innovation,
supply, and production. Performance, supply chain innovation and supply chain
management (2013-2017) affect the concept of supply chain management between
2018-2020.
When the flow is given in Figure 5 is examined, it can be
stated that while the main issues in the field maintain their importance, it
can be stated that there is an intense enrichment especially in innovation.
Considering the effects of innovation on sustainability, it is predictable to
gain importance in every field. However, based on the findings obtained within
the scope of the research, it can be argued that the recent innovation types
are more than the changes based on the purely technical dimension dealt with in
the classical product development processes. In this period, social and
environmental-themed innovations come to the fore. In other words, it is no
longer sufficient to increase the efficiency of innovations regarding a product
or a process; it becomes a necessity (Berrone et al., 2013). Today, what is
expected from innovation is not only to increase efficiency but also to
contribute especially to the environment. If this trend continues in the
future, it is possible that the effect of environmental awareness on product
development processes will increase.
When the interactions of supply chain management are
examined, it is seen that the concept of performance is useful in all periods.
Besides, due to its effects on entrepreneurship and new product development, it
is possible that supply chain management can be carried out more effectively by
including it in the innovation processes of the supplier (Kim, 2000).
5.
CONCLUSIONS
Innovation is a topic that is frequently studied by both
markets and academics. However, the increase in the number of studies conducted
is far from meeting the need in this field. As a result of the shortening of
product life cycles in current market conditions, companies are obliged to
continuously innovate in order to sustain their existence. Increasing raw
material and resource diversification requirement due to the increasing need
for innovation made it necessary to examine and understand the supply chain in
the context of innovation.
Accordingly, as a result of this study, in which
bibliometric analysis of works published in the context of supply chain and
innovation, it was observed that the number of works in the relevant field is
in an increasing trend. The countries with the largest share in this increase
have been identified as China and the USA. As the largest exporters in the
world, it is expected that these two countries will be influential in the
literature. While China ranks first in terms of the number of published works,
the USA stands out according to the citations of the relevant works. Just to
state that the qualities of the studies are different, may cause many
dimensions of the phenomenon to be overlooked. For example, the fact that the
visibility of journals operating in this field affects the possibilities of
citation of the papers they contain is ignored. In this context, the fact that
US-based academic journals are more accessible in terms of having a more rooted
history results in more citations for the papers published in these journals.
The analysis for determining effective universities in
the field reveals a number of exceptions, albeit in a similar direction to the
analysis for countries. It is also observed that universities operating in
China and the USA are effective in terms of works published in the context of
supply chain and innovation. At the same time, it has been determined that various
European countries and Iran are included in this list. One of the common
features of these countries is that they are not members but centers in the
supply chain. These countries play a critical role in know-how process in the
supply chain in the context of their region. Of course, there are many other
academicians from many different countries and universities who have worked in
this field. However, these studies are the results of individual efforts and
far from an institutional direction.
The qualifications of journals in which academic studies
are published are among the factors that determine the visibility of the
relevant paper, the number of citations and the level of impact. Therefore,
journals must also be covered when examining a field in a bibliometric context.
The most effective journals in the context of supply chain and innovation are
Sustainability, International Journal of Production Economics, and Journal of
Cleaner Production. In the valuation of academic journals, criteria such as impact
factor, indexes, and H indexes are used. Within the scope of this research, H
indexes were presented in the context of the number of works published on the
relevant subject in the context of the contributions of journals to the field.
Since the H index is a scale that changes depending on time and activity,
Sustainability magazine, which ranks at the top in the number of publications,
fell behind the International Journal of Production Economics in the H index.
The word tree and frequencies are primarily used in word
analysis. Apart from the search terms supply chain, innovation, and new product
development, the most frequently used terms are sustainability, green
innovation, and performance. Another remarkable point in the word tree is the
use of concepts such as both product development and new product development.
Despite their similar features, these concepts are separable in terms of their
output. Therefore, they do not need to be merged while cleaning the data set.
As a result of clustering the keywords in the data set
and subjecting them to multidimensional scaling analysis, four primary
categories were obtained. These categories were shaped within the framework of
capabilities - collaboration, supply chain - strategy, management –
performance, and R&D - cognitive abilities. Multidimensional scaling
analysis makes a significant contribution in terms of showing the effect of
supply chain and innovation on the functions of the organization.
It is possible to reveal the change and development of
the field with the thematic evolution analysis. Considering the diversity of
topics created by the related concepts in the studies conducted in the context
of supply chain and innovation, it can be predicted that there will be more
developments in innovation types in the coming period. The fact that innovation
should be more than just product or process improvements, there is a tendency
to be more sensitive to people and the environment, turning innovation into a
tool to reach a more sustainable business model.
The supply chain is not outside this framework. On the
contrary, the concept of innovation has become more critical than ever in
supply chain processes due to the need to streamline the increasingly complex
procurement processes. In the current situation, the performance of the supply
chain and innovation literature, which is in the process of development, is
promising, but far from reaching saturation yet. Considering that the areas
covered by innovation touch every part of life, we can conclude that many of
the points that need to be investigated are not adequately studied.
Within the scope of this study, it has been observed that
the works published in the context of supply chain and innovation deal with
fundamental issues such as performance, collaboration, and development, as well
as a flow towards topics such as green innovation, service innovation, and open
innovation. In case this trend continues, it is possible to encounter different
concepts and types of innovation in the future.
The most important constraint of this study is that, at
the same time, one of its most important criteria, the studied papers are
included in the context of supply chain and innovation. More inclusive results
can be obtained in a study that examines the relationships with different
fields or topics together.
REFERENCES
Ageron, B.,
Lavastre, O., & Spalanzanı, A. (2013).
Innovative supply chain practices: the state of French companies. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 18(3), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-03-2012-0082.
Allred, C. R.,
Fawcett, S. E., Wallın, C., & Magnan, G. M.
(2011). A dynamic collaboration capability as a source of competitive
advantage. Decision Sciences: DS,
42(1), 129–161.
Andraskı, J. C.
(1998). Leadership and the realization of supply chain collaboration. Journal of Business Logistics, 19(2),
9-11.
Arlbjørn, J. S.,
& Paulraj, A. (2013). Special Topic Forum
On Innovation In Business Networks From A Supply Chain Perspective: Current
Status and Opportunities for Future Research. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(4), 3–11.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12034.
Bakker, P. I. W., &
Altshuler, D. (2005). Efficiency and power in genetic association studies.
Nature Genetics, 37(11), 1217–1223. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1669.
Berrone, P.,
Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R.
(2013). Necessity as the mother of Institutional pressures and environmental
innovations. Strategic Management
Journal, 34(8), 891–909.
Bouncken, R. B.
(2011). Supply Chain Contingencies: The Effects of Up-Stream Directives on
Supplier’s Innovation Performance. Engineering
Management Journal, 23(4), 36–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2011.11431918.
Cao, M.,
& Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact
on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management: Publ. Quarterly by the American
Production & Inventory Control Society, Inc, 29(3), 163–180.
Chesbrough, H.,
& Schwartz, K. (2007). Innovating business
models with co-development partnerships. Research-Technology
Management, 50(1), 55–59.
Cobo, M. J.,
López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Vıedma, E., &
Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting,
quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical
application to the fuzzy sets theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166.
Costas, R.,
& Bordons, M. (2007). The h-index:
Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at
the micro level. Journal of Informetrics,
1(3), 193–203.
Czarnitzki, D.,
Ebersberger, B., &
Fier, A. (2007). The relationship between R&D
collaboration, subsidies and R&D performance: Empirical evidence from
Finland and Germany. Journal of Applied
Econometrics, 22(7), 1347–1366. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.992.
Denyer, D.,
& Tranfıeld, D. (2006). Using qualitative
research synthesis to build an actionable knowledge base. Management Decision, 44(2), 213–227.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740610650201.
Desbarats, G.
(1999). The innovation supply chain. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 4(1), 7–10.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13598549910254708.
Dıng, Y.
(2011). Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of
coauthorship and citation networks. Journal
of Informetrics, 5(1), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.008.
Dıng, Y.,
Chowdhury, G. G., & Foo, S. (2001).
Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word
analysis. Information Processing &
Management, 37(6), 817–842.
De Gao;
Xu, Z., Ruan, Y. Z., & Lu, H. (2017). From a systematic
literature review to integrated definition for sustainable supply chain
innovation (SSCI). Journal of Cleaner
Production, 142, 1518–1538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.153.
Hılletofth, P.,
& Erıksson, D. (2011). Coordinating new
product development with supply chain management. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(2), 264–281.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111115173.
Hoffman, D. L.,
& Leeuw, J. de (1992). Interpreting multiple
correspondence analysis as a multidimensional scaling method. Marketing Letters, 3(3), 259–272.
https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00994134.
Jajja, M. S. S.,
Kannan, V. R., Brah, S. A., & Hassan, S. Z.
(2017). Linkages between firm innovation strategy, suppliers, product
innovation, and business performance. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(8), 1054-1075.
Kılıç, M.,
& Bilginoğlu, B. (2010). Personnel Recruiting
and Selection Methods and Its Relations between Innovation Performance of
Exporting Turkish Firms: The Case of Middle Anatolian Exporting Companies
Unions. Sosyoekonomi, 13(13),
215-241.
Kım, B.
(2000). Coordinating
an innovation in supply chain management. European journal of operational research, 123(3), 568-584.
Kım, L.,
Portenoy, J. H., West, J. D., & Stovel, K. W.
(2020). Scientific journals still matter in the era of academic search engines
and preprint archives. Journal of the
Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(10), 1218–1226.
Leung, D.,
Law, R., van Hoof, H., & Buhalıs, D.
(2013). Social media in tourism and hospitality: A literature review. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,
30(1-2), 3–22.
Lıı, P.,
& Kuo, F.‑I. (2016). Innovation-oriented
supply chain integration for combined competitiveness and firm performance. International Journal of Production
Economics, 174, 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.01.018.
Lıne, N. D.,
& Runyan, R. C. (2012). Hospitality
marketing research: Recent trends and future directions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 477–488.
Manceau, D.,
Kaltenbach, L. B.‑H., Moattı, V., &
Fabbrı, J. (2012). Putting External Knowledge to
Work. Supply Chain Management Review,
42-48.
Marzi, G.,
Dabıć, M., Daım, T., & Garces, E.
(2017). Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year
bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics,
113(2), 673–704. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2500-1.
Narayanan, S.,
Narasımhan, R., & Schoenherr, T. (2015).
Assessing the contingent effects of collaboration on agility performance in
buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of
Operations Management: Publ. Quarterly by the American Production &
Inventory Control Society, Inc, 33/33 (2015), 140–154.
Nosratabadı, S.,
Mosavı, A., & Lakner, Z. (2020). Food
Supply Chain and Business Model Innovation. Foods, 9(2), 132-156. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020132.
Oke, A.,
Prajogo, D. I., & Jayaram, J. (2013).
Strengthening the Innovation Chain: The Role of Internal Innovation Climate and
Strategic Relationships with Supply Chain Partners. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(4), 43–58.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12031.
Porter, M. E.
(1990). The competitive advantage of
nations. New York: The Free Press.
Pulles, N. J.,
Veldman, J., & Schıele, H. (2014).
Identifying innovative suppliers in business networks: An empirical study. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3),
409–418.
Quınn, J. B.,
& Hilmer, F. G. (1994). Strategic
outsourcing. MIT Sloan Management Review,
35(4), 43-55.
Ragatz, G. L.,
Handfıeld, R. B., & Scannell, T. V.
(1997). Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development.
Journal of Product Innovation Management,
14(3), 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1430190.
Schıele, H.
(2006). How to distinguish innovative suppliers? Identifying innovative
suppliers as new task for purchasing. Industrial
Marketing Management, 35(8), 925–935.
Schultz, C.,
Graw, J., Salomo, S., & Kock, A. (2019).
How project management and top management involvement affect the innovativeness
of professional service organizations: An empirical study on hospitals. Project Management Journal, 50(4),
460–475.
Song, J., &
Dolguı, A. (2017). Supply chain coordination through
integration of innovation effort and advertising support. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 49, 108–123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2017.04.041.
Srıvastava, S. K.
(2007). Green supply-chain management: A state-of-the-art literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews,
9(1), 53–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00202.x.
Stank, T. P.,
Keller, S. B., & Daugherty, P. J.
(2001). Supply chain collaboration and logistical service performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(1),
29–48.
Story, V. M.,
Boso, N., & Cadogan, J. W. (2015).
The form of relationship between firm-level product innovativeness and new
product performance in developed and emerging markets. The Journal of Product Innovation Management: An International
Publication of the Product Development & Management Association, 32(1),
45–64.
Sukatı, I.,
Hamıd, A. B., Baharun, R., & Yusoff, R. M.
(2012). The study of supply chain management strategy and practices on supply
chain performance. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 40, 225–233.
Tang, C. S.,
Zımmerman, J. D., & Nelson, J. I.
(2009). Managing New Product Development and Supply Chain Risks: The Boeing 787
Case. Supply Chain Forum: An
International Journal, 10(2), 74–86.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2009.11517219.
Tebaldi, L.,
Bıglıardı, B., & Bottanı, E.
(2018). Sustainable Supply Chain and Innovation: A Review of the Recent
Literature. Sustainability, 10(11),
3946-3975. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10113946.
Veugelers, R.
(1997). Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, 26(3), 303–315.
Wagner, S. M.,
& Hoegl, M. (2006). Involving suppliers in product
development: Insights from R&D directors and project managers. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(8),
936–943.
Wong, D. T.,
& Ngai, E. W. (2019). Critical review of supply
chain innovation research (1999–2016). Industrial
Marketing Management, 82, 158–187.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.01.017.
Yuan, C.‑H.,
Wu, Y., & Tsaı, K. (2019).
Supply Chain Innovation in Scientific Research Collaboration. Sustainability, 11(3), 753-765.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030753.
Zımmermann, R.,
Ferreıra, L. M. D. F., & Moreıra, A.
C. (2016). The influence of supply chain on the innovation process: a
systematic literature review. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, 21(3), 289–304.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2015-0266.