View
488
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
Mitigating resisting forces toachieve the collaboration-enabled
supply chainStanley E. Fawcett
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA
Gregory M. MagnanAlbers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University,
Seattle, Washington, USA, and
Amydee M. FawcettLateral Line Analytics, Woodland Hills, Utah, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to address how companies mitigate existing forces to achievethe collaboration enabled supply chain (SC).
Design/methodology/approach – Seven key theories were used to provide insight into thetheoretical framework for the creation of the collaboration-enabled SC: contingency theory, theresource-based view of the firm, the relational view of the firm, force field theory, constituency-basedtheory, social dilemma theory, and resource-advantage theory. An exploratory cross-sectional surveywas conducted at two different points in time – a six-year period in between. The survey targetedthree different functional areas – logistics, manufacturing, and sourcing – to compare and contrastfunctional perceptions of barriers and bridges to collaboration.
Findings – Companies are beginning to pursue greater collaboration, however, managers are oftenstymied in their pursuit of collaborative business models. The data suggest that the challenge is notthe existence of a single barrier to collaboration, but one of accumulation. As the many resistorsreinforce each other, the change needed to increase collaboration is avoided. To overcome thesechallenges, the findings suggest that a comprehensive and carefully executed collaboration strategy isneeded to help a company profitably deliver high levels of customer satisfaction. Those companiesthat succeed achieve substantial, documentable benefits.
Practical implications – The findings reveal that developing a collaboration-enabled businessmodel is very difficult. Therefore, managers must carefully evaluate their companies’ motivation andreadiness to pursue a collaboration-enabled SC, consider whether they can generate momentum forsustained change, and ascertain whether they can persist when benefits are slow to emerge.
Originality/value – This study is both longitudinal and cross-functional and leads to a betterunderstanding of how to manage, change, and create a collaborative decision-making environment.
Keywords Supply chain management, Channel relationships
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionThe essence of supply chain management (SCM) is that to improve competitiveness,companies need to proactively manage resources beyond their organizational
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm
The authors wish to thank CAPS Research for its generous financial support of this research.They also acknowledge the assistance and direction provided by the editor and anonymousreviewers to help improve the manuscript.
Mitigatingresisting forces
269
Benchmarking: An InternationalJournal
Vol. 17 No. 2, 2010pp. 269-293
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-5771
DOI 10.1108/14635771011036348
boundaries (Dyer and Singh, 1998). That is, well-managed companies possess valuable,but constrained resources and specific, but limited capabilities. Although theseresource advantages may confer a competitive advantage on a firm, most companiesdo not possess the inimitable resources needed to compete as stand-alone entities(Barney, 1991; Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Newbert, 2007;Rinehart et al., 2008). Competitive dynamics dictate that they work with other membersof the supply chain (SC) who possess vital resources and valued competencies.
To the extent that collaboration helps bring complementary competencies togetherto create customer value, the collaboration-enabled SC becomes an important source ofcompetitive advantage (Fawcett et al., 2008). Automakers Honda and Toyotaexemplify the collaboration-enabled business model. Honda is particularly dependenton its SC, sourcing about 85 percent of the value of its cars from suppliers (Nelson et al.,1998). Both carmakers have developed strong relational capabilities that drive higherthan average economic rents and differential firm performance (Dyer and Singh, 1998).Beyond this anecdotal evidence, research has confirmed that SC collaboration canmake substantive contributions to firm performance in the areas of enhancedproductivity and improved customer service and satisfaction (Dyer, 1996; Hendricksand Singhal, 2003; Hult et al., 2004; Lee, 2004; Rinehart et al., 2008).
However, experience reveals that companies struggle to translate collaborativerhetoric into collaborative reality (Fawcett and Magnan, 2002). Beth et al. (2003, p. 64)noted that “despite years of technological and process advancements, an agile,adaptive SC remains an elusive goal,” suggesting that the challenge lies deeper withinthe fabric of the organization (Parker and Anderson, 2002; Fawcett et al., 2009a).Behavioral issues appear to be problematic. For example, low trust acrossorganizational boundaries exacerbates the human tendency to avoid vulnerabilityand protect potentially idiosyncratic resources, including proprietary information(Fawcett et al., 2009a; McCarter and Northcraft, 2007). Likewise, functionalorganization can easily become dysfunctional silos, which engender turf conflict anddissipate value creation (Anderson, 1982; Barratt, 2004; Moberg et al., 2003; Wong andWong, 2008). These resistant forces are somewhat intransigent and inhibit acompany’s willingness and ability to collaborate.
To summarize, competitive dynamics are motivating companies to seek inter-firmcollaboration opportunities in an effort to build unique value-creation capabilities.Standing in the way are cultural and structural barriers that inhibit these endeavors.More often than not, the resisting forces have proven to be stronger than the drivingforces, resulting in minimal meaningful collaboration. This reality motivates thefollowing question, “Can companies mitigate existing resisting forces to achieve thecollaboration enabled supply chain?”
SC collaboration: a dynamic theoretical modelSC collaboration is a complex phenomenon. Grasping the nuances involved indeveloping a dynamic collaborative capability requires that managers explore theprocesses that promote or hinder collaboration from a variety of theoretical lenses. Keytheories that provide valuable insight are:
. contingency theory;
. the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm;
BIJ17,2
270
. the relational view of the firm;
. force field theory;
. constituency-based theory (CBT);
. social dilemma theory; and
. resource-advantage theory.
Figure 1 combines these theoretical perspectives to present a framework for guidingthe development of a collaboration-enabled SC.
The role of dynamic environmental forcesContingency theory argues that managers must identify sequential, cause-and-effectrelationships among environmental, decision-making, and performance variables(Birkinshaw et al., 2002; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Luthans and Stewart, 1977;Nasrallah et al., 2003; Scott and Davis, 2006; Stonebraker and Afifi, 2004; Wathne andHeide, 2004; Wong and Wong, 2008; Moffett et al., 2008). That is, as the world aroundthem evolves, SC managers must develop a contingent response – a strategy forutilizing the firm’s resources to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage that leadsto above normal returns on investment (Guide et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2002). Lookingthrough the contingency-theory lens raises two important questions:
(1) What forces in the external environment are changing the competitive rules andthereby mandating a contingent response? The corollary: how are the ruleschanging?
(2) What is the appropriate contingent response?
Figure 1.A theoretical framework
for the creation of thecollaboration-enabled SC
Customerresources andcapabilities
Performance benefits
Improved operationalperformance:
• Lower operating costs• Enhanced customer service
Improved competitiveperformance:
• Return on assets• Sales and market share growth
External driving forces
• Intensifying competition
• Customers demands
• Globalization
• Compressed technology cycles
• An information revolution
• Increasing financial pressures
Supplier resourcesand capabilities Constituency-based resistors:
• Inconsistent performance measures• Inadequate training for new mindsets and skills• Non-aligned strategic and operating policies
Social dilemma resistors:
• Inability or unwillingness to share information• Lack of trust among decision makers• An unwillingness to share risks and rewards
Resisting forces
Resistingforces
Resistingforces
Contingent response
Build a collaborationcapability to leverage
firm resources!
Collaboration
ConnectivityTraining
CustomerfocusSupp
lierd
evel
opm
ent
lead
ership Enablers
Strategyexecution
Dif
fere
ntia
tion
stra
tegy
Mitigatingresisting forces
271
For managers, the key is to recognize the environment is changing and then correctlyidentify the forces driving the changes and their influence on competitive strategy. Asthey evaluate their companies’ strategic positioning, managers are likely to find thatglobalization, heightened customer demands, and compressed technology cycles areincreasing competitive intensity, putting tremendous pressure on cost management(Friedman, 2005). Greater focus on financial performance is further inducing managersto strive to increase asset returns and reduce concept-to-market lead times(Simatupang and Ramaswami, 2004). Interestingly, an information technologyrevolution is accelerating these competition drivers (Hammer, 1990, 2004; Hult et al.,2004; Mabert and Venkataraman, 1998). The seemingly unavoidable reality thattoday’s marketplace is dynamic and evolving at a rapid pace leads to our P1:
P1. Managers are cognizant that the environment is dynamic and that a variety offorces are driving the need to cultivate a collaboration-enabled SC.
Collaboration as a contingent responseA firm’s contingent response is defined by its differentiation strategy, which answersthe business-model-design questions, “What strategic capabilities do we need?” and“How can we best develop them?” The RBV of the firm provides insight into a firm’scontingent-response options. RBV argues that a firm is “a collection of productiveresources” that can be used to create value and advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984). The morevaluable, rare, and inimitable the resources, the greater the advantage the firm mayattain (Barney, 1991, 2001). As important as the firm’s resources are, how it configuresthem may be more important (Teece et al., 1997; Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). That is,combining and structuring resources to create a dynamic capability can lead to evengreater, more difficult-to-replicate advantage (Newbert, 2007; Zhu and Kraemer, 2002).RBV thus encourages managers to pursue a contingent response that uses firmresources to build a valued dynamic capability.
Importantly, companies now source a large percent (typically 50-80 percent of costof goods sold) of their value-added capability from materials and service suppliers(Monczka et al., 2008). Thus, the quest to establish a non-imitable dynamic capabilityextends beyond the firm’s boundaries. This reality is supported by the relational viewof the firm, which argues that the most powerful sources of advantage may beembedded in inter-firm resources and routines (Dyer and Singh, 1998). Collaborativeroutines that identify and integrate complementary competencies up and down the SChave been shown to improve firm performance by both reducing costs and improvingcustomer satisfaction (Fawcett et al., 2008; Fine, 1998). Yet, relatively few firms havelearned how to collaborate effectively, suggesting that a collaboration capability israre, valuable, and hard to replicate (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Fawcett et al.,2009b). The need to improve resource leverage combined with the possibility ofcreating unique value through collaboration defines our P2:
P2. Companies recognize the value of collaboration as an important strategicresponse to a changing environment and are actively pursuing SCcollaboration initiatives.
The strategy execution chasmAlthough many firms have espoused the development of a collaboration capability as acentral component of their competitive strategies, few have been able to execute to plan.
BIJ17,2
272
For example, Boeing adopted a collaboration-enabled business model to design andmanufacture the Boeing 787, dubbed the dreamliner. Suppliers were givenunprecedented responsibility for major components of the plane. Unfortunately,governance issues exacerbated SC breakdowns forcing multiple delays in the plane’slaunch. Boeing’s credibility and cash flow were severely damaged (Lunsford, 2008a, b;Sanders, 2009). Like the majority of firms that have pursued intense collaboration,Boeing discovered that integrating complementary competencies across the SC is a verydifficult task. The question is, “Why do firms struggle to implement a collaborativecontingent response?”
Force field theory suggests that as managers pursue a collaboration capability, theymust consider two types of forces that will affect implementation success – drivingforces and resisting forces (Lewin, 1951). As discussed above, driving forces such asdemanding customers may dictate a need to rely on the strengths of other SC members.Resisting forces such as a lack of top management support make it difficult to executethe collaborative differentiation strategy. The drive for collaborative change oftenstalls when it collides with well-entrenched resisting forces. In effect, resisting forcesfreeze an organization into non-collaborative behavior, imperiling companies thatcompete in a dynamic environment. Unable to change faster than the externalenvironment or collaborate more effectively than agile competitors, “frozen” companiesbecome irrelevant (Friedman, 2000; Grove, 1996; Lee, 2004). Lewin identified athree-phase process for effective change management and strategy implementation:
(1) The unfreezing process: an external shock or emotional event such as the loss ofmarket share unfreezes the organization, making change possible. Managementresolve ( Jim Collin’s Level 5 leadership) can at times lead to organizationalthawing.
(2) The movement phase: driving forces and resisting forces collide, leading toimplementation failure or success, depending on:. the relative strength of the forces; and. management’s ability to enact and leverage collaborative change enablers.
(3) The refreezing tendency: most companies settle into a new equilibrium stateafter a period of dramatic change.
A closer look at collaboration resistors and collaboration enablers is needed to betterunderstand the dynamics of moving from the development of a collaborative strategyto the effective execution of a collaboration capability.
Collaboration resistors. Forcing resisting collaboration vary in strength andinfluence, might exist anywhere within an organization or SC, and may include people,policies, or processes (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Kotter, 1995). Inadequate technologyhas often been blamed for impeding collaborative initiatives (Barratt, 2004; Moberget al., 2003; Tyndall, 1998; Cassivi, 2006). However, despite massive investments ininformation and process technologies, collaborative capabilities have not dramaticallyimproved (Beth et al., 2003). This reality suggests that other forces are blockingcollaboration’s emergence. Fawcett et al. (2008) found that organizational structure andculture are among the most intractable barriers to more effective collaboration withinthe firm and across the SC.
Mitigatingresisting forces
273
Focusing first on structure, CBT provides insight into why functional structures areso common and so resistant to change (Anderson, 1982). CBT suggests that companiesorganize along functional lines to take advantage of in-depth knowledge that arisesfrom specialization. Deep functional skills are needed to manage specific value-addedactivities. They are also the building blocks of core competencies (Prahalad and Hamel,1990; Stalk et al., 1992). CBT does, however, warn that specialization has a dark side –“specialists” tend to pursue their own goals. Rewarded on disparate metrics andoperating with distinct lines of authority, functionalists possess strong incentives toprotect their own domain. Silos are built and fortified. As tension and conflict emergeacross organizational boundaries, collaborative efforts are preempted. Unfortunately,many practices from hiring and training to measurement and office space allocationreinforce the dysfunctional organizational structure (Ellinger et al., 2006).
Turning to organizational culture, social dilemma theory heightens ourunderstanding of the conflicts that undermine collaboration. Social dilemma theoryposits that collaboration can enhance value, but uncertainty and risk regarding valuedissemination leads to competition for scare resources (Zeng and Chen, 2003).Managers must manage the tension that exists between these two contending forces.That is, members of a SC alliance have no incentive to invest in collaborativecapabilities if another member of the chain is likely to use asymmetrical power toexpropriate any collaborative gains (Dawes, 1980; Diekmann, 1985; Olson, 1965;Cassivi, 2006). In essence, the existence of power asymmetry and opportunisticbehavior deters the commitment of resources needed to initiate meaningfulcollaboration (Kollock, 1998; Komorita and Parks, 1996; Murnighan et al., 1993).McCarter and Northcraft (2007) conceptualized SC collaboration as a social dilemmawhere trust and fear determine how members of a chain will interact with one another.Concerns regarding the excessive pursuit of self-interest must be mitigated to promotethe behaviors – e.g. information exchange, trust, sharing of risks and rewards –needed to achieve collaboration capability (Celly et al., 1999; Luo, 2007). Thesechallenges suggest our P3:
P3. Traditional organizational structures and cultures inculcate a variety ofbehaviors that impede the creation of a collaboration capability.
Collaboration enablers. Force field theory suggests that once an organization isunfrozen, management enters a tenuous period where driving and resisting forces areweighed in the balance (Kale et al., 2000). Managers can tip the balance towardcollaboration by investing in appropriate enablers (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Minet al., 2007). Research has identified a variety of collaboration enablers including thefollowing: aligned objectives, a shared customer-oriented vision, technologicalconnectivity, relationship trust, supplier development, and process redesign andintegration (Barratt, 2004; Drucker, 2001; Funk, 1995; Grzeskowiak et al., 2007;Lambert and Knemeyer, 2004; Lee, 2004; Stonebraker and Afifi, 2004). Unfortunately,establishing these diverse and often complex enablers can be difficult and resourceintensive (Moberg et al., 2003). Our P4 emerges from the need for managers to activelypromote collaboration:
P4. Companies have learned that collaboration is not the natural state or behaviorand therefore are actively engaged in building structural enablers to bridge ormitigate existing collaboration resistors.
BIJ17,2
274
Desired performance benefitsThe fundamental goal behind strategic management theories is to explain differentialfirm performance. For example, contingency theory argues that an appropriatecontingent response effectively executed improves firm performance. Similarly, RBVclaims that cultivating a rare, valued, and inimitable capability leads to better marketperformance. The question thus arises, “What are the performance benefits of a strongcollaboration capability?”
Working collaboratively with a network of capable customers and suppliers providesaccess to skills, resources, and markets unavailable to industry rivals that do notcultivate collaborative business models (Brady, 2003; Humphrey and Schmitz, 1996;Premaratne, 2001). Moreover, collaborative relationships are able to solve problemsquickly while generating new and novel ideas and transferring technology efficiently( Jones, 1996; Han et al., 1993; Cook et al., 2005). Ultimately, a collaboration-enabled SCreduces lead times, minimizes inventories, increases asset utilization, lowers costs,raises quality, facilitates faster innovation, and enhances flexibility (Corsten and Felde,2005; Hadley, 2004; Wisner, 2003; Denkena et al., 2006). A collaboration-enabled SCcapable of increasing revenues and lowering costs is an ideal formula for sustainedcustomer satisfaction and profitability (Lee, 2004).
Importantly, each of the theories discussed above implies a time component withoutexplicitly discussing the mechanism through which time influences managerialdecision-making’s effect on firm performance. Resource-advantage (R-A) theoryaddresses this gap, extending the RBV by looking at it through the lens ofheterogeneous-demand theory (Hunt and Davis, 2008). In essence, R-A theoryevaluates how the process of competition contributes to organizational learning. Ascompanies adopt a collaborative contingent response, they should learn from theirexperiences – whether successful or not. The ability to learn should lead to strongerand more innovative collaborative capabilities, creating a performance gap with lessadaptable and agile competitors. From this perspective, R-A theory suggests that in theintensely competitive and dynamic environment of recent years, collaborativecapabilities should be increasing. The idea that competition drives learning leads toour P5. P5 therefore states:
P5. Appropriately pursued, a collaboration capability delivers meaningfuloperational and firm performance benefits. Moreover, companies arelearning to obtain higher levels of benefits from their collaboration initiatives.
Research methodsTo assess the evolution and influence of a collaboration capability, an exploratorycross-section survey was conducted at two different points in time. As the initial studybegan, the notion of SC collaboration had been raised in the literature, but notfully explored. Nor had an effort been made to empirically evaluate its evolution –thus, the decision to replicate the study. A six-year interval between Periods 1 and 2provided sufficient time to evaluate the emergence of a collaboration capability. Threesteps were undertaken to ground the research:
(1) A comprehensive literature search going back to the early 1980s was conducted.This review provided insight needed to design a meaningful survey instrument.
Mitigatingresisting forces
275
(2) A series of half a dozen preliminary, informal managerial interviews wereconducted to ensure managerial relevance.
(3) An advisory board consisting of managers and academics was assembled toprovide feedback on the research content and process.
These efforts provided context to interpret the survey findings regarding how drivingforces, collaboration resistors, and collaboration enablers are influencing theemergence and impact of a contingent collaboration capability.
The cross-functional and inter-organizational nature of a collaboration capabilitytogether with the desire to perform the study longitudinally required careful andconsistent selection of the survey’s key informants. Therefore, senior-level managers(e.g. director, vice-president, chief executive officer, etcetera) with broad organizationalaccountability, cross-functional interactions, and access to overall firm-levelperformance data were targeted. Because three distinct groups of SC managers –logistics managers, production managers, and supply managers – define a company’scollaboration capabilities, mailing lists were compiled with the assistance of three SCprofessional associations: the Council for Supply Chain Management Professionals, theInstitute for Supply Management, and APICS: the Association for OperationsManagement. Managers were randomly selected from industries actively involved inSCM. The research team removed contact information for managers who did not meetthe selection criteria, yielding a list of seasoned managers with ample experience asmembers of cross-functional and SC teams.
In both time periods, the survey process followed Dillman’s total design method;that is, three mailings of a cover letter, an instruction sheet, and the survey wereperformed. To increase the response rate, pre-notification phone calls were made toinvite managers to participate. Managers were also offered a copy of the study findingsand the opportunity to be entered into a drawing for one of several iPod Nanos. Overall,980 usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 14.13 percent. Table I providesdetailed response rates broken down by time period and professional organization.Importantly, the relative sample sizes and proportions from each of the threeprofessional associations were consistent across the two time periods suggestingsample equivalence. Further, an independent t-test was performed on the controlvariable of firm size as measured by number of employees. No significant differencewas found, which again indicates sample comparability.
Non-response bias was evaluated in both time periods. A total of two methods wereused. First, a comparison of early versus late responses revealed no problematicresponse patterns (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). Second, to more clearly verify thatthe respondents and non-respondents were not uniquely different, the demographic
Period 1 Period 2Professionalassociation
Completedsurveys
Responserate (%)
Percent of totalP1 sample
Completedsurveys
Responserate (%)
Percent of totalP2 sample
APICS 171 12.1 36 159 17.9 31ISM 138 10.6 29 156 19.0 31CSCMP 166 11.6 35 190 19.3 38Overall 475 11.4 100 505 16.7 100
Table I.Survey response rates
BIJ17,2
276
profiles of the two groups were compared. In Period 1, because responses wereanonymous, we called managers on the mailing list until we had spoken with300 non-respondents (100 from each managerial group) to gather basic demographicdata so that respondent and non-respondent profiles could be compared. No significantdifferences in demographic profile were found. In Period 2, respondents were trackedso that mailing and survey administration costs could be minimized. Non-respondentscould also therefore be identified. Demographic profiles for 100 randomly selectednon-respondents were develop using Dun and Bradstreet databases. These profileswere compared to those of the respondents. No significant differences were found.
Findings and discussionThe following discussion evaluates the theoretical propositions identified above fromtwo perspectives. First, the longitudinal changes in the aggregate or overall responsesfrom the two time periods are presented. Second, the most recent perceptions (Period 2)of the three distinct groups of managers are presented for comparison purposes.Similarities and differences in the way that these materials managers approach SCcollaboration are identified and discussed.
Understanding environmental driving forcesDo managers really perceive that the competitive environment is changing in waysthat require higher levels of collaboration? To answer this question, we askedmanagers to indicate the relative strength of six driving forces on a seven-point Likertscale (1 – not a factor; 7 – critical factor). The data in Table II show that two forces aredriving SC collaboration:
(1) a desire to improve productivity; and
(2) a desire to improve revenue through increased customer satisfaction.
This finding is consistent over time although the emphasis placed on these two forcesdecreased significantly over time. Of note, whereas the desire to improve customersatisfaction was the most important driver in Period 1, the desire to improveproductivity has moved into a statistical tie in the Period 2 study. Competitivepressures appear to have raised the relative emphasis on promoting collaboration tomitigate cost pressures. Such a response is not unexpected in an environment whereChina has become the “world’s factory floor” and India has become the “offshoringdestination of choice.” However, non-collaborative initiatives such as online auctionsand the threat of outsourcing to Asia have also been employed to drive costs down.
Comparing functional perspectives reveals that logisticians are significantly moreproductivity focused than their counterparts. As logistics is typically a cost center, it isnot surprising that logistics professionals are focused on productivity. Otherwise thefour managerial groups are generally in agreement regarding the forces driving SCcollaboration.
Overall, SC managers pursue greater collaboration in response to a select group ofenvironmental driving forces. They appear to be very profit-and-loss statementoriented; that is, their primary concern is to respond to intense competition by focusingon customer satisfaction while driving costs down (Table III).
Mitigatingresisting forces
277
Mea
nR
ank
Per
cen
tag
eof
fiv
eto
sev
enD
riv
ing
forc
eP
erio
d2
Per
iod
1D
iffe
ren
ceP
erio
d2
Per
iod
1D
iffe
ren
ceP
erio
d2
Per
iod
1D
iffe
ren
ce
Des
ire
toim
pro
ve
SC
pro
du
ctiv
ity
5.34
5.71
20.
37*
12
179
.67
83.3
02
3.63
Des
ire
toim
pro
ve
rev
enu
eth
rou
gh
incr
ease
dcu
stom
ersa
tisf
acti
on5.
335.
862
0.53
*2
12
179
.12
85.9
02
6.78
Inte
nsi
fyin
gin
du
stry
com
pet
itio
n5.
115.
242
0.13
33
073
.58
74.7
02
1.12
Des
ire
tob
uil
dth
eb
est
SC
team
4.67
4.73
20.
064
40
59.4
958
.90
0.59
Des
ire
tofo
cus
onco
reco
mp
eten
ce4.
394.
280.
115
61
51.1
548
.60
2.55
Des
ire
tore
du
ceca
pit
alin
ves
tmen
ts4.
37–
–6
––
48.0
7–
–
Notes:
* p,
0.01
;T
ow
hat
exte
nt
hav
eth
efo
llow
ing
led
you
rfi
rmto
seek
gre
ater
SC
coll
abor
atio
n?
(1–
not
afa
ctor
;7
–cr
itic
alfa
ctor
)
Table II.Forces driving greater SCcollaboration: Period 1versus Period 2comparison
BIJ17,2
278
Assessing the pursuit of a contingent collaborative capabilityTo better understand the extent to which companies are pursuing collaboration as acontingent response, managers were asked to indicate the extent to which their firmsengage in each of four types of collaboration (1 – not engaged; 7 – totally engaged):
(1) Cross-functional process integration within the four walls of the company.
(2) Upstream integration with valued first-tier suppliers.
(3) Downstream integration with valued first-tier customers.
(4) Complete forward and backward integration from “supplier’s supplier to thecustomer’s customer.”
Surprisingly, managers reported slightly lower levels of engagement incross-functional, upstream, and downstream collaboration activities (Table IV).Adding value across boundaries is not easy and most managers have little or noincentive to take the risks inherent in building collaborative relationships. Talkingabout collaboration, holding team-building activities and investing in technology areinadequate facilitators of higher levels of collaboration. Managers did, however, reportsignificant progress (P1 ¼ 3.37 vs P2 ¼ 3.68; p ¼ 0.01) in the area of complete forwardand backward integration. Investments in technology and SC mapping are beginningto provide better SC visibility, improving decision makers’ ability to track inventoryand manage lead times. While progress in this area is encouraging, the mean of 3.68 isquite low.
Looking at the functional responses reveals little difference among the threemanagerial groups – the means and ranks are all similar (Table V). The highest levelof integration taking place within the firm, followed in order by forward integration,backward integration, and complete integration. The desire to integrate withcustomers to become a supplier of choice, create switching costs and grow revenues isa stronger motivator than cultivating the benefits of more collaborative supplierrelationships. This finding suggests that collaboration is more important in buildingcustomer relationships, whereas leverage and power characterize many companies’approach to managing supply relationships.
Combined Purchasing Logistics Production
Driving forceP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2rank
Desire to improve SC productivity 5.34 1 5.26 2 5.66 1 5.22 2Desire to improve customersatisfaction 5.33 2 5.36 1 5.40 2 5.30 1Intensifying competition 5.11 3 5.16 3 5.07 3 5.07 3Desire to build the best team ofSC partners 4.67 4 4.81 4 4.62 4 4.49 4Desire to focus on core competence 4.39 5 4.65 5 4.20 6 4.38 5Desire to reduce capitalinvestments 4.37 6 4.43 6 4.41 5 4.37 6
Note: To what extent have the following led your firm to seek greater SC collaboration? (1 – not afactor; 7 – critical factor)
Table III.Forces driving greater
SC collaboration:a functional comparison
Mitigatingresisting forces
279
Mea
nR
ank
Per
cen
tag
eof
fiv
eto
sev
enC
olla
bor
atio
nty
pe
Per
iod
2P
erio
d1
Dif
fere
nce
Per
iod
2P
erio
d1
Dif
fere
nce
Per
iod
2P
erio
d1
Dif
fere
nce
Cro
ss-f
un
ctio
nal
pro
cess
inte
gra
tion
4.61
4.67
20.
061
10
60.3
860
.55
20.
17F
orw
ard
inte
gra
tion
wit
hv
alu
edcu
stom
ers
4.29
4.33
20.
042
20
49.6
151
.07
21.
46B
ack
war
din
teg
rati
onw
ith
key
sup
pli
ers
4.15
4.26
20.
113
30
43.8
350
.88
27.
05C
omp
lete
forw
ard
and
bac
kw
ard
SC
inte
gra
tion
3.68
3.37
0.31
*4
40
29.7
725
.80
3.97
Notes:
* p,
0.01
;H
owex
ten
siv
ely
isy
our
firm
eng
aged
inth
eef
fort
?(1
–n
oten
gag
ed;
7–
tota
lly
eng
aged
)
Table IV.Extent of engagement inSC collaboration: Period 1versus Period 2
BIJ17,2
280
To summarize, companies are not pursuing collaboration as proactively or assuccessfully as proposed. This reality highlights the need to understand the forcesresisting collaboration.
Discerning collaboration resistorsThe previous findings suggest that collaboration is hard work. It requires a new way ofthinking that is reinforced by supportive practices and systems. To explore whethercompanies are overcoming the pervasive and powerful barriers to high-levelcollaboration, managers were asked to evaluate the extent to which 11 resisting forcesimpede SC collaboration (1 – not a barrier; 7 – serious barrier). The top seven forcesfrom Period 1 were included in the assessment. A total of four new items were added.
The data in Table VI reveal good news: the barriers to SC collaboration havediminished. This is a very positive finding and is evidence that efforts to mitigatecollaboration resistors are achieving some success. Looking at individual resistors,we see that despite the improvements, the four most pervasive barriers remained thesame across time periods, with inadequate information systems (mean ¼ 4.82;percentage of five to seven ¼ 62.03 percent) again leading the list, followed by a lackof clear guidelines for managing SC relationships (4.47; 53.08 percent), nonaligned goalsand measures (4.46; 52.43 percent) and an unwillingness to share risks and rewards(4.38; 52.11 percent).
From a functional perspective, a high degree of consistency exists among therespondents (Table VII). However, looking at the sum of the responses reveals thatmanufacturers (4.09) are relatively optimistic – they perceive the barriers at lower levelsthan their purchasing (4.30) and logistics (4.30) counterparts. In fact, purchasers andlogisticians rated all 11 barriers as more problematic than their manufacturingcounterparts, suggesting that distance from the point of collaboration (either up ordownstream) leads to a diminished view of the challenges. That is, the professionalsclosest to the action are indicating that a gap exists between the “talk” of SC collaborationand the “walk” of building collaborative relationships. A disconnect exists betweensqueezing costs out of SC relationships and building more collaborative relationships.
Looking at the results in aggregate suggests that today’s challenge is not theexistence of a single formidable and immovable barrier; rather, the difficulty is one ofaccumulation. As the many resistors – ranging from technology to organizational
Combined Purchasing Logistics Production
Collaboration typeP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rank
Cross-functional integration withinthe firm 4.61 1 4.60 1 4.61 1 4.68 1Forward integration with valued first-tier customers 4.29 2 4.22 2 4.35 2 4.32 2Backward integration with importantfirst-tier suppliers 4.15 3 4.21 3 4.08 3 4.10 3Complete forward and backward SCintegration 3.68 4 3.80 4 3.55 4 3.66 4
Note: How extensively is your firm engaged in the effort? (1 – not engaged; 7 – totally engaged)
Table V.Extent of engagement in
SC integration:a functional comparison
Mitigatingresisting forces
281
Mea
nR
ank
Per
cen
tag
eof
fiv
eto
sev
enC
olla
bor
atio
nre
sist
ors
Per
iod
2P
erio
d1
Dif
fere
nce
Per
iod
2P
erio
d1
Dif
fere
nce
Per
iod
2P
erio
d1
Dif
fere
nce
Inad
equ
ate
info
rmat
ion
syst
ems
4.82
5.19
20.
37*
11
062
.03
69.4
02
7.37
Lac
kof
clea
rg
uid
elin
esfo
rm
anag
ing
SC
rela
tion
ship
s4.
474.
872
0.40
*2
20
53.0
860
.70
27.
62P
erfo
rman
cem
easu
res
and
oper
atin
gg
oals
are
not
alig
ned
4.46
4.70
20.
24*
33
052
.43
62.1
02
9.67
Com
pan
ies
un
wil
lin
gto
shar
eri
sks
and
rew
ard
s4.
384.
832
0.45
*4
40
52.1
163
.90
211
.79
Tu
rfco
nfl
icts
hin
der
pro
cess
man
agem
ent
4.30
4.49
20.
195
83
47.0
450
.90
23.
86A
lack
ofw
illi
ng
nes
sto
shar
en
eed
edin
form
atio
n4.
244.
562
0.32
*6
71
46.2
354
.70
28.
47P
roce
ssco
sts
are
dif
ficu
ltto
mea
sure
4.24
4.61
20.
37*
65
21
45.8
954
.90
29.
01L
ack
exec
uti
ve-
lev
elm
anag
eria
lsu
pp
ort
for
SC
coll
abor
atio
n4.
20–
–9
––
45.7
4–
–L
ack
bro
ad-b
ased
fun
ctio
nal
sup
por
tfo
rS
Cco
llab
orat
ion
3.99
––
8–
–41
.73
––
Lac
kof
tru
stam
ong
mem
ber
sof
the
SC
3.83
––
10–
–34
.49
––
Cu
ltu
ral
dif
fere
nce
sam
ong
mem
ber
sof
the
SC
3.45
––
11–
–26
.44
––
Notes:
* p,
0.01
;T
ow
hat
exte
nt
are
the
foll
owin
gb
arri
ers
toy
our
firm
’sS
Cco
llab
orat
ion
effo
rts?
(1–
not
ab
arri
er;
7–
seri
ous
bar
rier
)
Table VI.The strength ofcollaboration resistors:Period 1 versus Period 2
BIJ17,2
282
structure and culture to human behavior – reinforce each other, the wave of resistancebecomes a tide that inundates many companies’ efforts to increase collaboration.Because these resisting forces permeate the culture, structure, and technology of theorganization, managers find it difficult to eradicate them.
Evaluating collaboration enablersTo assess a company’s ability to establish behaviors and practices that are capable ofbridging the tide of implementation resistance, respondents were asked to evaluatehow well 16 different practices improve their companies’ ability to collaborateeffectively with other SC members (1 – does not improve; 7 – greatly improves).The responses in Table VIII reveal that progress is being made. Of the 16 enablers,11 are used more effectively to promote collaboration in Period 2 than in Period 1. Themean score for the bridges in Period 2 was 4.38, which compares to a mean of only 4.07in Period 1. That yields an average gain of 0.31 points, which is highly significant( p ¼ 0.01). Moreover, the level of enthusiasm toward the enablers has risensubstantially – nine of the 16 are endorsed by more than 50 percent of the respondentsas effective enablers (percentage of five to seven). This compares to only two in Period1. Companies are figuring out how to move their SC collaboration initiatives forward.Among the most effective enablers are:
. Open information sharing. Establishing a culture that is promotes informationsharing makes possible more effective senior-level interaction and greatersharing of technical expertise.
Combined Purchasing Logistics Production
Collaboration resistorsP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rank
Inadequate information systems 4.82 1 4.84 1 5.02 1 4.58 1Lack of clear guidelines for managingSC relationships 4.47 2 4.57 2 4.48 6 4.29 4Performance measures and operatinggoals are not aligned 4.46 3 4.47 3 4.57 2 4.35 2Companies unwilling to share risksand rewards 4.38 4 4.38 4 4.55 3 4.30 3Turf conflicts hinder processmanagement 4.30 5 4.36 5 4.53 5 4.07 8A lack of willingness to share neededinformation 4.24 6 4.30 8 4.55 3 4.19 6Process costs are difficult to measure 4.24 6 4.32 7 4.27 7 4.26 5Lack executive-level support for SCcollaboration 4.20 8 4.35 6 4.16 8 4.10 7Lack broad-based functional supportfor SC collaboration 3.99 9 4.16 9 4.02 9 3.80 9Lack of trust among members of theSC 3.83 10 3.98 10 3.86 10 3.64 10Cultural differences among membersof the SC 3.45 11 3.50 11 3.57 11 3.45 11
Note: To what extent are the following barriers to your firm’s SC collaboration efforts? (1 – not abarrier; 7 – serious barrier)
Table VII.The strength of
collaboration resistors: afunctional comparison
Mitigatingresisting forces
283
Mea
nR
ank
Per
cen
tag
eof
fiv
eto
sev
enC
olla
bor
atio
nen
able
rsP2
P1
Dif
fere
nce
P2
[16]
P1
[24]
Dif
fere
nce
P2
P1
Dif
fere
nce
Fre
qu
ent,
open
info
rmat
ion
shar
ing
amon
gS
Cm
emb
ers
5.29
4.64
0.65
*1
10
79.8
754
.20
25.6
7A
wil
lin
gn
ess
tosh
are
info
rmat
ion
amon
gS
Cm
emb
ers
5.27
4.59
0.68
*2
20
76.8
755
.00
21.8
7E
ffor
tsto
esta
bli
shco
mm
ong
oals
amon
gS
Cm
emb
ers
4.97
4.31
0.66
*3
52
69.1
145
.70
23.4
1S
Csi
mp
lifi
cati
on(e
.g.
few
erS
Cp
arti
cip
ants
)4.
924.
210.
71*
46
267
.82
42.8
025
.02
Col
lab
orat
ive
effo
rts
toad
opt
app
rop
riat
ep
erfo
rman
cem
easu
res
4.91
4.08
0.83
*5
127
67.0
942
.30
24.7
9U
seof
cros
s-fu
nct
ion
alan
dS
Cte
ams
4.85
3.84
1.01
*6
32
365
.73
37.9
327
.8S
har
ing
ofte
chn
ical
exp
erti
sew
ith
cust
omer
san
dsu
pp
lier
s4.
844.
230.
61*
74
23
65.6
943
.80
21.8
9S
enio
rle
vel
man
ager
ial
inte
ract
ion
amon
gS
Cm
emb
ers
4.84
4.21
0.63
*7
70
64.1
646
.00
18.1
6M
akin
gd
ecis
ion
sb
ased
onto
tal
cost
anal
ysi
s4.
833.
850.
98*
917
862
.00
47.5
014
.5U
seof
clea
rg
uid
elin
esto
man
age
SC
rela
tion
ship
s4.
783.
761.
02*
1020
1063
.21
32.0
031
.21
Sh
ifti
ng
role
san
dre
spon
sib
ilit
ies
(e.g
.v
end
orm
anag
edin
ven
tori
es)
4.68
3.86
0.82
*11
165
60.4
936
.20
24.2
9In
crea
sed
emp
loy
eetr
ain
ing
reg
ard
ing
SC
pra
ctic
es4.
584.
090.
49*
1211
21
57.0
539
.40
17.6
5C
reat
ion
ofw
eb-b
ased
lin
kag
es/p
orta
lsto
exch
ang
ein
form
atio
n4.
52–
–13
––
54.2
4–
–A
defi
ned
and
acce
pte
dap
pro
ach
tosh
arin
gri
sks
and
rew
ard
s4.
503.
830.
67*
1418
453
.06
35.6
017
.46
Use
ofen
terp
rise
reso
urc
ep
lan
nin
g(E
RP
)/S
CM
soft
war
e4.
433.
361.
07*
1522
749
.42
25.3
024
.12
Pro
cess
dev
elop
men
tan
din
teg
rati
onin
itia
tiv
es4.
364.
210.
1516
82
847
.88
43.4
04.
48
Notes:
* p,
0.01
;To
wh
atex
ten
td
oth
efo
llow
ing
imp
rov
eco
llab
orat
ion
bet
wee
ny
our
firm
and
oth
erS
Cm
emb
ers?
(1–
doe
sn
otim
pro
ve;
7–
gre
atly
imp
rov
es)
Table VIII.The strength ofcollaboration enablers:Period 1 versus Period 2
BIJ17,2
284
. Creating alignment. Companies are working to establish common goals andjointly develop appropriate measures.
. Teaming. People drive or derail collaboration and teams are a critical mechanismfor enabling collaboration. Companies appear to be improving their teamingskills.
A closer look at the functional responses (Table IX) reveals that just as purchasers andlogisticians were most sensitive to collaboration resistors, they are also the optimistsregarding the influence of enablers. The average enabler scores for the three groupswere as follows: purchasers ¼ 4.89, logisticians ¼ 4.83, and manufacturers ¼ 4.66.Focusing on the differing perceptions, several contrasting views are highlighted below.These contrasts are drawn from the comparative means as well as the relativerankings of the 16 practices:
Combined Purchasing Logistics Production
Collaboration enablersP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rank
Frequent, open information sharingamong SC members 5.29 1 5.35 1 5.31 2 5.24 1A willingness to share informationamong SC members 5.27 2 5.35 1 5.53 1 4.95 2Efforts to establish common goalsamong SC members 4.97 3 5.08 3 5.04 3 4.80 4SC simplification (e.g. fewer SCparticipants) 4.92 4 5.05 4 4.81 9 4.90 3Collaborative efforts to adoptappropriate performance measures 4.91 5 5.01 6 5.02 4 4.75 6Use of cross-functional and SC teams 4.85 6 4.98 7 5.00 6 4.06 16Sharing of technical expertise withcustomers and suppliers 4.84 7 4.93 9 4.82 8 4.80 4Senior level managerial interactionamong SC members 4.84 7 4.90 10 5.01 5 4.68 7Making decisions based on total costanalysis 4.83 9 5.02 5 4.96 7 4.49 11Use of clear guidelines to manage SCrelationships 4.78 10 4.94 8 4.71 10 4.63 9Shifting roles and responsibilities (e.g.vendor managed inventories) 4.68 11 4.89 11 4.43 15 4.66 8Increased employee trainingregarding SC practices 4.58 12 4.63 12 4.56 11 4.56 10Creation of web linkages/portals toexchange information 4.52 13 4.59 14 4.55 13 4.46 12A defined and accepted approach tosharing risks and rewards 4.50 14 4.63 12 4.56 11 4.34 14Use of ERP/SCM software 4.43 15 4.36 16 4.55 13 4.55 13Process development and integrationinitiatives/workshops 4.36 16 4.51 15 4.35 16 4.15 15
Note: To what extent do the following improve collaboration between your firm and other SCmembers? (1 – does not improve; 7 – greatly improves)
Table IX.The strength
of collaboration enablers:a functional comparison
Mitigatingresisting forces
285
. Logisticians are significantly more willing to share information than the othermanagers.
. Logistics professionals are the only group to rank SC simplification outside thetop five enablers. Purchasing professionals gave SC simplification the highestrating. Of note, although purchasers have made real progress with supply-baserationalization, logisticians still struggle with what often appear to be intractablecomplexity challenges.
. Purchasers and logistics managers evaluate the collaborative value of teamingmore highly than production managers. Perhaps, this perception arises fromtheir more frequent participation on teams.
. Purchasers believe that total cost analysis is vital to evaluating inter-firmcollaboration opportunities. Production managers rank total costing as one of theleast effective practices.
The response pattern suggests that day-to-day experience with a practice influenceshow managers perceive its enabling impact. Managers rank practices they deal withdaily higher than their counterparts who only hear about them in meetings, throughin-house newsletters and in “lunchroom” conversations. More teaming, better training,more effective rotation programs and enhanced communication of “success stories” areneeded to overcome this fragmentation of experience, which promotes silo thinking.
The overarching theme conveyed by the enabler data is that although much workremains to be done, real progress has been made. As the data in Table X demonstrate,in Period 1, the top five resistors had scores that were significantly higher than theircorresponding enablers ( p ¼ 0.01). By Period 2, although four of the top five resistors
Resistors EnablersRank Score Practice Rank Score Practice
20011 5.19 Inadequate information systems 1 4.64 Frequent and regular
communication2 4.87 Lack clear alliance guidelines 15 3.97 Use of clear guidelines to select allies
20 3.76 Use of clear guidelines to manageallies
3 4.84 Inconsistent operating goals 5 4.31 Use of common goals4 4.83 Lack shared risks and rewards 18 3.83 Approach to share risks and rewards5 4.61 Processes poorly costed 17 3.85 Use of total cost analysis
24 3.08 Use of activity-based costing20071 4.82 Inadequate information systems 1 5.29 Frequent and regular
communication2 4.47 Lack clear alliance guidelines 10 4.78 Use of clear guidelines to manage SC3 4.46 Non-aligned measures and goals 3 4.97 Establish common goals
5 4.91 Collaborative adoption of measures4 4.38 Unwilling to share risks and
rewards14 4.50 Approach to share risks and rewards
5 4.30 Turf conflicts 16 4.36 Process development andintegration
Table X.Comparison of scores fortop five resistors andenablers: Period 1 versusPeriod 2
BIJ17,2
286
remained unchanged, their scores were significantly lower ( p ¼ 0.05) and the scoresfor the related enablers were all higher, three of them significantly. Managers arebeginning to grasp where and how to invest scarce resources to promote both changeand more effective collaboration.
Measuring the performance benefits of collaborationDocumenting benefits is a critical part of an evaluation of the attractiveness of acollaboration capability. After all, anecdotal stories about SC collaboration’s benefitsabound. So too do stories about failed collaboration initiatives. A careful assessment ofbenefit achievability is therefore needed. To help quantify the benefits of SCcollaboration, we asked managers to indicate to what extent SC collaboration hasimproved their firm’s performance in ten specific areas (1 – not improved; 7 – greatlyimproved). The results reported in Table XI reveal that customer service benefitsremain collaboration’s most important contribution to firm competitiveness.Establishing more collaborative relationships enables companies not only to improvespecific service capabilities but also to insinuate themselves into customers’ keyvalue-added processes. Although collaboration’s top-line, revenue-generating impact isimportant, respondents also indicated that collaboration helps reduce a variety of costs.As a result, overall SC costs are improved and firm profitability goes up.
Focusing briefly on functional perspectives reveals a relatively consistent view ofthe collaboration benefits (Table XII). This represents an interesting evolution inperception from Period 1 when the three managerial groups perceived the nature ofcollaborative benefits quite differently. That is, in Period 1, the most prevalent benefitsidentified by one functional area were viewed as relatively less important by the otherfunctions. One possible conclusion from this finding is that managers are doing abetter job of documenting and communicating the performance benefits that they areachieving. Despite the general convergence, supply managers place more emphasis oncollaboration’s ability to reduce the cost of purchased items and logisticians valueimproved on-time delivery benefits more than other managers.
Evaluated holistically, these findings suggest that a well-thought-out, carefullyexecuted collaboration strategy promises to help a company profitably deliver highlevels of customer satisfaction. This combination of service and efficiency is the allureof most strategic initiatives, not just the collaboration-enabled SC.
ConclusionThe data confirm that SC collaboration is a complex phenomenon. They also tell anintriguing story: as competition intensifies, some companies are responding by turningto collaborative initiatives. They are mitigating resisting forces and implementingcollaboration enablers. Their organizational structures and cultures are transformingto support their collaborative strategies. As a result, their collaborative capabilities areimproving and they are obtaining higher levels of customer service and productivity.
However, success has not been universal. Many companies are struggling toleverage collaboration for competitive advantage. The barriers to success are many.They begin with managers’ understanding of the nature of SC collaboration, whichinvolves the sharing of resources – information, people, and technology – among SCmembers to create synergies for competitive advantage. Indeed, a high-levelcollaboration capability goes beyond managing transactions for efficiency to
Mitigatingresisting forces
287
Mea
nR
ank
Per
cen
tag
eof
fiv
eto
sev
en
Col
lab
orat
ion
ben
efit
Per
iod
2P
erio
d1
Dif
fere
nce
Per
iod
2P
erio
d1
(15)
Dif
fere
nce
Per
iod
2P
erio
d1
Dif
fere
nce
Ov
eral
lcu
stom
ersa
tisf
acti
on4.
894.
620.
27*
13
267
.43
54.4
013
.03
On
-tim
ed
eliv
ery
/du
e-d
ate
per
form
ance
4.83
4.65
0.18
22
066
.20
56.1
010
.1R
esp
onsi
ven
ess
tocu
stom
erre
qu
ests
oru
nex
pec
ted
chal
len
ges
4.82
4.58
0.24
31
22
66.9
257
.00
9.92
Fir
mp
rofi
tab
ilit
y4.
694.
510.
184
62
60.9
549
.00
11.9
5O
ver
all
pro
du
ctan
dS
Cco
sts
(pro
du
ctiv
ity
)4.
674.
380.
29*
59
460
.10
46.7
013
.4C
ost
ofp
urc
has
edit
ems
4.65
4.58
0.07
65
21
59.5
754
.40
5.17
Inv
ento
ryp
erfo
rman
ce(e
.g.
cost
,le
vel
s,tu
rns)
4.64
4.48
0.16
75
22
58.7
848
.40
10.3
8O
ver
all
pro
du
ctq
ual
ity
4.40
4.16
0.24
*8
113
50.8
340
.40
10.4
3T
ran
spor
tati
onco
sts
4.16
3.89
0.27
*9
123
41.6
034
.70
6.9
New
pro
du
ctd
evel
opm
ent
cap
abil
ity
(e.g
.co
st,
tim
e,u
niq
uen
ess)
4.02
3.60
0.42
*10
144
39.2
824
.80
14.4
8
Notes:
* p,
0.01
;T
ow
hat
exte
nt
has
SC
coll
abor
atio
nim
pro
ved
you
rfi
rm’s
per
form
ance
inth
efo
llow
ing
area
s?(1
–n
otim
pro
ved
;7
–g
reat
lyim
pro
ved
)
Table XI.Documentingcollaboration benefits:Period 1 versus Period 2
BIJ17,2
288
managing relationships for creativity and continuous improvement. Thus, for manyfirms, building a collaboration-enabled business model requires a transformation inthinking and practice. By failing to comprehend the character and magnitude of therequired change, these companies fail to:
. leverage external driving forces; and
. invest in collaboration enablers to mitigate prevalent collaboration resistors.
Their structures and cultures remain frozen – or are only partially thawed – and acollaboration capability remains out of reach.
The diversity of outcomes suggests that managers must carefully evaluate theircompanies’ motivation and readiness to pursue a collaboration-enabled SC. Theyshould assess managerial commitment to collaboration as well as managerialunderstanding of what is required to achieve it. Managers must then consider whetherthey can generate the momentum for sustained change. Simultaneously, they need toevaluate their companies’ abilities to implement specific collaboration enablers – theenablers that can most effectively mitigate the resistors that are present in their SC.Finally, they should ask whether or not they can persist even when the benefits areslow to emerge. Many companies simply do not have the vision or the patience to learnhow to collaborate successfully.
References
Anderson, P.F. (1982), “Marketing, strategic planning and the theory of the firm”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 15-26.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Combined Purchasing Logistics Production
Collaboration benefitP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rankP2
meanP2
rank
Overall customer satisfaction 4.89 1 4.89 2 4.90 3 4.92 1On-time delivery/due-dateperformance 4.83 2 4.88 3 4.92 1 4.66 3Responsiveness to customers 4.82 3 4.80 5 4.91 2 4.86 2Firm profitability 4.69 4 4.85 4 4.64 5 4.53 5Overall product and SC costs 4.67 5 4.78 7 4.65 4 4.49 6Cost of purchased items 4.65 6 4.95 1 4.42 7 4.47 7Inventory performance 4.64 7 4.80 5 4.49 6 4.55 4Overall product quality 4.40 8 4.69 8 4.11 9 4.27 8Transportation costs 4.16 9 4.16 10 4.35 8 4.04 9New product developmentcapability 4.02 10 4.27 9 3.74 10 3.94 10
Note: To what extent has SC collaboration improved your firm’s performance? (1 – not improved;7 – greatly improved)
Table XII.Documenting
collaboration benefits: afunctional perspective
Mitigatingresisting forces
289
Barney, J.B. (2001), “Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic managementresearch? Yes”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 41-56.
Barratt, M. (2004), “Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain”, SupplyChain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 30-43.
Beth, S., Burt, D.N., Copacino, W., Gopal, C., Lee, H.L., Lynch, R.P., Morris, S. and Kirby, J. (2003),“Supply chain challenges: building relationships”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81 No. 7,pp. 64-73.
Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R. and Ridderstrale, J. (2002), “Knowledge as a contingency variable: do thecharacteristics of knowledge predict organization structure?”, Organization Science, Vol. 13No. 3, pp. 274-89.
Brady, D. (2003), “Will Jeff Immelt’s new push pay off for GE?”, Business Week, October 13,pp. 94-8.
Cassivi, L. (2006), “Collaboration planning in a supply chain”, Supply Chain Management:An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 249-58.
Celly, K.S., Spekman, R.E. and Kamauff, J.W. (1999), “Technological uncertainty, buyerpreferences and supplier assurances: an examination of pacific rim purchasingarrangements”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 297-316.
Cook, M., Mukharji, P., Kiefer, L. and Pertruzzi, M. (2005), “Working your assets to boost yourgrowth”, Supply Chain Strategy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 4-6.
Corsten, D. and Felde, J. (2005), “Exploring the performance effects of key-suppliercollaboration”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 445-62.
Dawes, R.M. (1980), “Social dilemmas”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 169-93.
Denkena, R., Apitz, R. and Liedtke, C. (2006), “Knowledge-based benchmarking of productionperformance”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13 Nos 1-2, pp. 190-9.
Dent, E.B. and Goldberg, S.G. (1999), “Challenging resistance to change”, Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Diekmann, A. (1985), “Volunteer’s dilemma”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 29, pp. 605-10.
Dierickx, I. and Cool, K. (1989), “Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitiveadvantage”, Management Science, Vol. 35 No. 12, pp. 1504-11.
Drucker, P.F. (2001), The Essential Drucker, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, NY.
Dyer, J.H. (1996), “Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidencefrom the auto industry”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 271-92.
Dyer, J.H. and Singh, H. (1998), “The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources ofinter-organizational competitive advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23No. 4, pp. 660-79.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10-11, pp. 1105-21.
Ellinger, A.E., Keller, S.B. and Hansen, J.D. (2006), “Bridging the divide between logistics andmarketing: facilitating collaborative behavior”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 27 No. 2,pp. 1-27.
Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2002), “The rhetoric and reality of supply chain integration”,International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,pp. 339-61.
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M. and Mccarter, M.W. (2008), “A three-stage implementation modelfor supply chain collaboration”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 93-112.
BIJ17,2
290
Fawcett, S.E., Allred, C., Magnan, G.M. and Ogden, J. (2009a), “Benchmarking the viability ofSCM for entrepreneurial business model design”, Benchmarking: An International Journal,Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-29.
Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C. and Magnan, J. (2009b), “Supply chain information-sharing:benchmarking a proven path”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16 No. 2,pp. 222-46.
Fine, C.H. (1998), Clockspeed, Perseus Books, Reading, MA.
Friedman, T.L. (2000), The World Is Flat, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Friedman, T.L. (2005), The World Is Flat, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, NY.
Frohlich, M.T. and Westbrook, R. (2001), “Arcs of integration: an international study of supplychain strategies”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19, pp. 185-200.
Funk, J.L. (1995), “Just-in-time manufacturing and logistical complexity: a contingency model”,International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 60-71.
Grove, A. (1996), Only the Paranoid Survive, Currency, New York, NY.
Grzeskowiak, S., Blut, M. and Kenning, P. (2007), “Market orientation in vertical businessnetworks”, Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 31-50.
Guide, D.R. Jr, Jayaraman, V. and Linton, J. (2003), “Building contingency planning forclosed-loop supply chains with product recovery”, Journal of Operations Management,Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 259-79.
Hadley, S. (2004), “Making the supply chain management business case”, Strategic Finance,Vol. 85 No. 10, pp. 28-35.
Hammer, M. (1990), “Reengineering work: don’t automate, obliterate”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 104-31.
Hammer, M. (2004), “Deep change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 84-93.
Han, S.L., Wilson, D.T. and Dant, S.P. (1993), “Buyer-supplier relationships today”, IndustrialMarketing Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 331-8.
Hendricks, K.B. and Singhal, V.R. (2003), “The effect of supply chain glitches on shareholderwealth”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 501-22.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. and Slater, S.F. (2004), “Information processing, knowledgedevelopment, and strategic supply chain performance”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 241-54.
Humphrey, J. and Schmitz, H. (1996), “The triple c approach to local industrial policy”, WorldDevelopment, Vol. 24 No. 12, pp. 1859-77.
Hunt, S.D. and Davis, D.F. (2008), “Grounding supply chain management in resource-advantagetheory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 10-21.
Johnson, P.F., Klassen, R.D., Leenders, M.R. and Fearon, H.E. (2002), “Determinants ofpurchasing team usage in the supply chain”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20No. 1, pp. 77-89.
Jones, R. (1996), “Small-firm success and supplier relations in the Australian boat-buildingindustry: a contrast of two regions”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 34 No. 2,pp. 71-8.
Kale, P., Singh, H. and Perlmutter, H. (2000), “Learning and protection of proprietary assets instrategic alliances: building relational capital”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21No. 3, pp. 217-37.
Kollock, P. (1998), “Social dilemmas: the anatomy of cooperation”, Annual Review of Sociology,Vol. 24, pp. 183-214.
Mitigatingresisting forces
291
Komorita, S. and Parks, C. (1996), Social Dilemmas, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), “Leading change: why transformation efforts fail”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Lambert, D.M. and Knemeyer, A.M. (2004), “We’re in this together”, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 82 No. 12, pp. 114-22.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), Organization and Environment, Harvard Press,Boston, MA.
Lee, H. (2004), “The triple-a supply chain”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 10, pp. 102-13.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, London.
Lunsford, J.L. (2008a), “Boeing delays dreamliner delivery again”, Wall Street Journal, April, 10,p. B3.
Lunsford, J.L. (2008b), “Boeing moves to solve 787 delays”, Wall Street Journal, March 10.
Luo, Y. (2007), “Are joint venture partners more opportunistic in a more volatile environment?”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 39-60.
Luthans, F. and Stewart, T.I. (1977), “A general contingency theory of management”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 181-95.
McCarter, M.W. and Northcraft, G.B. (2007), “Happy together?: insights and implications ofviewing managed supply chains as a social dilemma”, Journal of Operations Management,Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 498-511.
Mabert, V.A. and Venkataraman, M.A. (1998), “Special research focus on supply chain linkages:challenges for design and management in the 21st century”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 29No. 3, pp. 537-53.
Min, S., Mentzer, J.T. and Ladd, R.T. (2007), “A market orientation in supply chain management”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 507-22.
Moberg, C.B., Speh, T.W. and Freese, T.L. (2003), “SCM: making the vision a reality”, SupplyChain Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 34-40.
Moffett, S., Anderson-Gillespie, K. and McAdam, R. (2008), “Benchmarking and performancemeasurement: a statistical analysis”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15No. 4, pp. 368-81.
Monczka, R.M., Handfield, R.B., Giunipero, L.C. and Patterson, J.L. (2008), Purchasing and SupplyChain Management, South-Western College/West Publishing, New York, NY.
Murnighan, J., Kim, J. and Metzger, A. (1993), “The volunteer dilemma”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 38, pp. 515-38.
Nasrallah, W., Levitt, R. and Glynn, P. (2003), “Interaction value analysis: when structuredcommunication benefits organizations”, Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 541-57.
Nelson, D., Mayo, R. and Moody, P.E. (1998), Powered by Honda, Wiley, New York, NY.
Newbert, S.L. (2007), “Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessmentand suggestions for future research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2,pp. 121-46.
Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Parker, G.G. and Anderson, E.G Jr (2002), “From buyer to integrator: the transformation of thesupply-chain manager in the vertically disintegrating firm”, Production and OperationsManagement, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 75-92.
Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990), “The core competence of the corporation”, Harvard BusinessReview, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 79-91.
BIJ17,2
292
Premaratne, S.P. (2001), “Networks, resources, and small business growth: the experiencein Sri Lanka”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 363-71.
Rinehart, L.M., Lee, T.R. and Page, T.J. Jr (2008), “A comparative assessment of domestic andinternational supplier-customer relationship perceptions”, International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 38 No. 8, pp. 616-36.
Sanders, P. (2009), “Maiden flight due soon, but Boeing is pressed to complete ambitiousschedule”, Wall Street Journal, June 19.
Scott, W.R. and Davis, G. (2006), Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and OpenSystems Perspectives, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Simatupang, T.M. and Ramaswami, S. (2004), “A benchmarking scheme for supply chaincollaboration”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-31.
Stalk, G., Evans, P. and Schulman, L.E. (1992), “Competing on capabilities: the new rules ofcorporate strategy”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 57-69.
Stonebraker, P.W. and Afifi, R. (2004), “Toward a contingency theory of supply chains”,Management Decision, Vol. 42 No. 9, pp. 1131-44.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-33.
Tyndall, G. (1998), Supercharging Supply Chains, Wiley, New York, NY.
Wathne, K.H. and Heide, J.B. (2004), “Relationship governance in a supply chain”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 73-89.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5No. 2, pp. 171-80.
Wisner, J.D. (2003), “A structural equation model of supply chain management strategies andfirm performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Wong, W.P. and Wong, K.Y. (2008), “A review on benchmarking of supply chain performancemeasures”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 25-51.
Zeng, M. and Chen, X.P. (2003), “Achieving cooperation in multiparty alliances: a social dilemmaapproach to partnership management”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 4,pp. 587-605.
Zhu, K. and Kraemer, K.L. (2002), “E-commerce metrics for net-enhanced organizations:assessing the value of e-commerce to firm performance in the manufacturing sector”,Information Systems Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 275-95.
Further reading
Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.N. (2004), “Ten guiding principles of high-impact supply chainmanagement”, Business Horizons, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 67-74.
Corresponding authorStanley E. Fawcett can be contacted at: stan_fawcett@byu.edu
Mitigatingresisting forces
293
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Recommended