Search results

Supply chain collaboration amongst independent firms often provides larger benefits from effectively satisfying end customer needs than working in isolation. However, a lack of awareness about the existence of constraints along the supply chain prevents the benefits of collaboration from being fully realised. This paper attempts to apply the theory of constraints approach to overcome difficulties in realising the potential benefits of supply chain collaboration. Specifically, it shows how the theory of constraints approach can be used to expose an inherent dilemma of collaboration and establish collaborative replenishment policy and collaborative performance metrics so that the chain members can work together to advance supply chain profitability. Several opportunities for future research are recommended.

Intensive competition in the market place has forced companies to respond more quickly to customer needs through faster product development and shorter delivery time. Increasing customer awareness and preferences have led to an unprecedented explosion in product variety. End customers give credit only to companies that are able to deliver products with excellent quality, and on time. However, the demand of customers for product variety, especially in the case of short life‐cycle products such as food, apparel, toys, and computers, makes it difficult for manufacturers and retailers to predict which particular variety of the products the markets will accept. To be effective in matching demand with supply, manufacturers and retailers need to collaborate in the supply chain.

This paper proposes an integrative framework for supply chain collaboration which is based on the reciprocal approach.

A reciprocal approach is adopted to capture the interaction phenomenon of different features of collaboration in attaining overall supply chain performance.

A collaborative supply chain framework is composed of five connecting features of collaboration, namely collaborative performance system, information sharing, decision synchronization, incentive alignment, and integrated supply chain processes.

Further research could be carried out to capitalize the framework for diagnosing and improving supply chain collaboration.

The proposed framework enables the chain members to scrutinize key features of supply chain collaboration before and during collaborative initiatives.

Previous research on supply chain collaboration mainly assume the unilateral phenomenon of collaboration that focuses on a single feature such as information sharing or co‐managed inventory. The proposed framework for the first time explicitly addresses the interaction of different connecting features of collaboration.

This paper proposes an instrument to measure the extent of collaboration in a supply chain consisting of two members, suppliers and retailers.

The proposed model for collaboration incorporates collaborative practices in information sharing, decision synchronisation and incentive alignment. A collaboration index is introduced to measure the level of collaborative practices. A survey of companies in New Zealand was conducted to obtain data to test and evaluate the collaboration index.

The survey results confirmed the reliability and validity of the proposed collaboration index measure for measuring collaboration. The findings also showed that the collaboration index was positively associated with operational performance.

Future research could consider larger sample sizes and cover other industry types.

Supply chain participants will be able to measure the extent of their collaboration and seek improvement in their performance.

This paper contributes to the literature by introducing a new index for measuring the extent of supply chain collaboration. This measure can be used by any participant (member) in a supply chain to identify the level of collaboration and seek improvement.

Intense competition forces companies to become involved in supply chain collaboration with their upstream and downstream partners. The key to ensuring that the participating members are progressing on the right track of creating the best‐in‐class practice is to conduct benchmarking. Benchmarking stimulates collective learning for performance improvement that brings benefits to all participating members. However, previous research has focused mainly on supply chain benchmarking at the intra‐company ‐‐ rather than the inter‐company ‐‐ level. Inter‐company benchmarking requires a new perspective for understanding collaborative learning amongst the participating members that encourages them to improve supply chain performance as a whole. This research aims to develop a benchmarking scheme for supply chain collaboration that links collaborative performance metrics and collaborative enablers. The proposed benchmarking scheme can be used to examine the current status of supply chain collaboration among the participating members, identify performance gaps and systematize improvement initiatives.

Supply chain collaboration enables firms to achieve better performance. It requires close arrangements of collaborative practices among the participating members. Searching for better practices and ideas that lead to superior performance means that the chain members also need to benchmark their current collaborative practices to other collaborative supply chains. Benchmarking enables them to identify the highest standards of excellence in customer services and processes and implement necessary improvements to match or exceed these standards. This paper, reports a benchmarking study on supply chain collaboration between retailers and suppliers, which incorporates collaborative practices in information sharing, decision synchronisation, and incentive alignment. An empirical study was carried out to benchmark the profile of collaborative practices and operational performance. The study also compared differences in the use of collaborative practices from retailer and supplier perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the architecture of supply chain collaboration and to propose a design for supply chain collaboration (DfC), which enables participating members to create and develop key elements of the proposed architecture.

The paper offers a concept for designing the five elements of the architecture of supply chain collaboration, namely collaborative performance system, decision synchronisation, information sharing, incentive alignment, and innovative supply chain processes. A case study was carried out to illustrate the applicability of the framework.

DfC was confirmed using a case to evaluate a supply chain system in which the chain members concurrently designed the architecture of supply chain collaboration. The findings show that design for collaboration facilitates the chain members to have a broader view to develop and ensure an effective collaboration.

Secondary data were collected to describe the collaborative practice in the company. Future research is required to elicit primary data using interview or focus group representing key players of collaboration for the purpose of model enhancement and action research.

The concept of DfC can be used by the chain members in the discussion forum to (re)design appropriate settings of the five elements of the architecture that lead to better overall performance.

Previous research has indicated the emerging school of design for collaboration. However, current researchers pay little attention to integrating and revealing the interactions of key design elements that drive the effectiveness of the chain members to realise better performance. The paper, for the first time, offers a novel framework for understanding DfC.

Supply chain coordination plays a critical role in integrating different actors along the supply chain to enhance performance. This research focuses on supply chain coordination and its three determinants: namely, responsibility interdependence, uncertainty, and interfunctional conflict. Research propositions were developed to conceptualise how supply chain coordination is driven by its determinants. The propositions were tested by a case study in a fashion firm to examine the differences between the theory and the practice of coordination. Findings showed that the firm carried out only piecemeal coordination in defining and fulfilling customer needs.

This study was conducted to examine supply chain discontent in an integrative way.

The organisational economics view is adopted as an approach to reveal multiple sources of discontent which consist of incongruent objectives, disintegrated performance measures, unsynchronised decision‐making, information asymmetry, misaligned incentives, and fragmented business processes. All these sources separately or collectively contribute to reduce the potential of total profits arising from collaboration.

It is argued that to effectively mitigate supply chain discontent, the chain members need to collaboratively design antidotes for discontent. In this paper six antidotes to discontent are proposed, namely mutual strategic objectives, appropriate performance measures, decision synchronisation, information sharing, incentive alignment, and streamlined intercompany business processes. It also shows that previous studies have not addressed supply chain discontent in an integrative way.

This study, therefore, provides a new insight for managers to understand multiple sources of discontent as well as its antidotes.

The creative design process is often characterised by high task uncertainty and tight dependency on other functions both within a firm and with external parties. Coordination thus plays a key role in integrating different functions related to the design process in attaining a common objective of delivering products to end customers. This paper examines coordination mechanisms and their determinants in the creative design process of a fashion firm. It is argued that coordination mechanisms are driven by a set of three determinants, namely responsibility interdependence, uncertainty, and conflict. Findings from the case study are presented and areas for future research are provided.