SCM 3&4&5
6
Critiques of Supply Chain Management Articles
Choose 1 of the following articles to critique.
| Article No. | Article Title |
| SCM_3 | Risk and supply chain management: creating a research agenda |
| SCM_4 | Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM): A case study on the automotive and electronic industries in Brazil |
| SCM_5 | Global Supply Chain Risk Management Strategies |
Article critiques should be no more than four pages long, double spaced, and should, typically, be presented using the following format as a guideline:
Title of Article
Author(s) of article
Name of Publication, date of publication, and page information.
Purpose of Article
Methodology (Research paper, Case Study, Literature Review, Conceptual paper, Industrial report, etc.)
Hypotheses or Propositions, if relevant
Main findings of the paper
Contributions of the paper to your knowledge of SCM and to the SCM literature
Your analysis of the quality of the paper – Was it well written and understandable? Should other issues have been covered? Can you suggest ways in which the paper could be improved? Etc.
See Appendix A (pages 2 to 5) for general guidelines on writing the critiques.
APPENDIX A
Title of Article
Author(s) of article
Name of Publication (Usually title of Journal and not Name of Publisher; should also include Volume Number and Issue Number when these items are presented in the publication), date of publication (Year and Month, if given), and page information (First and last page numbers of the article).
4. Purpose of Article
General Guidelines on Maximizing Your Critique Scores
Article critiques should be no more than four pages long and should, typically, be presented using the following format as a guideline: Usually, three to four pages will be adequate. If your critique is one or two pages you
are probably not capturing the critical essence of the paper. Always check your spelling and grammar.
Items 1, 2, and 3 can be reported in APA reference style or as a list.
The purpose of the article is, typically, indicated in the Abstract and expanded upon in the Introduction to the Paper. It is better for you to read both the Abstract and the Introduction before you write this subsection. Then, you should write a summary of the purpose using your own words. Simply rewriting the purpose given by the author in the Abstract will not result in a good grade for this section.
In addition, if, for example, the author states that the purpose of the article is to examine the relationship between quality management and operational and strategic performance, your purpose statement should, at minimum, also include the author’s definitions for each of these three items.
5. Methodology (Research paper, Case Study, Literature Review, Conceptual paper, Industrial report, etc.)
| Research papers can take on several forms. They can utilize a survey methodology, single- or multiple case studies, or a combination of these items, |
| among others. Research papers can also be conceptual – for example, they can use historical information or the literature to try to predict how a particular field will evolve in the future. You need to determine what methodology or combination of methodologies your article is using. If you are critiquing survey research, you need to discuss the survey methodology. What was the population studied? How many surveys were |
| administered? How many were answered? What was the survey response rate? |
| Did the author address the representativeness of the derived sample? If they did not, this constitutes a major area for criticism of the paper. If the sample is not representative then findings that purport to relate to the entire population may be invalid or, at least, misleading. Reports on case studies should indicate the reasons for the choice of the specific case or cases, and how the results obtained by studying the case(s) translate(s) or does not translate to representativeness of the population from which the case was drawn. A general, well-reasoned, closing statement about the appropriateness or lack thereof of the chosen methodology usually results in a better grade for this |
| subsection. |
6. Hypotheses or Propositions, if relevant
Where relevant, authors must state the research questions covered by their research and develop testable hypotheses or propositions that, when tested, will lead to answers to the research questions. Read your article carefully to ascertain whether the authors are testing hypotheses or propositions.
Some conceptual papers advance one or more propositions for future testing. If this is the case it should be reported in this subsection.
Statements about how the hypotheses and the methodologies chosen help to answer the research questions are always good for a few extra points.
7. Main findings of the paper
Usually, authors provide a very brief summary of their research findings in the Abstract. These findings are usually expanded upon in a Findings, or Conclusion section of the paper. You should ensure that you have read the Findings or Conclusion section before writing this subsection. Simply repeating the findings in the Abstract will not help to advance your grade.
Additionally, it is not sufficient to report, for example, that the authors provide five major findings. You need to at least summarize each of the five findings and show how these findings address the research questions.
8. Contributions of the paper to your knowledge of SCM and to the SCM literature
Did you learn anything that you did not already know from reading this article? If so, what new knowledge have you gained from the paper? How does this new knowledge expand your understanding of SCM?
| Authors typically claim some contribution to the literature in their abstract and |
| in their Conclusion or Research Limitations sections. What claims did the author of this article make? Do you believe that their claim represents a substantial enough contribution? |
9. Your analysis of the quality of the paper – Was it well written and understandable? Should other issues have been covered? Can you suggest ways in which the paper could be improved? Etc.
| Here you can address grammatical and spelling errors (although this is really as much an editor problem as it is an author problem). More substantive critiques may address the logical flow, or lack thereof, of the article. The article may have been well written and understandable, but represented no new knowledge. However, you should recognize that some articles and research are |
| designed to simply replicate findings of earlier research in similar or sometimes different environments. In assessing the quality of a paper one usually goes back to the author’s stated purpose for the article. If the authors effectively met their purpose it may not be fair to criticize them for not covering more interesting material. Such issues should be covered as your suggestions for ways in which the research can be improved or advanced. |
APPENDIX B
GUIDELINES FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE PAPER
Title/Cover Page (2 points),
Table of Contents (5 points) Does it conform to topics in the paper? Are pages indicated?
Executive Summary or Abstract (24 points) Is background information provided? Is the purpose of the paper indicated? Are the method of study (e.g., literature review, case study, or other empirical method) and some indication of format presented?
Overall Organization of the Paper (20 points) Is there proper use of headings and subheadings?
Coverage of the Subject (145 points) Does the paper accomplish the purpose(s) set out by the author? Do transitions from topic to topic flow smoothly and logically? Is the quality of work appropriate for a student at the advanced undergraduate level? Are all sources of facts and quotations indicated and properly cited?
Style, Grammar and Spelling (24 points) Is the paper written in a form that would be acceptable to management? Are the grammar, spelling and punctuation acceptable? Are footnotes (if applicable) done correctly? Is the presentation understandable? Is there an absence of rambling sentences and unending paragraphs?
Conclusion or Summary (20 points) Is an appropriate concluding remarks section included?
Bibliography or References (10 points) Are all cited references included?
