Supply Chain Management Project

Supply chain management project 1 Introduction Many organizations implement supply chain management (SCM) projects to enhance interorganizational coordination, increase efficiency, add value, and ultimately improve the bottom line. SCM project is a special class of enterprise level project that can potentially generate high returns, but also has high risks arising from unpredictability and technical complexity. The technologies that enable SCM business solutions typically span vertical architectural levels (business, application, and technology architectures), and integrate horizontal interorganizational processes and enterprise applications. The inherent technological complexities and intricacies of convoluted business processes associated with SCM projects can result in highly visible and expensivefailures.Charette(2005) documented SCM-related project failures at Avis Europe, Ford, Hershey Foods, Hewett-Packard, Hudson Bay, Kmart, Nike and Sainsbury PLC with losses ranging from $33.3 million to $527 million. Thus, over time successfully selecting the right SCM projects has become a critical management issue. Like any major capital investment, SCM initiatives must show significant benefits to warrant their continuation and expansion throughout the enterprise. While project evaluation and selection methodologies have been abundantly available to business decision makers, information on utilizing them in the context of SCM projects is limited inthe academic literature. Three notable exceptions are the works by (1) Sarkis and Talluri (2004) who use the analytical hierarchy process and goal programming to evaluate and select software for e-commerce software and communication systems for a supply chain, (2) Alvarado et al. (2008) who describe a value mapping framework to identify stakeholder value in SCM IT projects, and (3) Brun and Caridi (2008) who use a value and risk assessment methodology to evaluate SCM projects. There are a number of practitioner articles that discuss the need for appropriate evaluation and selection of SCM and enterprise-wide IT projects (Rodin 2001; Shaw 2006; Vaskelis 2001; Hartman 2002; Elkins 2003). The complexity of SCM projects makes it necessary to evaluate them as interorganizational systems with multiple decision makers (Sarkis and Talluri 2004), apply lessons learned from prior implementations (de Burca et al. 2005), and develop strategic framework for appraisal and audit of the associated systems (Sarkis and Sundarraj 2000). Hence, we dig deeper into the issue and make attempts to have a better understanding of the complex decision-making process of selecting SCM projects using exploratory case study. Three projects involving various aspects of supply chain management at three multi-national organizations are investigated. By examining the experiences obtained from these projects and analyzing opinions of the personnel involved, we identify nine useful practices in selection of such projects. While eight of them had been acknowledged previously, they were scattered throughout the prior literature on ERP (enterprise resource planning), IT (information technology), and R&D (research & development) project management. We put forth these practices together and establish their relevance in the context of SCM project selection. In addition, we identify a new management practice of including return on investment (ROI) consideration beyond organizational boundaries or

assessment of potential impact on supply chain partners in the SCM project selection process, The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we provide a broad review of the extant literature on evaluation criteria and justification procedures of different types of projects. Next, the research methodology is presented. Subsequently, three cases are presented and analyzed. This leads to identification of good practices in selection of SCM projects. Finally, we conclude the paper with comparative analysis with other good practices and discussions on the contribution of the study, managerial implications, and future research.

Chapter 02 Review of literature 2 Literature review We review well-established evaluation approaches used in selection of projects in different areas including R&D, IT, and SCM, and refer to project management best practices. We cover both academic and practitioner journals. The review directs us to a thorough understanding of the current practices and to develop a basis of comparison with the information obtained from the case study. In the following sectionsweprovidedetaileddiscussionsonexistingliterature. 2.1 General approaches for project evaluation In order to economically justify implementation of a project, basic concepts like net present value, hurdle rate, internal rate of return, and cash flow are used widely (Foley 2002). Rogow (2004) interviewed a number of executives involved with IT project decisions. His findings suggest that companies should look beyond return on investment and total cost of ownership. Some organizations have formalized process measurement and process improvement as part of project justification (Segars et al. 2001). Other considerations such as multi-year financial commitment analysis and budget provisioning should also be made before taking the final project selection decision. Lefley (2004) also argued that financial approach for appraising strategic benefits of projects is inappropriate. The research looked into procedure for developing strategic indices (SI) that can be used to identify and evaluate projects’ strategic benefits. Stanleigh (2006) mentioned that projects should be aligned with organizations’ core strategies. Organizations should have well structured process of prioritizing projects. The academic literature is filled with sophisticated techniques (such as analytic hierarchy approach, conditional stochastic dominance, goal programming, etc. to name just a few) to evaluate projects. However, evidence suggests that these sophisticated evaluation techniques have not found wide acceptance among practitioners. According to the Mainstay Partners ’ study originated in 1999, only 21% of the companies have processes for prioritizing and managing technology investments. Most choose their

IT investments on an ad-hoc basis, favoring pet projects of powerful managers (Hartman 2002). Many use ROI metrics that are inconsistent from one project to another making it nearly impossible to correctly choose which projects should be funded and which ones should not be selected (Lewis and Koller 2001). 2.2 R&D project evaluation Many R&D portfolio managers use a hybrid approach that combines different traditional approaches; they rely far less on financial methods for portfolio management and put stress on management buy-in and support (Cooper et al. 1998). R&D project evaluation models historically fall into three categories: financial, risk, and scoring (Lawson et al. 2006). While financial methods have been found to be used The selection of supply chain management projects 165 most widely amongst large organizations, companies that use hybrid approaches incorporating risk analysis and scoring scheme with financial analysis generally do a better job in selecting projects (Cooper et al. 2001). Despite potential advantages of structured hybrid approaches, they may becost prohibitive. Also, sometimes management thinks that high quality decisions can be made primarily by the experienced executives even without a structured approach. Some of the complex methods for R&D project evaluation are mentioned here. Meade and Presley (2002) discussed how analytic network process (ANP), a more general form of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and capable of assessing dynamic multidirectional relationship among the decision attributes, could be used for selecting R&D projects. Sun and Ma (2005) proposed multi-box packing model heuristic based on integer programming for simultaneously selecting and scheduling R&D projects. The total value of the selected projects was maximized and schedules were so made that annual costs were kept close to the estimated annual budgets as much as possible. Ringuest et al. (2000) used a methodology for adding or removing a project from an existing R&D portfolio using the criterion of conditional stochastic dominance which analyzed the effect of a given project on the risk and return of the existing portfolio. Using a multiple case study approach Verma and Sinha (2002) showed how interdependencies between R&D projects in technology firms influence project performance. Hence, a portfolio approach may

be particularly useful for selecting R&D projects when resources are available to implement the methodology. 2.3 IT project evaluation The methodologies used for evaluation and selection of IT projects can be classified into four major categories: economic, strategic, analytical, and integrated approaches (Irani et al. 1997). Economic approaches generally use financial measurements such as return on investment (ROI), internal rate of return (IRR), net present value (NPV), and payback approaches. They largely ignore intangible factors. Strategic approaches are less structured, and deal with projects’ strategic alliances with corporate goals by considering both tangible and intangible factors. Analytical approaches such as scoring models (Nelson 1986), risk analysis (Remenyi and Heafield 1995), and analytic hierarchy process (Saaty 1990) are highly structured but subjective with the use of tangible and intangible factors. Integrated approaches such as balanced scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1996) and multi-attribute utility theory (Sloggy 1984) combine subjectivity with formal structure, and incorporate both financial and non-financial dimensions of decision making. It is argued that traditional economic appraisal techniques are not appropriate for justifying investment in IT projects because of intangible benefits, and direct and indirect costs associated with these projects. On the other hand, while analytical and integrated approaches are capable of considering intangible factors they are complicated to use (Irani et al. 1997). Milis and Mercken (2004) argued while traditional appraisal techniques such as payback period and net present value methods are not quite suitable for IT project evaluation, the newer appraisal methods are difficult to interpret and use. They suggested that reliance on a single technique may yield suboptimal results and proposed multi-layer evaluation process based on balanced scorecard. Kulak et al. (2005) proposed axiomatic design (AD) approach, which is suitable for multi-attribute evaluation of IT projects. 2.4 SCM project evaluation SCM projects are often closely linked to ERP that have emerged as the backbone of the modern information technology infrastructure. Many organizations have

adopted ERP systems with the goal of integrating key business processes so that information can flow freely between various parts of the firm (Laframboise and Reyes 2005). The inter-organizational nature of supply chain makes the evaluation more complex (Clemons and Kleindorfer 1992; Levinson 1994). Overall acceptance by supply chain partners associated with such projects is critical for success. Sarkis and Talluri (2004) mentioned about lack of methodologies in the literature on justification of interorganizational systems. Brun and Caridi (2008) evaluated SCM projects by identifying key performance indicators and ultimately performing a performance gap analysis. Alvarado et al. (2008) developed a valuemapping framework which examined the contributions of multiple stakeholders in SCM projects taking into consideration of the fact that a dominant partner in a supply chain might try to move decisions in their favor. Since SCM projects influence relationships with upstream/downstream suppliers/customers, supplychain-wide performance measures are needed to measure effectiveness (Chin et al. 2004). However, many companies ignore this and tend to stick to organization based measures only. 2.5 Best practices in project management The Project Management Institute has “provided project management insight, best practices and enterprise support for the project management profession” since 1969 (Project Management Institute 2006). Loo (2003) described best practices as the “optimum ways of performing work to achieve high performance” and mentioned that much of the literature on best practices are related to benchmarking against external organizations. Loo (2002) included inte 166 R.G. Mathieu, R. Pal grated project management systems, effective scope management, planning, scheduling and controlling of project, high-caliber project teams, stake-holder participation, effective communication within teams and externally, and customer satisfaction among critical success factors in project management. One approach to best practices in the supply chain community has been the Supply-Chain Operations Reference-model (SCOR). SCOR has been developed and endorsed by the Supply-Chain Council as the cross-industry standard diagnostic tool for supply chain management (Supply Chain Council 2011). SCM groups often use SCOR to

establish performance metrics and compare supply chain performance with industry counterparts. It has been used successfully in a number of SCM projects despite the model’s limitations as reported in the literature (Power 2005). One major limitation is that SCOR does not explicitly assist in project evaluation process. 2.6 Summary A small number of research studies have noted distinctive aspects in evaluating SCM projects. Pinto and Mantel (1990) found that client satisfaction and perceived quality accounted for approximately 57% of the total variation in success of the projects they studied. Bryde (2003) also stressed on the importance of customer satisfaction in implementing projects successfully. In case of SCM projects the customers can be internal as well as external (such as upstream and/or downstream supply chain partners) to the organization. Hence, implication of a SCM project for such partners may need to be considered in the project evaluation process. However, reported existing methodologies rarely mention about it. Flaig (2005) argued that classical net present value (NPV) approach falls short of capturing some of the project’s major effects in process improvement including quality and yield rate. Also, probability of completion is not considered in classical NPV. According to Knill (2000) it is imperative to consider the impact on adjacent and downstream processes when evaluating a SCM project. It is clear that SCM projects often pose additional challenges and may require further considerations in the process of evaluation and selection. Although the literature discusses a wide range of project evaluation methodologies at length, understanding of evaluation processes for selecting SCM projects is rather limited. Detailed information on how organizations that successfully completed SCM projects had actually evaluated and selected the projects is not available. Also, it is not known if there are commonalities among the decision making processes used to evaluate and select successful SCM projects. In subsequent sections we present how answers to these questions are explored.

Chapter 03 Research Methodology 3 Research methodology We conduct an exploratory case study with the primary objective of identifying a set of generalizable good practices in selection of SCM projects. A case study approach was adopted as it allowed us to investigate what exactly happened in the evaluation and selection of supply chain projects in an organization and enabled us to understand inter-relationships of various factors involved in the process. We purposefully sought to go beyond different analytical techniques to examine the processes and methodologies that organizations employ in the decision making process. Here, good project selection practices are defined as the recommendations based on prior outstanding results that can be adapted in the evaluation and selection of a project. Information obtained through case studies provided us with necessary depth to understand and analyze the process. A cohesive set of good practices were determined after a series of interviews with managers and executives involved in the project evaluation and selection process at three different Fortune 1000 companies. These practices are then summarized and compared to similar findings and theoretical formulations reported in the extant literature. Case-based research allows investigators to understand the nature and complexity of the processes taking place and serves as a basis for theory building. We adopted the general principles of theory building through case study research (Eisenhardt 1989; McCutcheon and Meredith 1993; Yin2003). This is particularly useful when there is no specifically defined construct. There is a need for close look at within-case and cross-case analysis along with existing literature. Such approach has been used successfully to identify critical success factors in managing projects (Fricke and Shenhar 2000; Verma and Sinha 2002). A multiplecase study approach was chosen as a mechanism for determining the good practices in SCM project selection because multiple case studies are sometimes more compelling (Herriott and Firestone 1983) and are analogous to conducting multiple experiments to replicate the findings (Yin 2003). Since resource requirement for going beyond single case study was not an issue the opportunity to analyze findings from multiple experiments was attractive. Hence, we adopted an exploratory multiple-case research strategy as elaborated in Yin (2003). The salient

steps included in the methodology are research design, preparation for data collection, collecting the evidence, and analyzing the evidence. 3.1 Research design An important starting point was a review of the literature on the evaluation and selection of SCM projects. The scope of The selection of supply chain management projects 167 the review included research papers and trade magazine articles that discussed economic justification of supply chain projects as well as related projects such as ERP, material handling, manufacturing, and information technology. This helped us justify the need for identifying the good practices in SCM project selection and institute the research questions. Subsequently, we discussed the suitability of exploratory multiple case study as appropriate research method. The purpose of the case study is to explore how organizations evaluate and select supply chain projects successfully to reap benefits. Certain steps and procedures are followed in evaluation and selection of those successful projects. Based on prior outstanding results and general adaptability potential, some of these steps and procedures are recognized as good practices. Here, we use thorough study of project experience including project evaluation, execution, and outcome as embedded unit of analysis (Yin 2003). We also analyze if the identified practices have any element of uniqueness by comparing them with the practices in other areas. 3.2 Preparation for data collection One of the authors was a principal investigator in all three cases. We approached with an open mind and maintained an unbiased view without preconceived notions so that any contradictory evidence would not be missed. 3.2.1 Protocol development Structured client interviews were the primary source of data in this study. Following the principles of case study research, a protocol was developed that included not only the interview questions but also the procedures to be used by the interviewers and overview of the case study project (Yin 2003). Each interview session started with a statement about the purpose of the research and an assurance

that the respondent would receive a transcript of the interview with a chance to change and/or edit any statements in the transcript. Interview script began with the interviewee’s description of the project. This description was followed by questions in five areas of inquiry: formal methods, cost assessment, benefits assessment, risk assessment, and ROI in the project evaluation process. It was followed by questions designed to solicit experiences related to the economic valuation of projects. These questions were developed in discussion with few executives from the participating organizations. After sending the initial draft of the questionnaire, one of the authors met with the executives individually to understand their interpretations of the questions and also to include their suggestions. The process continued iteratively and the questionnaire was tested over a course of three months prior to the actual interviews to increase the reliability of the case research. 3.2.2 Participant selection Participating organizations were selected based on their long-term involvement and expertise in the supply chain projects. This was important to establish the good practices. We had to limit the number of organizations to three because of logistical reasons. Each of the three organizations selected was global publicly traded company that had at least one organizational group devoted to the management and execution of SCM projects. At the same time they were selected from different industry segments as maximally different cases might be helpful to ensure rich pool of diversity (McCutcheon and Meredith 1993). While selecting the organizations, we made sure that we would be given access to the key personnel who completed successful SCM project(s). Brief information of the participants is presented in Table 1. 3.3 Collecting the evidence Data were collected through face-to-face interview sessions that lasted between sixty and ninety minutes. A scripted interview approach was used. The questions were developed based on a review of literature and background discussions with knowledgeable project managers. At the end of the interviews each participant received a draft manuscript of the interview, and was asked to review it for accuracy and add comments where appropriate. Minor modifications were made to

the final draft of the manuscript based on feedback from the participants. Following Eisenhardt’s(1989) recommendations, data were collected from each of the cases as independent entity. Although we were interested to see if there were any commonalities among the cases we made deliberate attempt not to lead discussions with any preconceived notions. We believe this reduced reflexivity (Yin 2003), i.e. leading interviewee to tell what interviewer wants to hear. We also examined the project documents that were provided by the participating organizations. It helped us cross-examine and triangulate the data to a good extent. In order to ensure reliability of the information gathered we kept detailed records of interviews and reviewed documents, and cited these evidences in the discussion leading to identification of good practices in SCM project selection process. 3.4 Analyzing the evidence Following Eisenhardt’s(1989) recommendations to improve validity of the results, the same interviewing team was sent to all three participating organizations and one of the authorsstayed out of the interview process to play devil’s advocate and critique the initial findings of the interviewing team. The goal was to treat all the evidences fairly with adequate considerations for alternative interpretations and to produce analytic conclusions consistent with an exploratory research project. Hence, we used the analytical techniques suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) whereby a matrix of categories was created and evidences were placed within such categories. We used this cross-case synthesis by comparing the findings from three case studies to establish the good practices. We also used patternmatching logic, as elaborated in Yin (2003), to compare the anticipated project evaluation and selection considerations with empirical evidence. The details are presented in the subsequent sections.

CONCLUSION We compare the useful practices in selecting SCM projects, which we identified earlier, with the well known practices in other related areas. Subsequently, we discuss the contributions and managerial implications of the findings followed by limitations and future research implications. 7.1 Comparison with practices in other areas We discuss the rationale of the good practices in SCM project selection and examine if they can be linked with the recommendations made in other related areas. The discussion is summarized in Table 10. We find that selection of SCM project is greatly influenced by its alignment with organizational strategy. ERP (Nah et al. 2003; Huang et al. 2004), IT (Irani et al. 1997; Jiang and Klein 1999), general project management (Pinto and Slevin 1988; Kaplan and Norton 1996; Stanleigh 2006) best practice literature also echo similar viewpoints. Vereecke et al. (2003) mentioned about importance of program management that involves coordinated management of projects with a common strategic objective. It is natural that organization’s overall strategies will govern the SCM project evaluation process. Jiang and Klein (1999) found project evaluation criteria to vary with strategic orientation of organizations’ information system in time dimension. While organizations with current strategic system place more emphasis on internal factors, organizations with future strategic system stress on both internal and external factors. Huang et al. (2004) identified management support as a critical success factor in ERP implementation. Cooper et al. (1998) stressed the importance of management buy-in and support in R&D project selection. It is expected that any major project should meet the strategic corporate objectives in order to get approved by the management. Evaluation of SCM projects by a formal review panel is justified for its potential to provide objective review. ITand general project management literature favors this practice for all major projects competing for limited resources (Segars et al. 2001; Stanleigh 2006). Scope management is a critical part of any project. In addition, effect of process change is overwhelming for any projects that involve significant information exchange The selection of supply chain management projects 177

between different business units. Hence, business process reengineering plays a crucial role in ERP projects (Nah et al. 2003; Huang et al. 2004). Like ERP projects, SCM projects involve both intra and inter organizational information exchange and process flows. Hence, effect of process changes should be considered in SCM project evaluation decision. Similar viewpoints are expressed in IT project management (Segars et al. 2001) and general project management best practices (Loo 2002; Stanleigh 2006). Detailed benefit and cost estimation is important for any kind of project as it is a primary basis for project justification. However, additional layers of complexity are added based on significance of a project. Thus, it is quite expected that benefit and cost estimation for major projects like ERP and SCM projects are complicated. Risk assessment in project evaluation is a common practice. A number of articles related to evaluation of projects in various areas such as IT (Remenyi and Heafield 1995; Badri et al. 2001; Kulak et al. 2005), ERP (Schulz 2000; Nah et al. 2003), R&D (Ringuest et al. 2000; Lawson et al.2006), and project management (Stanleigh 2006; Maytorena et al. 2007) mention about necessity of risk analysis. SCM projects are no exceptions and importance of the issue may be influenced by project size. Lack of future planning (Schulz 2000) and late completion (Nah et al. 2003) have been reported as major obstacles in ERP projects and are attributed to large size of ERP projects. Although typical SCM projects are smaller than ERP projects, the size of SCM projects is still significant. Hence, smooth execution and on-time completion of SCM project is an important issue and associated risk must be closely analyzed. Also, varying risk attitude of different firms taking part in a SCM project adds an interesting twist to the analysis. Separation of duties of the project manager and the IT lead is important in major IT projects (Solomon 2002). Since SCM projects usually involve significant IT implementation, the issue should be considered. Minarro-Viseras et al. (2005) found appropriate staffing and project manager’s personal quality and skill to lead the project to be key success factors in strategic manufacturing initiatives (SMI). Supply chain projects have many similarities with SMI and these considerations are also important while evaluating and selecting a SCM project. Requirements for streamlining complicated business processes and/or eliminating potential conflicts between business units may drive organizational redesign. The ERP best practice article by Nah et al. (2003) recommends overcoming the issue of unnecessary complexity by undertaking organizational change as necessary. The article cited Rogers’ (1995) diffusion of

innovation theory that suggests that the rate of adoption of an innovation is negatively related to its complexity. Many of the SCM projects may be viewed as adoption of innovation by the implementing organizations. Hence, it is justified that complexity of SCM projects should also be reduced or eliminated whenever necessary, and organizational redesign can be a vehicle to reach the goal. The importance of periodic monitoring and reviews to ensure success is discussed in Loo (2003). Since the initial ROI calculation of SCM projects during the approval process are usually quite involved, it makes sense to reuse the work in subsequent evaluations. The supply chain literature emphasizes the importance of upstream/downstream supply partners in ensuring streamlined business operations. Hence, it is justified that their perspectives, including gains and losses (if any), should be considered before a SCM project is selected. While this consideration is specific to SCM projects, similar consideration may be applicable for the projects in other areas where collaboration among organizations is required. 7.2 Contribution and managerial implications The good practices identified in this paper provide sound evaluation and selection guidelines during the planning stage of a supply chain project. Our findings confirm the importance of talented managers who understand the importance of thorough project planning. Management’s understanding of the useful practices presented in this paper can have a significant impact on an organization’s ability to select and implement SCM projects with a high payoff. One of the main contributions of our study is the enhancement of the knowledge base in supply chain project selection decisions. The literature suggests that selection of appropriate SCM project and its implementation may pose additional challenges. Although the literature discusses various project evaluation methodologies and project management best practice, information on SCM project selection process is rather limited. Detailed information on how organizations should evaluate and select the SCM projects successfully is not widely available. To the best of our knowledge, we take the first comprehensive step towards exploring this issue. Nine useful practices for SCM project selection were identified in this study. While eight of them had been previously identified, those practices were scattered throughout the prior literature on ERP, IT, and R&D project management. Unlike prior studies,

by focusing our research on SCM projects we were able to identify the practices that are critical to the success of SCM projects. In addition, we identified a new management practice of including return on investment (ROI) consideration beyond organizational boundaries or assessment of potential impact on supply chain partners in the SCM project selection process. For each practice, we establish its relevance to project selection 178 R.G. Mathieu, R. Pal rationale and the link with good practices in related areas. Also, the project selection practices identified here are backed up by evidences gathered from successful real-life SCM projects. Thus, practitioners can instill themselves with certain degree of confidence in following these practices for selecting SCM projects. Although the extant literature documents many of the useful practices identified here in the context of non-SCM projects, there is a need for investigating if those practices are useful in selecting SCM projects appropriately. This study provides the much needed confirmation to the least. 7.3 Limitations and future research implications All three organizations, which we studied, implemented SCM projects successfully. The case of unsuccessful projects was out of scope of this study. Nonetheless, lessons may be learnt from the unsuccessful projects. It may be worthwhile to investigate if any organizations that fail to implement a SCM project successfully follow the practices identified in this study and what implications it may have on potential outcomes. Our study focused on the US based organizations only. While we expect the findings to be applicable for firms outside the US, there may be additional considerations in selection of SCM projects which are unique to their situations. We had to keep the number of firms studied to three for logistical reasons and hence did not have control factors such as firm size, maturity, etc. While some of the researchers may prefer to include higher number of firms, some others have conducted case research with similar or less number of firms. We chose the firms from different industry segments to make them diverse as much as possible, but arguments can be made to enhance it further with additional cases. We hope that this research will lead to more empirical research on the economic justification of supply chain projects beyond the exploratory stage and towards

theorybased models of SCM project evaluation and selection. Here, we discuss some of the research ideas that may be taken up going forward. We have mentioned earlier that risk exposure may not be the same for all stakeholders in a SCM project. A number of organizations may be willing to take part in a SCM project and they may have varying degrees of risk aversion. While the cases we studied did not have any similar situations, it remains to be studied in future how organizations share risks and if any contract mechanism can be devised to ensure fair share of risks among participating organizations. We discussed the significance of considering the perspectives of supply chain partners in SCM project selection. Walker et al. (2002) discussed the importance of project partnering and alliance within scope of an assumption that “all parties can achieve a win-win situation provided they work together to help each other gain not only a realistic reward for their input but to gain a competitive edge in the market as a result of their experience on this milestone approach”. However, not always such win-win situation may persist. It will be interesting to study how the project selection decisions are made when conflicts between an organization and its partner(s) may arise out of a proposed SCM project. Also, it will be worthwhile to compare the decision making process when a dominant organization is driving the project with the situation when a relatively weak organization is taking the SCM initiative. Also, large SCM projects may pose unique challenge. Sometimes these projects are divided into smaller subprojects in multiple phases called business releases (Moller 2000). This practice reduces risk, promotes learning from previous experience, keeps the momentum going, and reduces time to receive returns. Many world-class firms recommend this practice for very large projects. However, in any of the three cases we studied, business releases were not used. Although we do not expect any change in the good practices identified here, further exploration on SCM project with multiple business releases may provide additional insights.