The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0401.htm

Lean and agile metrics. Literature Framework for

measuring
review and framework for leagile supply
chain
measuring leagile supply chain
Wojciech Domink Piotrowicz
Department of Marketing, Supply Chain Management and Social Responsibility,
Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland Received 10 November 2020
Revised 23 June 2021
Urszula Ryciuk Accepted 17 September 2021

Faculty of Engineering Management, Białystok University of Technology,

Białystok, Poland, and
Maciej Szymczak
Institute of International Business and Economics,

University of Economics and Business, Poznan
Poznan
, Poland

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this paper is to review metrics and develop a framework for measuring leagile supply
chain. Metrics that are applicable in the lean, agile and leagile strategies are identified in the literature and are
then combined into a framework that can reflect both agile and lean strategies – the leagile supply strategy.
Design/methodology/approach – This work is based on the systematic literature review. Literature was
collected, then lean and agile metrics were extracted, analysed, counted and grouped into the framework.
Findings are compared against literature on leagile supply chain.
Findings – Findings indicate that there are sets of metrics specific to lean strategy, such as are process-
focused, cost, productivity, inventory and delivery-based metrics, and specific to agile such as flexibility,
responsiveness, information sharing and cooperation. There are also metrics common for both strategies; they
are related to time, quality and customer satisfaction. Lean measures are tangible and focused on internal
processes and products, while agile measures are targeted at external environment.
Practical implications – The framework could be used by practitioners as a starting point for performance
system design.
Originality/value – There is a need to stop looking at lean and agile as separate and distinct supply
strategies. Results of this research indicate that lean and agile are interlinked, both are focusing on customer
satisfaction and quality. Applying a proposed set of metrics enables to design supply chain measurement
system that reflects both strategies to measure leagile supply chain. The framework could be used by
practitioners as a starting point for performance system design.
Keywords Lean and agile supply chain, Leagile supply chain, Supply chain performance measurement,
Performance metrics, Supply chain strategy, Strategy
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction
Measuring supply chain performance is of growing importance as companies could not stay an
isolated island, but they are part of supply chain that frequently compete against other chains.
Simatupang and Sridharan (2008) define supply chain performance as the development and
implementation of indicators for the overall assessment and the individual performance of each

© Wojciech Domink Piotrowicz, Urszula Ryciuk and Maciej Szymczak. Published by Emerald
Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence.
Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both International Journal of
Productivity and Performance
commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and Management
authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0401
Funding: The study was co-funded by the National Science Centre, Poland (2014/13/B/HS4/03293). DOI 10.1108/IJPPM-10-2020-0560
IJPPM member of the supply chain. All entities involved should incorporate a broad and balanced
approach to identify and measure issues which are vital for the whole supply chain.
Performance measurement system should be aimed at supporting supply chain strategy
implementation and enabling supply chain orchestration (Neely et al., 1995; Maestrini et al.,
2018), and cover a wide range of metrics, including those that reflect sustainability (Piotrowicz
and Cuthbertson, 2015). It is necessary to monitor strategy implementation and indicate actions
for improvement. Performance measurement allows such monitoring; however, in practice the
measurement process is very complex and difficult to implement.
The aim of this paper is to investigate links between supply chain strategy (lean and agile)
and performance measurement metrics, linking three streams of literature: operations
management, supply chain/logistics and performance measurement.
Narasimhan et al. (2006) pointed that lean and agile can be viewed as not only two distinct
strategies but also as sets of different performance capabilities. The differences between both
strategies would be reflected by the choice of performance metrics to monitor strategy
implementation. This is in line with Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson (2015) who indicated that
performance measurement systems should match specific context, including factors such as
strategy and supply chain design. Lean and agile strategies, despite their popularity, are not
well understood (Goldsby et al., 2006). There are gaps in the knowledge on performance
measurement in lean, agile and leagile supply chain. Already in 1999 Gunasekaran called to
develop and incorporate performance measurement into agile supply chain management
(SCM). Naim et al. (2011) recommended exploring further performance characteristics of agile
and lean strategies. Ciccullo et al. (2018) has advocated looking at lean, agility and sustainability
as interconnected strategies. One could find in literature research suggesting some metrics for
lean, agile or leagile strategy (Afonso et al., 2015; Moyano-Fuentes and Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, 2012;
Arif-Uz-Zaman et al., 2014; Thanki and Thakkar, 2018; Sukwadi et al., 2013) but such work is
non-exhaustive. Research frequently discusses lean, agile or leagile supply chain definitions,
attributes, dimensions, conditions for applying selected strategies or compare them (i.e. Mason-
Jones et al., 2000b; van Hoek et al., 2001; Agarwal et al., 2006; Naim et al., 2011). There is lack of
proposition of set of metrics applicable in the lean, agile and leagile supply chain. Discussion is
focused on performance characteristic, not on the measures. Thus this paper is closing this gap.
This paper aims to stimulate further research, reviewing literature and synthesizing
findings, providing a framework for measuring both lean and agile parts of the supply chain,
answering following question:
What are the main metrics that are applicable in the lean, agile and leagile strategies?
The paper is structured as follows. First, the methodology is presented, then concepts such
as lean, agile with the focus on lean and agile and performance metrics are presented for each
strategy, finally lean and agile metrics are discussed and integrated to create a framework
that combines both group of metrics – the set of leagile performance metrics. Lastly,
conclusions and recommendations for further research are listed.

2. Background
2.1 Lean supply chain
The term “lean” was first used by Krafcik (1988), then popularized by Womack et al. (1990), and
can be summarized as “doing more with less” (Christopher et al., 2000). The lean concept is
introduced when customer requirements exceed those of “traditional” cost, quality and speed, so
the companies need to produce both low and high volume products at the same time (Yusuf et al.,
2003). Arlbjørn et al. (2013) concluded that there are many interpretations of lean; therefore, it is
possible to distinguish between lean philosophy, set or principles and tools and techniques.
Hines et al. (2004) reviewed contemporary lean thinking since 1980 and noted that in the 1990s
concepts such as lean enterprise and lean supply chain were introduced. Similar review was
completed by Stone (2012); his analysis indicated that 2006–2009 literature was focused on the Framework for
ways of how to measure leanness in organizations. Development of lean thinking, with focus on measuring
automotive production was traced by Holweg (2007), and then lean concept emerged in the
service sector (Arlbjørn et al., 2013). As the main principles of lean SCM Jasti and Kodali (2015)
leagile supply
identify: the information technology management, supplier management, elimination of waste, chain
just in time production, customer relationship management, logistics management, top
management commitment and continuous improvement.
Extensive review of the lean concept was completed by Moyano-Fuentes and Sacrist
an-
D
ıaz (2012), who distinguished stream of literature focused on lean in value and supply
chains. Lean supply chain emphasis is on waste identification, reduction and elimination of
nonvalue-added activities (Carvalho and Cruz-Machado, 2011; Arif-Uz-Zaman et al., 2014).
Lean supply chain is focused on cost reduction, flexibility and incremental improvements in
products (Moyano-Fuentes and Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, 2012), however, as Gunasekaran (1999)
pointed, lean is cost-efficient and productive, but it is not equal to be responsive.

2.2 Agile supply chain

The agile concept was widely discussed in the early 1990s; it is not a new idea though, as in
1982 Brown and Agnew already pointed that “many managers place too strong an emphasis
on seeking to optimise”, and they introduced the term and defined “corporate agility” as “the
capacity to react quickly to changing circumstances” (Brown et al., 1982, p. 29). There is no
agreement and commonly accepted definition of supply chain agility (Gligor and Holcomb,
2012). More about the definitions of agility manufacturing and supply contexts is included in
works by Bernardes et al. (2009), Gligor and Holcomb (2012), Yusuf et al. (2014) and Eckstein
et al. (2015).
The ability to quickly respond to the changing market needs – “changes in demand both in
terms of volume and variety” (Christopher, 2000), opportunities or threats (Gligor et al., 2013) are
key determinants of agility. Supply chain agility is “strategic ability that assists organizations
rapidly to sense and respond to internal and external uncertainties via effective integration of
supply chain relationships” (Fayezi et al., 2017). Agile supply chain focuses on the customer,
cooperation and information management to manage uncertainty (van Hoek et al., 2001;
Rimien_e, 2011). Common elements in conceptualization of agility are: responsiveness, change as
opportunity, flexibility, customer enrichment/customization, mobilization of core competences,
integration, organizational structure and speed (Gligor and Holcomb, 2012; Khalili-Damghani,
2013). An agile system should respond to changes (Bernardes et al., 2009) in external
environment and to customer requirements (Backhouse et al., 1999; van Hoek et al., 2001). The
development of agile was traced by Huang et al. (2009), who identified four stages: initial
concept building, agile manufacturing, agile supply chains which redirected post-1999
discussion from manufacturing and finally, approaches to achieve and measure agility.
In response to lack of consistency between definitions used in literature (Backhouse et al.,
1999), the comparison between agility, flexibility and responsiveness was investigated by
Bernardes et al. (2009). In agile supply chain relationship with suppliers should be flexible for
both products and services, and at the same time, agile should fulfil customer needs and aim to
keep leanness (Gunasekaran, 1999). Some of “waste” which normally should be removed in lean
production might be important in the agile system (Mason-Jones et al., 2000b); this leads to the
concept of leagility.

2.3 Linking lean and agile – Leagile supply chain

Leagility, which links both lean and agile, was introduced by Naylor et al. (1999), who realized
that despite the “pull” system of Toyota Production System (TPS), still around 50% of cars
were in fact made to customer order, while the rest was made to stock; moreover, some of the
IJPPM cars were further customized after leaving Toyota factory (Naim et al., 2011). Soon it was agreed
that both concepts could be merged; the “decoupling point” separates lean “push” part of supply
chain, which is aimed at cost reduction, and agile “pull” which can fulfil diverse customer needs
(Naim et al., 2011). Despite the differences between lean and agile it is possible to successfully
link them in a total supply chain (Mason-Jones et al., 2000a), creating a “hybrid” approach
(Goldsby et al., 2006). As Naim et al. (2011, p. 342) pointed, “lean and agile are distinct but
interlinked concepts” and allow to have “best of both worlds”: mix of cost and flexibility/service.

2.4 Supply chain performance measurement

This section introduces performance measurement with focus on supply chain performance
measurement (SCPM) – more in reviews, e.g. Akyuz et al. (2009), Gopal et al. (2012),
Gunasekaran et al. (2007), Morgan (2004), Shepherd et al. (2006), Taticchi et al. (2010), Balfaqih
et al. (2016), Maestrini et al. (2017), evolution of performance measurement at the
organizational level was also reviewed by Kennerley et al. (2002); Neely (2005), Neely et al.
(1995). In the supply chain context for performance measurement different models and
frameworks are applied, with the Balanced Scorecard and SCOR (chain operations reference
model) being the most important approaches used in organizations (Akyuz et al., 2009;
Piotrowicz and Cuthbertson, 2015).
Performance measurement is one of the key management activities within organization
and is integrated with other actions such as planning, organization, motivation and control
(Morgan, 2004). Performance metrics is a “verifiable measure, stated in qualitative or
quantitative term, with respect to a reference point” (Melnyk et al., 2004, p. 211).
Metrics can be grouped into sets and create performance measurement system (Melnyk
et al., 2004). Measures and metrics are necessary for full supply chain integration
(Gunasekaran et al., 2001). Performance measurement provides links between strategy,
execution and value creation (Melnyk et al., 2004). Performance measurement supports
strategy formulation and clarification, management information, vertical and horizontal
communication, decisions making and co-ordination, motivation and learning (Schmitz et al.,
2004); thus the choice of metrics used to supply chain performance measurement is extremely
important (Kim et al., 2012). Differences in the perception of supply chain performance across
companies can lead to conflicting metrics being used in the same supply chain, and to
difficulties in optimizing performance throughout the entire supply chain.
Gunasekaran et al. (2001) distinguished three levels of metrics: strategic, tactical and
operational. Chan et al. (2003) distinguished metrics based on costs, customer responsiveness
and productivity, while Elrod et al. (2013) who differentiated between costs, quality, time and
flexibility.
Neely et al. (2005) define two dimensions related to the assessment of supply chain results:
effectiveness and efficiency. Wu et al. (2014) propose the assessment of the supply chain
including financial and non-financial indicators. Financial indicators are important in
assessing the impact of operational changes on improving the financial condition of
enterprises, while non-financial indicators refer to strategic goals and may relate, to increased
flexibility or reduction of uncertainty (Wu et al., 2014).

2.5 Matching supply chain strategy and external context

Fisher (1997), Christopher and Towill (2000) and Aitken et al. (2003) point that supply chain
strategies must match with product characteristics (product life cycle length, predictability of
demand, product variety and market standards for lead times and service), competitive
strategies and the environment. A lean supply chain concept works well where variety is low,
demand is relatively stable and predictable; it is designed at creating a cost-efficient supply
chain, with a focus on reducing inventory lead times and waste (Agarwal et al., 2006;
Wang et al., 2004). Qi et al. (2009) proved that agile strategy is rather implemented for Framework for
innovative products, while lean rather involves long product life cycle, low profit margin, low measuring
variety and long lead times, and the range in between the values of efficiency versus
responsiveness or lean versus agile can be used to categorize the supply chain into leagile or
leagile supply
hybrid (Birhanu et al., 2014). As stressed by Christopher et al. (2006), it is important to match chain
supply chain strategy and supply chain characteristics, such as lead time (short/long) and
demand characteristics (predictable/unpredictable).
According to Fayezi et al. (2017), supply chain strategy should match various
organizational characteristics of a product (industry, company size, geographical location)
and consider their changes and development. Approaches to the coexistence of lean and agile
strategies in supply chain are dependent on market conditions and operating environment
(Mason-Jones et al., 2000a; Christopher and Towill, 2001; Bruce, 2004; Goldsby, 2006;
Madhani, 2017):
(1) The Pareto (80:20 rule) curve approach with lean strategy for 20% of products (fast-
moving, with stable demand and make-to-stock production) and agile strategy for
80% of products (slow movers, more volatile and make-to-order production);
(2) The de-coupling point approach with lean methods up to the de-coupling point and
agile methods beyond it, assuming based on planning operating cost-effectively
upstream and responsively satisfying customer downstream supply chain with the
postponement of final production until order from a customer is known;
(3) Surge/base demand separation approach based on lean strategy for more
forecastable demand and agile for less predictable demand, cost-effective operation.
A tool to assess the level of supply chain leagility was elaborated by Rahiminezhad
Galankashi and Helmi (2016). The authors as main legality drivers point cost quality service
level and lead-time. The method to calculate Leagility Index could also be found in Banerjee
and Ganjeizadeh (2017).
According to literature, SCPM should be aligned with context in which it operates
(Cuthbertson and Piotrowicz, 2011) and with supply chain strategy (Akyuz et al., 2009; Chan
et al., 2003a; Lambert et al., 2001; Morgan, 2004), thus it is possible to expect that there are
specific metrics to monitor both lean and agile supply chain. Therefore, the following research
question is proposed:
RQ1. What are the main metrics that are applicable in the lean, agile and leagile strategy?

3. Research methodology
The main purpose of the research was to develop the framework for measuring leagile supply
chain performance. The study is based on literature review (Figure 1). The methodology for
the literature review is adapted from Okoli (2015).
First procedure for literature review was elaborated – the choice of databases and criteria for
paper inclusion were settled. In the study, the academic journal articles available in the EBSCO,
Elsevier and Emerald full-text databases were used. The articles containing terms “lean”,
“agile” or “leagile” and “supply chain” in the title, abstract or keywords (using different
combinations) were selected. The peer-reviewed papers, published in English, from 1990 up to
the end of 2020 were chosen. Then titles, keywords, abstracts were checked. This stage enabled
the removal of unrelated literature and reduced the number of articles to 155 (Table 1).
At the next stage, papers were taken for detailed screening. This included identifying and
classifying metrics listed in 62 papers. Then metrics that measure similar performance aspect
were coded, grouped and counted. Afterwards metrics in groups were divided according to
count numbers (number of times when metric was listed as specific for lean or agile supply
IJPPM Research aim:
To develop a framework for measuring leagile
supply chain performance

Procedure of literature review elaboration

• EBSCO, Elsevier and Emerald databases
• Time – 1990-2020
• The articles containing terms “lean”, “agile” or “leagile” and
“supply chain” in the title, abstract or keywords
• Papers in English
• Peer reviewed papers

Papers’ screening and exclusion

• Titles, keywords, abstracts checked for relevancy –
exclusion of papers not related to supply chain measurement
or supply chain strategy
• Duplicates elimination
• Full text reading
• Studying the reference and backward search for papers

Data extraction and synthesis

• Identification of lean, agile and leagile supply chain
indicators and metrics used for lean, agile and leagile
strategy
• Grouping and counting of metrics used for lean, agile and
leagile strategy
Figure 1. • Division of metrics according to number of times when
The methodology
adapted for the study metric was listed as specific for lean or agile supply chain
Figure 1. The methodology adapted for the study

chain). Groups of metrics were then set in order, as presented in the final framework. Findings
were compared with earlier literature on the topic.

4. Framework for measuring leagile supply chain performance

4.1 Performance criteria of lean supply chain
Performance focus of lean was changing over time: in the mid-1990s it was just quality, then
quality, costs and delivery were the point of interest, moving finally to capabilities at the
system level. Metrics concentrate on cost, cost efficiency (Gunasekaran, 1999; Gunasekaran
et al., 2001) or productivity (Kuhlang et al., 2011; Malmbrandt et al., 2013) (Table 1). Arif-Uz-
Zaman et al. (2014) propose such metrics as: profit/piece, effectiveness of master production,
cost of goods, manufacturing cost, overhead cost or total logistic cost. As lean supply chain
emphasis is on waste identification and reduction, such metrics as inventory turnover rate
 Number of articles in databases
Framework for
Searching criteria EBSCO Elsevier Emerald measuring
leagile supply
“Supply chain” AND “agile” or “agile 145 (“agile supply 232 (“supply chain” and 12 (“agile supply
supply chain” in title, abstract or chain” in title or “agile” in title, abstract chain” in title or chain
keywords keywords) or keywords) abstract)
“Supply chain” AND “lean” or “lean 214 (“lean supply 244 (“supply chain and 11 (“lean supply
supply chain” in title, abstract or chain” in title or “lean” in title, abstract chain” in title or
keywords keywords) or keywords) abstract)
“Supply chain” AND “leagile” or 13 (“leagile supply 9 (“supply chain” and 2 (“leagile supply
“leagile supply chain” in title, abstract chain” in title or “leagile” in title, chain” in title or
or keywords keywords) abstract or keywords) abstract)
Published in peer-review journals in 219 397 24
English, to the end of 2020
In total 640
After duplicates elimination 524
Titles, keywords, abstracts checked 155
for relevancy – related to supply chain
strategy or/and supply chain
measurement
After full text reading (agile, lean or 62
leagile supply chain indicators/
metrics identified) and studying the Table 1.
reference and backward search for The steps of creating
papers the literature database

(Gunasekaran et al., 2001; Malmbrandt et al., 2013) or stock level (Govindan et al., 2015;
Malmbrandt et al., 2013) are pointed.
Concentration merely on costs in lean was critiqued by Hines et al. (2004) who stated that
such an approach was misinterpretation of “value” which was perceived as equal to “lower
costs”, while in fact value is composed of both cost reduction and increase in service offered to
customers. Service level and customer satisfaction in lean supply chain are emphasized by
Moyano-Fuentes and Sacrist
an-D
ıaz (2012), Agarwal et al. (2006), Mason-Jones et al. (2000b).
Cost and quality in lean supply chain are underlined by Naylor et al. (1999); Mason-Jones et al.
(2000a); Sukwadi et al. (2013) and Agarwal et al. (2006). Quality is interpreted as measure
related not only to the quality of delivered goods but also to customer satisfaction, buyer–
suppliers relationship level, quality of delivered goods and accuracy of forecasting
techniques (Arif-Uz-Zaman et al., 2014). Arif-Uz-Zaman et al. (2014) also pointed time and
metrics as total cycle time, purchase order cycle time, production time/piece and delivery lead
time as important lean indicators. Lead time is listed by Kuhlang et al. (2011), Malmbrandt
et al. (2013), Naim et al. (2011), Naylor et al. (1999), Sukwadi et al. (2013) and Agarwal
et al. (2006).
Most of the performance metrics of lean have been developed for manufacturing (Sangwa
and Sangwan, 2018). For measuring operational performance in lean services, Malmbrandt
et al. (2013) listed the following: productivity, lead time, inventory turnover rate, quality and
stock level. A positive link between the successful implementation of lean in manufacturing
and usage of non-financial metrics was also identified (Fullerton et al., 2009), as Meade et al.
(2010) pointed the use of lean traditional financial metrics is not enough.

4.2 Performance criteria of agile supply chain

Christopher et al. (2000) listed the following key business indicators in agile supply chain:
quality, lead time, cost and availability. According to Lin et al. (2006), four main capabilities
IJPPM that agile supply chain should include are: responsiveness, competency, flexibility/
adaptability and quickness/speed. Responsiveness is defined as sensing, anticipating
changes, the ability to identify, respond to and recover from changes quickly and reactively
(Fayezi et al., 2017; Zhang and Sharifi, 2000; Aitken et al., 2005; Tarafdar and Qrunfleh, 2017;
Khalili-Damghani and Madjid Tavana, 2013; Gurahoo and Salisbury, 2018). Frequently (and
sometimes interchangeably to responsiveness) mentioned are alertness, – defined as the
ability to quickly detect changes, opportunities and threats (Gligor et al., 2013; Li et al., 2008) –
quickness/speed – the ability to complete an activity as quickly as possible (Christopher,
2000; Zhang and Sharifi, 2000) – or swiftness, understood as the ability to implement
decisions quickly (Gligor et al., 2013). These indicators of the agile supply chain enable its
flexibility, – scope, time and cost, re-configurability (Fayezi et al., 2017) or, in longer
perspective, adaptability – the ability to sense long-term, fundamental changes in the supply
chain and market environment (Eckstein et al., 2015).
Agility was initially described based on speed and an efficient response to changes and
uncertainties; additional dimensions such as quality, knowledge management and
cooperation were added later (Rimien_e, 2011). The indicator of opportunity seeking long-
term success of the agile supply chain is named as proactiveness (Fayezi et al., 2017). Some
authors (Khalili-Damghani and Madjid Tavana, 2013; Gligor et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2006;
Naylor et al., 1999; Yusuf et al., 2014; Mason-Jones et al., 2000a, b) claim that agility is primarily
tied to service level, customer sensitivity, customer satisfaction or the extent to which
customer-related objectives have been met (customer effectiveness) and could be achieved,
e.g. “by understanding, analyzing and managing customer expectations, and effectively and
efficiently dealing with complaints” (Al Kahtani et al., 2019).
Joint planning, process integration, close relationships and open communication in agile
supply chain are a priority. Agile supply chain needs access to relevant information
characterized by wide communication, information sharing and high level of information
systems and technology usage (Tarafdar and Qrunfleh, 2017; Fayezi et al., 2017; Gurahoo and
Salisbury, 2018; Lin et al., 2006; Mirghafoori et al., 2017). Level of information sharing could be
measured by types of information shared between supply chain partners, such as demand,
inventory levels and forecasts (Yang and Zhang, 2013). The level of sharing the data and
technology usage – based on bar codes or RFID, big data or business analytics – is crucial
(Szymczak et al., 2018) and should be monitored and measured. Data accessibility (Gligor and
Holcomb, 2012; Gligor et al., 2013), real-time date exchange (Ahn et al., 2012), information
integration (Khalili-Damghani and Madjid Tavana, 2013) and visibility (Braunscheidel and
Suresh, 2009) are also the agile supply chain indicators. High level of information sharing
with supply chain partners is supporting; market trends monitoring, quicker response to
changing demands, as well as planning and introduction of new products and services
(Tarafdar and Qrunfleh, 2017). Information sharing is desirable for lean supply chain but it is
obligatory for agile supply chain (Mason-Jones et al., 2000a).

4.3 Comparing performance focus of lean and agile supply chain

Table 2 presents performance dimensions and metrics proposed in literature (listed in 62
papers) for lean and agile supply chains. Based on the metrics distributed in the table, it is
possible to observe that some of them are specific only to one of the strategies. Metrics
dominant in lean supply chain include productivity, inventory turnover rate, inventory level,
cost (notably cost of goods, manufacturing cost or total logistic cost), profitability and
efficiency. Metrics characteristic for agile strategy are even more pronounced. Competency,
responsiveness, decisiveness, alertness, quickness, market sensitivity, innovativeness,
flexibility, cooperation, information sharing, integration and data accessibility are
widespread. Metrics for both agile and lean are overlapping and include lead time, quality,
service level or customer satisfaction.
 Metric Lean Agile Framework for
measuring
Productivity Productivity van Hoek et al. Al Kahtani et al. (2019)
(2001) leagile supply
Kuhlang et al. chain
(2011)
Malmbrandt et al.
(2013)
Organizational productivity (time and cost) Al Kahtani et al. (2019)
Inventory Inventory turnover rate Gunasekaran et al.
(2001)
Malmbrandt et al.
(2013)
Marodin et al. (2017)
Inventory/stock level Melton (2005)
Ugochukwu et al.
(2012)
Malmbrandt et al.
(2013)
Govindan et al.
(2015)
Frazzon et al. (2017)
Tortorella et al.
(2018)
Inventory/stock management Packowski and Khan et al. (2009)
Francas (2013)
Availability Christopher et al. (2000)
Time Order cycle time Gunasekaran
(2001)
Total cycle time Arif-Uz-Zaman Swafford (2008)
et al. (2014)
Time (production and technology preparation time, Khalili-Damghani and
period of manufacturing, speed of products design Madjid Tavana (2013)
and short development cycle time)
Time (total cycle time, purchase order cycle time, Arif-Uz-Zaman
production time/piece, delivery lead time) et al. (2014)
Afonso et al. (2015)
Lead time Naylor et al. (1999) Naylor et al. (1999)
Mason-Jones et al. Christopher et al. (2000)
(2000a) Mason-Jones et al. (2000a)
Christopher and Christopher and Towill
Towill (2001) (2001)
Melton (2005) Swafford (2008)
Agarwal et al. Naim et al. (2011)
(2006) Aronsson et al. (2011)
Kuhlang et al.
(2011)
Naim et al. (2011)
Malmbrandt et al.
(2013)
Sukwadi et al.
(2013)
Arif-Uz-Zaman
et al. (2014)
Frazzon et al. (2017)
Packowski and
Francas (2013)
Supply lead time Tortorella et al.
(2018) Table 2.
Lean and agile and
(continued ) supply chain metrics
IJPPM Metric Lean Agile

Quality Quality Naylor et al. (1999) Yusuf et al. (1999)

Mason-Jones et al. Naylor et al. (1999)
(2000a) Christopher et al. (2000)
van Hoek et al. Mason-Jones et al. (2000a)
(2001) Naim et al. (2011)
Hines et al. (2004) Yusuf et al. (2014)
Melton (2005) Rahimi et al. (2020)
Agarwal et al.
(2006)
Fening et al. (2008)
Wee and Wu (2009)
Naim et al. (2011)
Ugochukwu et al.
(2012)
Malmbrandt et al.
(2013)
Sukwadi et al.
(2013)
Afonso et al. (2015)
Govindan et al.
(2015)
Marodin et al. (2017)
Gurahoo and
Salisbury (2018)
Tortorella et al.
(2018)
Product quality Christopher and Christopher and Towill
Towill (2001) (2001)
Quality (quality over product life, first time right Khalili-Damghani and
decision, and products and services with high Madjid Tavana (2013)
information and value-added contents)
Quality (customer satisfaction, buyer–suppliers Arif-Uz-Zaman
relationship level, quality of delivered goods and et al. (2014)
accuracy of forecasting techniques)
Delivery Delivery capability Hines et al. (2004) Swafford (2008)
Yusuf et al. (2014)
Delivery time Ugochukwu et al.
(2012)
Delivery performance Thanki and
Thakkar (2018)
Delivery service level Frazzon et al. (2017)
Tortorella et al.
(2018)
Customer service Service level Mason-Jones et al. Naylor et al. (1999)
level (2000a)
Hines et al. (2004) Mason-Jones et al. (2000a)
Melton (2005) Christopher and Towill
(2001)
Agarwal et al. Swafford (2008)
(2006)
Moyano-Fuentes Kumar et al. (2019)
et al. (2012)
Packowski and Aronsson et al. (2011)
Francas (2013)
Service level (customer satisfaction, employee Khalili-Damghani and
satisfaction and customer enrichment) Madjid Tavana (2013)
Wu (2017)

Table 2. (continued )
 Metric Lean Agile
Framework for
measuring
Customer satisfaction Mason-Jones et al. Mason-Jones et al. (2000b)
(2000b) Patel et al. (2017)
leagile supply
Gunasekaran chain
(2001)
Moyano-Fuentes
et al. (2012)
Ugochukwu et al.
(2012)
Customer effectiveness Gligor et al. (2015)
Cost Cost Naylor et al. (1999) Christopher et al. (2000)
Mason-Jones et al. Mason-Jones et al. (2000a)
(2000a) Khalili-Damghani and
Gunasekaran et al. Madjid Tavana (2013)
(2001)
Christopher and
Towill (2001)
Hines et al. (2004)
Melton (2005)
Agarwal et al.
(2006)
Aronsson et al.
(2011)
Ugochukwu et al.
(2012)
Sukwadi et al.
(2013)
Afonso et al. (2015)
Thanki and
Thakkar (2018)
Kumar et al. (2019)
Cost (cost of goods, manufacturing cost, overhead Arif-Uz-Zaman
cost, total logistic cost and price) et al. (2014)
Costs with supply and raw material Tortorella et al.
(2018)
Product cost Wee and Wu (2009)
Efficiency Effectiveness of master production Arif-Uz-Zaman
et al. (2014)
Efficiency/cost efficiency Gunasekaran Gunasekaran (1999)
(1999)
Gunasekaran et al.
(2001)
Frazzon et al. (2017)
Ugochukwu et al.
(2012)
Profitability Profit/piece Arif-Uz-Zaman
et al. (2014)
Profitability Thanki and
Thakkar (2018)
Competency Competency Zhang and Sharifi (2000)
Lin et al. (2006)
Jain et al. (2008)
Khalili-Damghani and
Madjid Tavana (2013)
Mehralian et al. (2015)

(continued ) Table 2.
IJPPM Metric Lean Agile

Responsiveness/ Decisiveness Gligor et al. (2013)

Alertness Alertness Gligor et al. (2013)
Responsiveness Christopher et al. (2004)
Christopher et al. (2006)
Lin et al. (2006)
Narasimhan et al. (2006)
Jain et al. (2008)
Swafford (2008)
Braunscheidel et al.
(2009)
Khalili-Damghani and
Madjid Tavana (2013)
Mehralian et al. (2015)
Matawale et al. (2016)
Fayezi et al. (2017)
Tarafdar and Qrunfleh
(2017)
Responsiveness/alertness Gunasekaran Gunasekaran (1999)
(1999) Zhang and Sharifi (2000)
Aitken et al. (2005)
Li et al. (2008)
Li et al. (2009)
Sukwadi et al. (2013)
Fayezi et al. (2017)
Gurahoo and Salisbury
(2018)
Visibility and velocity Saeed et al. (2019)
Quickness/speed Quick response Gunasekaran et al.
(2001)
Quickness/speed Christopher (2000)
Zhang and Sharifi (2000)
Lin et al. (2006)
Jain et al. (2008)
Yusuf et al. (2014)
Mirghafoori et al. (2017)
Gurahoo and Salisbury
(2018)
Rahimi et al. (2020)
Quickness/swiftness Khalili-Damghani and
Madjid Tavana (2013)
Mehralian et al. (2015)
Fayezi et al. (2017)
Gligor et al. (2013)
Swiftness Gligor et al. (2013)
Customer/market Customer/market sensitivity Lin et al. (2006)
sensitivity Khalili-Damghani and
Madjid Tavana (2013)
Patel et al. (2017)
Al Kahtani et al. (2019)
Customization Narasimhan et al. (2006)
Swafford (2008)
Innovativeness/new product introduction Narasimhan et al. (2006)
Swafford (2008)
Yusuf et al. (2014)
Rahimi et al. (2020)

Table 2. (continued )
 Metric Lean Agile
Framework for
measuring
Flexibility/ Flexibility Ugochukwu et al. Christopher et al. (2004)
adaptability (2012) Aitken et al. (2005)
leagile supply
Christopher et al. (2006) chain
Lin et al. (2006)
Narasimhan et al. (2006)
Khan et al. (2009)
Aronsson et al. (2011)
Costantino et al. (2012)
Gligor et al. (2013)
Sukwadi et al. (2013)
Khalili-Damghani and
Madjid Tavana (2013)
Arif-Uz-Zaman et al.
(2014)
Mehralian et al. (2015)
Matawale et al. (2016)
Fayezi et al. (2017)
Mirghafoori et al. (2017)
Patel et al. (2017)
Tarafdar and Qrunfleh
(2017)
Gurahoo and Salisbury
(2018)
Rahimi et al. (2020)
Flexibility/adaptability Zhang and Sharifi (2000)
Jain et al. (2008)
Tarafdar and Qrunfleh
(2017)
Patel et al. (2017)
Fayezi et al. (2017)
Adaptiveness/adaptability Tarafdar and Qrunfleh
(2017)
Patel et al. (2017)
Fayezi et al. (2017)
Proactiveness Yusuf et al. (2014)
Fayezi et al. (2017)
Cooperation/ Cooperation/Collaboration Kisperska-Moro
n and
collaboration

Swieczek (2009)
Khan et al. (2009)
Khalili-Damghani and
Madjid Tavana (2013)
Mirghafoori et al. (2017)
Fayezi et al. (2017)
Patel et al. (2017)
Wu (2017)
Gurahoo and Salisbury
(2018)
Coordination, joint Collaborative relationship Khalili-Damghani and
planning Madjid Tavana (2013)
Patel et al. (2017)
Coordination Gligor and Holcomb
(2012)
Coordination, joint planning Braunscheidel and
Suresh (2009)
Alignment Christopher et al. (2004)
Integration Process integration Lin et al. (2006)
Khalili-Damghani and
Madjid Tavana (2013)
Mirghafoori et al. (2017)
Wu (2017)
Al Kahtani et al. (2019)

(continued ) Table 2.
IJPPM Metric Lean Agile

Strategic alliances Wu (2017)

Relationship level Arif-Uz-Zaman
et al. (2014)
Network integration Al Kahtani et al. (2019)
Information sharing/ Information accuracy Gunasekaran et al.
integrity (2001)
Information sharing Christopher et al. (2004)
Ahn et al. (2012)
Gurahoo and Salisbury
(2018)
Information integration Khalili-Damghani and
Madjid Tavana (2013)
Wu (2017)
Communication Gligor and Holcomb
(2012)
Information system/ Data accessibility Braunscheidel and
technology Suresh (2009)
Gligor et al. (2013)
Information technology Patel et al. (2017)
Al Kahtani et al. (2019)
Information system/technology Tarafdar and Qrunfleh
(2017)
Fayezi et al. (2017)
Table 2. Information integration (infrastructure) Lin et al. (2006)

In the next step metrics that measure similar performance aspect were grouped and counted
(Figure 2). It is possible to notice that there are metrics groups such as:
(1) Cost, Profitability, Productivity, Efficiency, Inventory Management and Delivery-
based dominant for lean (with Cost and Inventory Management the most meaningful);
(2) Time, Quality and Customer-based metrics (including customer satisfaction and
service level), common for both lean and agile;
(3) Metrics related to Responsiveness/alertness, Competency, Market sensitivity,
Quickness/speed, Flexibility/Adaptability, Information sharing and Information
technologies, Integration, Coordination and Cooperation, dominant for agile (pointing
Flexibility/Adaptability and Responsiveness/alertness as the most noticeable).
Usage of all the metrics that are lean and agile specific, together with common metrics, allows
to measure lean and agile parts of supply chain – the leagile supply chain.
Characteristics of the metrics (Figure 3) are also changing; lean-oriented metrics are
focused more on internal processes and on products, cost and productivity; as a result metrics
are tangible and are given as financial value, cost or time. Such metrics are possible to be
calculated using internal company data collected from process measurement and accounting
systems. On the opposite scale are agile-related metrics – those are frequently softer,
intangible, more difficult to capture within organization, as they require analysis of the views
of suppliers and customers. Agile-related performance is harder to control as it relies on
changes in external environment, the market and changes in customer needs. Common for
both lean and agile metrics could be a combination of hard, internal metrics, possible to be
measured by organization (quality of products and services, time); however, this also requires
the comparison of the customer perception to monitor how time quality and customer service
delivered are perceived by customers. Service/lead time, quality and customer service levels
offered by organization should match those expected by customers. Adopting metrics from
lean and agile is possible to measure leagile supply chain.
 Framework for
measuring
leagile supply
chain

Figure 2.
Metrics for lean and
agile supply chain,
frequency in literature

The selection of metrics to measure, monitor and assess supply chain performance is
determined by strategy, processes and external environment (context), which is summarized
in the framework that illustrates links between, lean, agile and leagile (Figure 3).
According to Qi et al. (2009), lean and agile strategies always complement each other. As
Fadaki et al. (2019) stressed, all supply chains are in fact leagile, with different magnitudes of
leanness and agility, and measurement should comprise a spectrum between the extremes of
purely lean and purely agile supply chain, with a mid-point representing a leagile supply
chain, whereby attention to both leanness and agility of a chain will result in larger profits.
Borgstr€om and Hertz (2011, p. 364) indicate that “pure lean and agile strategies have
constraints in a complex setting” and, as supply chains change over time, sometimes it is
necessary to shift the strategic focus.
Kisperska-Moron and De Haan (2011) concluded that it is hard to find “pure” lean or agile
system, and companies are pursuing a mix of both approaches, additionally adjusting them
to current market conditions. Some authors believe that lean strategy is a phase that may lead
to agility (Mason-Jones, 2000; Madhani, 2017; Narasimhan et al., 2006), or that it is a necessary
prelude to agility (Jin-Hai et al., 2003). Lean strategy efficiency “has to be supplemented with
agility” in the contexts of short response times, high product and service variety (van Hoek
et al., 2001). According to Aitken et al. (2005), “while leanness may be an element of agility in
IJPPM

Figure 3.
Framework for
measuring leagile
supply chain
performance

certain circumstances, by itself it will not enable the organization to meet the precise the needs
of the customer more rapidly”.

5. Conclusions and future research

This paper, based on literature review, analysed and synthesized knowledge related to lean,
agile and leagile supply chain performance metrics. Performance measurement should be
able to reflect and monitor performance and strategy implementation. The selection of
metrics to measure, monitor and assess supply chain performance is determined by strategy,
processes and external environment (context), which is summarized in the framework that
illustrates links between, lean, agile and leagile.
The most meaningful and associated with lean strategy is set of metrics related to cost and
inventory management and further linked to the assessment of profitability, productivity,
efficiency and delivery. In case of agile strategy, the most common are metrics related to the
assessment of supply chain flexibility or adaptability, its alertness and responsiveness.
Flexibility is defined by Beamon (1999) as ability to change delivery, product mix and
volumes. The noticeable is also the need to include in the measurement system metrics related
to information sharing, coordination, process integration and level of cooperation in
supply chain.
This paper is extending the knowledge on supply chain performance measurement,
identifying the main metrics that are applicable in the lean, agile and leagile strategy. The
paper contributes to theory by analysing and summarizing previous research and proposing
the theoretical framework for measuring lean, agile and leagile supply chain. The framework
could be tested using empirical data; it could be also applied in practice.

5.1 Practical implications

The framework proposed in this paper presents the set of key metrics for leagile supply chain,
which could be used as starting point to design organizational and then supply chain
performance system. However, in each case there is need to adjust detailed metrics to external Framework for
environment. Findings also indicate that it is possible for organizations to merge both measuring
strategies, agile and lean, matching them with their customers and products, then monitor
performance. In the single supply chain different companies are frequently using different
leagile supply
performance metrics, the use of the joint metrics, as indicated in the framework, will allow to chain
monitor end-to-end supply chain performance, also in the situation when within the same
supply chain some companies are applying lean, other agile strategy.

5.2 Limitations and future research

This work is based on literature review without empirical research, which is shortcoming.
Moreover, there is a limited number of papers published that are presenting leagile metrics in
detail. Within papers included in the review also were those which were discussing
performance at generic level, as performance criteria, not measures that can be applied in
practice. From the review also “grey” literature, such as commercial and industrial reports
and commercial performance measurement solutions were excluded. To validate the
framework and metrics, further research should test and adjust proposed solution, applying
both approach for an in-depth analysis of selected chains. Future studies could be designed as
comparative cross-case analysis. There are several dimensions that could be used: looking at
different industries, e.g. automotive (associated with lean design) versus fast fashion (agile) or
the comparison of manufacturing versus services or different process designs (from projects,
via batch to mass production), agility and lean could be also studied in the non-commercial
settings, such as humanitarian logistics (immediate response vs reconstruction disaster
management cycle phases). As the performance metrics and strategy selection are influenced
by external context, further work should investigate such linkage, e.g. applying contingency
theory. Another option is to employ a quantitative approach, where a large-scale survey could
be used to look at performance metrics, strategy, product, environment and relationships
between them. Systems dynamics models could be applied to look at interrelation between all
variables.

References
Afonso, H. and do Ros
ario Cabrita, M. (2015), “Developing a lean supply chain performance
framework in a SME: a perspective based on the balanced scorecard”, Procedia Engineering,
Vol. 131, pp. 270-279.
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2006), “Modeling the metrics of lean, agile and leagile
supply chain: an ANP-based approach”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 173
No. 1, pp. 211-225.
Ahn, H.J., Chiderhouse, P., Vossen, G. and Lee, H. (2012), “Rethinking XML-enabled agile supply
chains”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 17-23.
Aitken, J., Childerhouse, P., Christopher, M. and Towill, D. (2005), “Designing and managing multiple
pipelines”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26, pp. 73-96.
Aitken, J., Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D. (2003), “The impact of product life cycle on supply chain
strategy”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 85 No. 2, pp. 127-140.
Akyuz, G.K. and Erkan, T.E. (2009), “Supply chain performance measurement: a literature review”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 17, pp. 1-19.
Al Kahtani, M., Rehman, A.U., Al-Zabidi, A. and Choudhary, A. (2019), “Agile supply chain
assessment: an empirical study on concepts, research and issues”, Arabian Journal for Science
and Engineering, Vol. 44, pp. 2551-2565.
Arif-Uz-Zaman, K. and Nazmul Ahsan, A.M.M. (2014), “Lean supply chain performance
measurement”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63
No. 5, pp. 588-612.
IJPPM Arlbjørn, J.S. and Freytag, P.V. (2013), “Evidence of lean: a review of international peer-reviewed
journal articles”, European Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 174-205.
Aronsson, H., Abrahamsson, M. and Spens, K. (2011), “Developing lean and agile health care supply
chains”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 176-183, doi: 10.1108/
13598541111127164.
Backhouse, C. and Burns, N. (1999), “Agile value chains for manufacturing-implications for
performance measures”, International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 1 No. 2,
pp. 76-82.
Balfaqih, H., Nopiah, Z.M., Saibani, N. and Al-Nory, M.T. (2016), “Review of supply chain performance
measurement systems: 1998–2015”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 82, pp. 135-150.
Banerjee, A. and Ganjeizadeh, F. (2017), “Modeling a leagility index for supply chain sustenance”,
Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 11, pp. 996-1003.
Beamon, B.M. (1999), “Measuring supply chain performance”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 19 Nos 3-4, pp. 275-292.
Bernardes, E.S. and Hanna, M.D. (2009), “A theoretical review of flexibility, agility and responsiveness
in the operations management literature: toward a conceptual definition of customer
responsiveness”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 30-53.
Birhanu, D., Lanka, K. and Rao, A.N. (2014), “A survey of classifications in supply chain strategies”,
Procedia Engineering, Vol. 97, pp. 2289-2297.
Borgstr€om, B. and Hertz, S. (2011), “Supply chain strategies: changes in customer order-based
production”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 32, pp. 361-373.
Braunscheidel, M.J. and Suresh, N.C. (2009), “The organizational antecedents of a firm’s supply chain
agility for risk mitigation and response”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 119-140.
Brown, J.L. and Agnew, N.M. (1982), “Corporate agility”, Business Horizons, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 29-33.
Bruce, M., Daly, L. and Towers, N. (2004), “Lean or agile: a solution for supply chain management in
the textiles and clothing industry?”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 151-170.
Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2011), “Integrating lean, agile, resilience and green paradigms in
supply chain management (LARG_SCM)”, Supply Chain Management, IntechOpen, pp. 27-48.
Chan, F.T.S. and Qi, H.J. (2003), “An innovative performance measurement method for supply chain
management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 209-223.
Chan, F.T.S., Qi, H.J., Chan, H.K., Lau, H.C.W. and Ip, R.W.L. (2003), “A conceptual model of
performance measurement for supply chains”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 7,
pp. 635-642.
Christopher, M. (2000), “The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 29, pp. 37-44.
Christopher, M., Lowson, R. and Peck, H. (2004), “Creating agile supply chains in the fashion
industry”, International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 32 No. 8,
pp. 367-376, doi: 10.1108/09590550410546188.
Christopher, M., Peck, H. and Towill, D. (2006), “A taxonomy for selecting global supply chain
strategies”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 277-287.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2000), “Supply chain migration from lean and functional to agile and
customised”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 206-213.
Christopher, M. and Towill, D.R. (2001), “An integrated model for the design of agile supply chains”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 235-246, doi: 10.1108/09600030110394914.
Ciccullo, F., Pero, M., Caridi, M., Gosling, J. and Purvis, L. (2018), “Integrating the environmental and Framework for
social sustainability pillars into the lean and agile supply chain management strategies: a
literature review and future research directions”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 172, measuring
pp. 2336-2350. leagile supply
Costantino, N., Dotoli, M., Falagario, M., Fanti, M.P. and Mangini, A.M. (2012), “A model for supply chain
management of agile manufacturing supply chains”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 451-457.
Cuthbertson, R. and Piotrowicz, W. (2011), “Performance measurement systems in supply chains: a
framework for contextual analysis”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 60 No. 6, pp. 583-602.
Eckstein, D., Goellner, M., Blome, C. and Henke, M. (2015), “The performance impact of supply chain
agility and supply chain adaptability: the moderating effect of product complexity”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 3028-3046.
Elrod, C., Murray, S.P.E. and Bande, S. (2013), “A review of performance metrics for supply chain
management”, Engineering Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 39-50.
Fadaki, M., Rahman, S. and Chan, C. (2019), “Quantifying the degree of supply chain leagility and
assessing its impact on firm performance”, Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 246-264.
Fayezi, S., Zutshi, A. and O’Loughlin, A. (2017), “Understanding and development of supply chain
agility and flexibility: a structured literature review”, International Journal of Management
Reviews, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 379-407, doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12096.
Fening, F.A., Pesakovic, G. and Amaria, P. (2008), “Relationship between quality management
practices and the performance of small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) in Ghana”,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 694-708.
Fisher, M.L. (1997), “What is the right supply chain for your product?”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 75, pp. 105-117.
Frazzon, E., Tortorella, G.L., D
avalos, R., Holtz, T. and Coelho, L. (2017), “Simulation-based analysis of
a supplier-manufacturer relationship in lean supply chains”, International Journal of Lean Six
Sigma, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 262-274, doi: 10.1108/IJLSS-03-2016-0009.
Fullerton, R.R. and Wempe, W.F. (2009), “Lean manufacturing, non-financial performance measures,
and financial performance”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 214-240.
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L. and Holcomb, M.C. (2015), “Performance outcomes of supply chain agility:
when should you be agile?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vols 33-34, pp. 71-82.
Gligor, D.M. and Holcomb, M.C. (2012), “Understanding the role of logistics capabilities in achieving
supply chain agility: a systematic literature review”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 438-453.
Gligor, D., Holcomb, M. and Stank, T. (2013), “A multidisciplinary approach to supply chain
agility: conceptualization and scale development”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 34
No. 2, pp. 94-108, doi: 10.1111/jbl.12012.
Goldsby, T.J., Griffis, S.E. and Roath, A.S. (2006), “Modeling lean, agile, and leagile supply chain
strategies”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 57-80.
Gopal, P. and Thakkar, J. (2012), “A review on supply chain performance measures and metrics: 2000–
2011”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 61 No. 5,
pp. 518-547.
Govindan, K., Azevedo, S.G., Carvalho, H. and Cruz-Machado, V. (2015), “Lean, green and resilient
practices influence on supply chain performance: interpretive structural modeling approach”,
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 12, pp. 15-34.
Gunasekaran, A. (1999), “Agile manufacturing: a framework for research and development”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 87-105.
IJPPM Gunasekaran, A. and Kobu, B. (2007), “Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply
chain management: a review of recent literature (1995–2004) for research and applications”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 12, pp. 2819-2840.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E. (2001), “Performance measures and metrics in a supply
chain environment”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21
Nos 1-2, pp. 71-87.
Gurahoo, N. and Salisbury, R.H. (2018), “Lean and agile in small- and medium-sized enterprises:
complementary or incompatible”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 1.
Hines, P., Holweg, M. and Rich, N. (2004), “Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean
thinking”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10,
pp. 994-1011.
Holweg, M. (2007), “The genealogy of lean production”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 420-437.
Huang, Y.-Y. and Li, S.-J. (2009), “Tracking the evolution of research issues on agility”, Asia Pacific
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 107-129.
Jain, V., Benyoucef, L. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008), “What’s the buzz about moving from ‘lean’to
‘agile’integrated supply chains? A fuzzy intelligent agent-based approach”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 23, pp. 6649-6677, doi: 10.1080/00207540802230462.
Jasti, N.V.K. and Kodali, R. (2015), “A critical review of lean supply chain management frameworks:
proposed framework”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 26 No. 13, pp. 1051-1068.
Jin-Hai, L., Anderson, A.R. and Harrison, R.T. (2003), “The evolution of agile manufacturing”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 170-189, doi: 10.1108/14637150310468380.
Kennerley, M. and Neely, A. (2002), “A framework of the factors affecting the evolution of
performance measurement systems”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 22 No. 11, pp. 1222-1245.
Khalili-Damghani, K. and Tavana, M. (2013), “A new fuzzy network data envelopment analysis model
for measuring the performance of agility in supply chains”, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 69, pp. 291-318.
Khan, K.A., Bakkappa, B., Metri, B.A. and Sahay, B.S. (2009), “Impact of agile supply chains’ delivery
practices on firms’ performance: cluster analysis and validation”, Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 41-48.
Kim, K.K., Umanath, N.S., Kim, J.Y., Ahrensc, F. and Kim, B. (2012), “Knowledge complementarity and
knowledge exchange in supply channel relationships”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 32, pp. 35-49.
Kisperska-Moron, D. and De Haan, J. (2011), “Improving supply chain performance to satisfy final
customers: ‘leagile’ experiences of a polish distributor”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 127-134.
Kisperska-Moron, D. and Swierczek, A. (2009), “The agile capabilities of polish companies in the
supply chain: an empirical study”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 118,
pp. 217-224.
Krafcik, J.F. (1988), “Triumph of the lean production system”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 30
No. 1, pp. 41-51.
Kuhlang, P., Edtmayr, T. and Sihn, W. (2011), “Methodical approach to increase productivity and
reduce lead time in assembly and production-logistic processes”, CIRP Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 24-32.
Kumar, M., Garg, D. and Agarwal, A. (2019), “Cause and effect analysis of inventory management in
leagile supply chain”, Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, p. 67.
Lambert, D. and Pohlen, T. (2001), “Supply chain metrics”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Li, X., Chung, C., Goldsby, T.J. and Holsapple, C.W. (2008), “A unified model of supply chain agility: Framework for
the work-design perspective”, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 408-435. measuring
Li, X., Goldsby, T.J. and Holsapple, C.W. (2009), “Supply chain agility: scale development”,
leagile supply
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 408-424. chain
Lin, C.-T., Chiu, H. and Chu, P.-Y. (2006), “Agility index in the supply chain”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 285-299.
Madhani, P.M. (2017), “Supply chain strategy selection: a multi-criteria decision-making approach”,
The IUP Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 38-56.
Maestrini, V., Luzzini, D., Caniato, F., Maccarrone, P. and Ronchi, S. (2018), “Measuring supply chain
performance: a lifecycle framework and a case study”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 934-956.
Maestrini, V., Luzzini, D., Maccarrone, P. and Caniato, F. (2017), “Supply chain performance
measurement systems: a systematic review and research agenda”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 183, pp. 299-315.
Malmbrandt, M. and  Ahlstr€om, P. (2013), “An instrument for assessing lean service adoption”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 1131-1165.
Marodin, G.A., Tortorella, G.L., Frank, A.G. and Godinho Filho, M. (2017), “The moderating effect of
lean supply chain management on the impact of lean shop floor practices on quality and
inventory”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 473-485.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D.R. (2000a), “Engineering the leagile supply chain”,
International Journal of Agile Management Systems, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 54-61.
Mason-Jones, R., Naylor, B. and Towill, D.R. (2000b), “Lean, agile or leagile? Matching your supply
chain to the marketplace”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 38 No. 17,
pp. 4061-4070.
Matawale, C.R., Datta, S. and Mahapatra, S.S. (2016), “Supplier selection in agile supply chain:
application potential of FMLMCDM approach in comparison with fuzzy-TOPSIS and fuzzy-
MOORA”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 2027-2060, doi: 10.1108/
BIJ-07-2015-0067.
Meade, D., Kumar, S. and White, B. (2010), “Analysing the impact of the implementation of lean
manufacturing strategies on profitability”, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 61
No. 5, pp. 858-871.
Mehralian, G., Zarenezhad, F. and Rajabzadeh Ghatari, A. (2015), “Developing a model for an agile
supply chain in pharmaceutical industry”, International Journal of Pharmaceutical and
Healthcare Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 74-91, doi: 10.1108/IJPHM-09-2013-0050.
Melnyk, A.S., Steward, D.M. and Swink, M. (2004), “Metrics and performance measurement in
operations management: dealing with the metrics maze”, Journal of Operations Management,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 209-217.
Melton, T. (2005), “The benefits of lean manufacturing: what lean thinking has to offer the process
industries”, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, Vol. 83 No. 6, pp. 662-673.
Mirghafoori, S.H., Andalib, D. and Keshavarz, P. (2017), “Developing green performance through
supply chain agility in manufacturing industry: a case study approach”, Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 368-381.
Morgan, C. (2004), “Structure, speed and salience: performance measurement in the supply chain”,
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 522-536.
Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Sacrist
an-D
ıaz, M. (2012), “Learning on lean: a review of thinking and
research”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 551-582.
IJPPM Naim, M.M. and Gosling, J. (2011), “On leanness, agility and leagile supply chains”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 131 No. 1, pp. 342-354.
Narasimhan, R., Swink, M. and Kim, S.W. (2006), “Disentangling leanness and agility: an empirical
investigation”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 440-457.
Naylor, J.B., Naim, M.M. and Berry, D. (1999), “Leagility: integrating the lean and agile manufacturing
strategies in the total supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 107-118.
Neely, A. (2005), “The evolution of performance measurement research. Developments in the last
decade and a research agenda for the next”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 1264-1277.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995), “Performance measurement system design: a literature
review and research agenda”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 80-116.
Okoli, C. (2015), “A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review”, Communications
of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 37, pp. 879-910.
Packowski, J. and Francas, D. (2013), “Lean SCM : a paradigm shift in supply chain management”,
Journal of Business Chemistry, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 131-213.
Patel, B.S., Samuel, C. and Sharma, S.K. (2017), “Evaluation of agility in supply chains: a case study of
an Indian manufacturing organization”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 212-231, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-09-2016-0125.
Piotrowicz, W. and Cuthbertson, R. (2015), “Performance measurement and metrics in supply chains:
an exploratory study”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 64 No. 8, pp. 1068-1091.
Qi, Y., Boyer, K.K. and Zhao, X. (2009), “Supply chain strategy, product characteristics, and
performance impact: evidence from Chinese manufacturers”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 40,
pp. 667-695.
Rahimi, A., Raad, A., Alem Tabriz, A. and Motameni, A. (2020), “Providing an interpretive structural
model of agile supply chain practices”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 15 No. 2,
pp. 661-684, doi: 10.1108/JM2-09-2018-0142.
Rahiminezhad Galankashi, M. and Helmi, S.A. (2016), “Assessment of hybrid lean-agile (leagile)
supply chain strategies”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 470-482, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-08-2015-0069.
Rimien_e, K. (2011), “Supply chain agility concept evolution (1990–2010)”, Economics and Management,
Vol. 16, pp. 892-899.
Saeed, K.A., Malhotra, M.K. and Abdinnour, S. (2019), “How supply chain architecture and product
architecture impact firm performance: an empirical examination”, Journal of Purchasing and
Supply Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 40-52.
Sangwa, N.R. and Sangwan, K.S. (2018), “Development of an integrated performance measurement
framework for lean organizations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 41-84.
Schmitz, J. and Platts, K. (2004), “Supplier logistics performance measurement: indications from a study in
the automotive industry”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 231-243.
Shepherd, C. and Gunter, H. (2006), “Measuring supply chain: current research and future directions”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 Nos 3/4, pp. 242-258.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2008), “Design for supply chain collaboration”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 401-418, doi: 10.1108/14637150810876698.
Stone, K.B. (2012), “Four decades of lean: a systematic literature review”, International Journal of Lean
Six Sigma, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 112-132.
Sukwadi, R., Wee, H.-M. and Yang, C.-C. (2013), “Supply chain performance based on the lean–agile Framework for
operations and supplier–firm partnership: an empirical study on the garment industry in
Indonesia”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 51, pp. 297-311. measuring
Swafford, P.M., Ghosh, S. and Murthy, N. (2008), “Achieving supply chain agility through IT
leagile supply
integration and flexibility”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 116 No. 2, chain
pp. 288-297.
Szymczak, M., Ryciuk, U., Leo
nczuk, D., Piotrowicz, W., Witkowski, K., Nazarko, J. and Jakuszewicz, J.
(2018), “Key factors for information integration in the supply chain – measurement, technology
and information characteristics”, Journal of Business Economics and Management, Vol. 19 No. 5,
pp. 759-776.
Tarafdar, M. and Qrunfleh, S. (2017), “Agile supply chain strategy and supply chain performance:
complementary roles of supply chain practices and information systems capability for agility”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 925-938.
Taticchi, P., Tonelli, F. and Cagnazzo, L. (2010), “Performance measurement and management: a
literature review and a research agenda”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 4-18.
Thanki, S. and Thakkar, J. (2018), “A quantitative framework for lean and green assessment of supply
chain performance”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management,
Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 366-400.
Tortorella, G.L., Giglio, R. and Limon-Romero, J. (2018), “Supply chain performance: how lean practices
efficiently drive improvements”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 29
No. 5, pp. 829-845, doi: 10.1108/JMTM-09-2017-0194.
Ugochukwu, P., Engstr€om, J. and Langstrand, J. (2012), “Lean in the supply chain: a literature review”,
Management and Production Engineering Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 87-96.
van Hoek, R.I., Harrison, A. and Christopher, M. (2001), “Measuring agile capabilities in the supply
chain”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2,
pp. 126-148.
Wang, G., Huang, S.H. and Dismukes, J.P. (2004), “Product-driven supply chain selection using
integrated multi-criteria decision-making methodology”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Wee, H.M. and Wu, S. (2009), “Lean supply chain and its effect on product cost and quality: a case
study on Ford Motor Company”, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 335-341.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T. and Roos, D. (1990), The Machine that Changed the World, Simon and
Schuster, New York.
Wu, I.-L., Chuang, C.-H. and Hsu, C.-H. (2014), “Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in
enabling supply chain performance: a social exchange perspective”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 148, pp. 122-132.
Wu, K.-J., Tseng, M.-L., Chiu, A.S.F. and Lim, M.K. (2017), “Achieving competitive advantage through
supply chain agility under uncertainty: a novel multi-criteria decision-making structure”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 190, pp. 96-107.
Yang, Z. and Zhang, L. (2013), “Information sharing in supply chain: a review”, Journal of Digital
Information Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 125-130.
Yusuf, Y., Adeleye, E. and Sivayoganathan, K. (2003), “Volume flexibility: the agile manufacturing
conundrum”, Management Decision, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 613-624.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Gunasekaran, A., Musa, A., Dauda, M., El-Berishy, N.M. and Cang, S. (2014), “A relational
study of supply chain agility, competitiveness and business performance in the oil and gas
industry”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 531-543.
Yusuf, Y.Y., Sarhadi, M. and Gunasekaran, A. (1999), “Agile manufacturing: the drivers, concepts and
attributes”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 33-43.
IJPPM Zhang, Z. and Sharifi, H. (2000), “A methodology for achieving agility in manufacturing
organisations”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 496-513.

About the authors

Wojciech Domink Piotrowicz (PhD Brunel, UK, MA Gda
nsk, Poland, PGDipLATHE Oxon, UK) is
Associate Professor in Supply Chain Management and Social Responsibility and Director of the
Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Research Institute (HUMLOG Institute) at Hanken School of
Economics, Helsinki, Finland. His research is related to technology and supply chain management,
humanitarian logistics, performance measurement and evaluation. Wojciech has considerable
experience as member of large international research projects within both the public and private
sectors. He is recipient of Outstanding and Highly Commended paper awards from Emerald Literati
Network for Excellence. Wojciech Domink Piotrowicz is the corresponding author and can be contacted
at: [email protected]
Urszula Ryciuk, PhD is an Assistant Professor in International Department of Logistics and Service
Engineering at the Engineering Management Faculty of Bialystok University of Technology, Poland.
Received her PhD in economics, specialization in science of management, in 2014 at Gda
nsk University
of Technology. Her research interests are logistics, supply chain management, interorganizational
relationships, trust management and statistic data analysis. She is the author (co-author) of nearly 50
publications in the field of management and is the coordinator and researcher in international projects
and grants of Polish National Science Centre.
Prof. Maciej Szymczak is Full Professor of Business Administration, Institute of International
Business and Economics, Department of Logistics, Pozna
n University of Economics and Business
(PUEB), Pozna
n, Poland. He received M.Sc. in the area of Computer Science from the Technical
University of Poznan, PhD and post PhD in the area of Business Administration, majoring in business
logistics management, from PUEB. His research focuses on business logistics, international logistics and
supply chain management, information systems for logistics and city logistics. He has published over
120 articles in professional journals. He is author and co-author or editor of 17 books.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]