The supply chain parties; suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, third party service providers (3PLs), are pressured to mitigate and even their costs, time and supply to continue to be profitable while delivering their obligation to their customers. Borac, Milovanovic & Andjelkovic (2010) observes that embracing supply chain management (LSCM) can help attain this goal. However, Amarela (2017) notes from Azagedan et al., (2013) work that the environmental uncertainty affects lean practices. As a result, complex environments make it harder to detect, diagnose and respond to problems.
In previous researches, supply chain integration is described as a competitive means that manufacturers apply to generate income from production. This could positively affect the total performance. Supply chain integration, customer-supplier relationship and partnership have been the tendency in business custom and management across industries (Shou & Feng, 2013). Shou & Feng (2013) endeavors to show that supplier performance is relationship driven. Lacoste and Johnson’s (2015) findings are slightly counter-intuitive. They find in their study that the supplier performance is process-driven. This further means that supply chain integration could influence supplier performance from the process driven perspective. A typical example of the process driven tools is “lean supply chain modeling” (Lacoste and Johnsen, 2015). This is in line with Shou ; Feng (2013) observation that lean supply chain modeling and infrastructural manufacturing decisions provides means to advance supply web and therefore, supplier’s performance. Their findings collaborate with the observation that there is a shared and recursive influence amid supply network attributes and practices for extending the scope of lean programs to the supply network. They found that supply network characteristics can either facilitate or complicate the adoption of