Supply chain management: a framework to characterize the collaborative strategies

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 09 September 2013, At: 16:59Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Computer IntegratedManufacturingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcim20

Supply chain management: a framework tocharacterize the collaborative strategiesR. Derrouiche a , G. Neubert a & A. Bouras aa PRISMa/CERRAL IUT Lumière, University of Lyon, FrancePublished online: 20 May 2008.

To cite this article: R. Derrouiche , G. Neubert & A. Bouras (2008) Supply chain management: a framework tocharacterize the collaborative strategies, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 21:4, 426-439, DOI:10.1080/09511920701574461

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09511920701574461

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcim20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09511920701574461

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09511920701574461

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Supply chain management: a framework to characterize thecollaborative strategies

R. DERROUICHE*, G. NEUBERT and A. BOURAS

PRISMa/CERRAL IUT Lumiere, University of Lyon, France

The current intense competition forces enterprises to pay attention to supply chain

collaboration with their upstream and downstream partners. Different collaborative

strategies such as quick response (QR), efficient consumer response (ECR), vendor

managed inventory (VMI) or collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment

(CPFR) have already been proposed. The key to ensuring that the supply chain partners

are progressing on the right track of creating the best-in-class practice lays in their ability

to choose the appropriate strategy. The current paper proposes a framework, based on

analysis grids and graphical representations, which help to better characterize these

strategies. The analysis grids use several characterization criteria to express the

collaboration nature and its extent. For a better understanding, this framework is then

applied to the CPFR strategy.

Keywords: Supply chain management; Collaborative strategies; Analysis framework;

CPFR; UML

1. Introduction

The growth and development of enterprises are not driven

only by internal motives, but by a number of external

factors (Gunasekaran et al. 2004). Today, many enterprises

have taken bold steps to break down both intra and inter

enterprise barriers to form alliances. The objective is to

increase the financial and operational performance of each

partner of the supply chain (SC) through reductions in total

cost, investments and increase in information sharing.

A SC does not merely represent a linear chain of one-on-

one business relationships, but a web of multiple business

networks and relationships (Maloni and Benton 1997).

These relationships reflect cooperation/coordination/colla-

boration activities and, more precisely, SC collaboration.

SC collaboration has become a critical part of the strategic

planning for enterprises to create competitive advantage

(Horvath 2001). A closer relationship enables the partners

to achieve cost reductions and revenue enhancements as

well as flexibility in dealing with supply and demand

uncertainties (Bowersox 1990, Lee et al. 1997, Bowersox

et al. 2000). These relationships can be extended from the

simple exchange of basic information to a more elaborate

level of experience sharing, risks and profits. These

relationships are defined in the proposed framework as

collaborative strategies or collaborative supply chain

strategies (CSCS). They include strategies such as quick

response (QR) (Troyer and Denny 1992), efficient con-

sumer response (ECR) (Kurt et al. 1998), continuous

replenishment policy (CRP) (Alberto and Zamolo 2005),

vendor managed inventory (VMI) (Jonah and Hui-Ming

2003), collaborative planning, forecasting and replenish-

ment (CPFR) (Vics 2006) and synchronized consumer

response (SCR), rapid replenishment (RR) and centralized

inventory management (CIM) (Disney and Towill 2002).

Some research works such as Simchi-Livi et al. (2000),

Cooray and Ratnatunga (2001), Gustafsson and Norrman

(2001) and Alberto and Zamolo (2005) made classification

and comparison of different collaborative strategies

possible. However, the methods used do not allow the

understanding of their limits, their application areas, the

input and output of each of them, etc. In order to

answer some of these questions the current paper proposes

a framework based on analysis grids and graphical

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 21, No. 4, June 2008, 426 – 439

International Journal of Computer Integrated ManufacturingISSN 0951-192X print/ISSN 1362-3052 online ª 2008 Taylor & Francis

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/09511920701574461

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

representations that help to better characterize and

compare these strategies.

This paper is organized as follows. The following section

describes the collaborative supply chain (CSC) and its

characteristics. In section 3, a brief description of some

well-known collaborative strategies is given. Section 4

presents some existing approaches to analyse collaborative

strategies. Section 5, introduces the proposed framework

while an illustration of its utilization on the CPFR strategy is

shown in section 6.This case study indicates how this strategy

is covered according to the configuration of the studied SC.

Section 7 attempts to model the information flows that

support these collaborative strategies. Finally, a concluding

section gives some recommendations for future research.

2. Collaborative supply chain

Collaboration between SC partners has been covered

extensively in the strategic management literature

(Bowersox 1990, Hanman 1997, Laseter 1998, Gilmour

1999, Bowersox et al. 2000). Several research surveys have

shown, for example, that the core of SC management is the

process improvement at the inter-enterprises level (Boyson

et al. 1999, Stank et al. 1999). Some researchers have

examined the theoretical implications of SC collaboration

through unilateral supply policies (Chen 2001, Klastorin

et al. 2002, Taylor 2002). Others have employed theoretical

models to examine bilateral information exchange rather

than unilateral policy incentives (Governing 2002, He et al.

2002, Li 2002, Moinzadeh 2002). Some recent studies

(Simatupang and Sridharan 2005, Lambert et al. 2004) are

interested in a better characterization of the CSC.

2.1. Definition of collaborative supply chain

SC collaboration is often defined as two or more enterprises

working together to create a competitive advantage and

higher profits that cannot be achieved by acting alone

(Simatupang and Sridharan 2005). In the current paper the

term collaboration is chosen to describe the close coopera-

tion among autonomous partners engaged in joint efforts to

effectively meet end customer needs with lower costs. The

advent of SC collaboration creates the need, at the inter-

enterprises level, to pay special attention to the understand-

ing of collaboration in order to prepare the partners to

create collaborative efforts successfully (Lambert et al.

2004).

Figure 1 shows a simple structure of a collaborative SC

with two players that serve the same consumer. The

consumer can be included in the collaborative system if he

takes a greater participatory role in the making and

delivering of a product. The following properties are

inherent in a SC: the retailer has decision rights (e.g.

order placement and sales target), private information

(e.g. end customer demand) and internal costs and

revenue. The supplier also has its own decision rights

(e.g. delivery and production setting), private information

(e.g. product characteristics) and internal costs and

revenue.

2.2. Dilemma of supply chain collaboration

When partners involve in collaboration, there is a

dilemma between accommodating decisions that take

into account the interest of the SC as a whole and

preserving decisions in the interest of an individual

enterprises. A conflict resolution diagram can be em-

ployed to capture and describe the dilemma of SC

collaboration between taking decisions based on link-

centric-measures and taking decisions based on SC-wide

measures. Goldratt (1994) and Dettmer (1998) explain

that the diagram dilemma (figure 2) can be read: ‘taking

decisions in the interest of the SC (P1) is in direct conflict

with taking decisions in the interests of individual

Figure 1. A simple structure of a collaborative supply chain (Simatupang and Sridharan 2005).

Supply chain management 427

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

enterprises (P2)’. Frequently, individual enterprises tend

to make decisions in the interests of their individual

enterprises rather than considering the holistic SC. The

first key assumption is that the partners often think that

SC collaboration means a decrease in bargaining power

to minimize costs. They presume that minimizing costs of

each partner of the SC will improve the performance of

the whole SC. Often, each individual enterprise focuses

its decisions to maximize myopic revenue (i.e. sales from

immediate downstream partners) and minimize myopic

costs (i.e. buying from immediate upstream partners)

rather than to maximize the overall market expansion of

the entire SC. See Goldratt (1994) and Dettmer (1998)

for further explanation on the conflict resolution

diagram.

2.3. Characteristics of CSC

In order to minimize the effect of the dilemma of SC

collaboration, a more consistent definition of this concept

must be developed, defining the various attributes and their

interaction. In 2004, Simatupang and Sridharan proposed

such a definition and characterized SC collaboration

using five elements (figure 3), which include appropriate

Figure 2. A dilemma of supply chain collaboration (Goldratt 1994).

Figure 3. An empirical study of SC collaboration (Simatupang and Sridharan 2004).

428 R. Derrouiche et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

performance system, information sharing, decision syn-

chronization, incentive alignment and streamlined inter-

enterprises business processes.

3. Collaborative strategies

Different collaborative strategies such as QR, ECR, VMI

or CPFR have been proposed. As the difference between

these strategies is not always obvious, this section will

provide a brief description of these strategies.

3.1. Quick response (QR)

Owing to the intense competition in the textile industry,

leaders in the US apparel industry formed the ‘Crafted

With Pride in the USA Council’ in 1984 (Alberto and

Zamolo 2005). A SC analysis was conducted under this

Council and the results showed that the delivery time for

the apparel SC was 66 weeks from raw materials to

consumer and 40 weeks of which were spent in warehouse

or in transit. In order to reduce the lead-time and inventory

cost, a (QR) strategy was developed to address this issue

(Troyer and Denny 1992). A QR is a strategy where the

retailers and the suppliers work together to serve consumer

needs quickly by information sharing (Troyer and Denny

1992). Under this strategy, suppliers receive point of sale

data from retailers and use this information to synchronize

their production and inventory control with actual

sales. The retailer makes decisions to generate orders.

Using point of sale data, the supplier makes decisions to

improve demand forecasting and production scheduling

(Schonberger 1996).

3.2. Efficient consumer response (ECR)

Similar to the textile industry, a group of grocery industry

leaders created a joint industry task force called the efficient

consumer response (ECR) working group in 1992 (Kurt

et al. 1998). ECR strategy aimed at making the SC more

competitive and bringing greater value to the consumer.

Manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers work together as

business allies to reduce total system costs, inventories and

physical assets while improving the consumers’ choice of

high-quality, fresh products. From ECR, the concept of

CRP is developed (Alberto and Zamolo 2005).

3.3. Continuous replenishment policy (CRP)

CRP strategy reorganizes the traditional system of ordering

and replenishment characterized by the transfer of purchase

orders from the distributor to the supplier. CRP is a

process of restocking where the producer sends to the

distribution centre full loads whose composition varies

according to sales and in conformity with a prearranged

level of stock. In an advanced form of CRP, suppliers may

gradually decrease inventory levels at the retail store or

distribution centre as long as the service levels are met

(Troyer and Denny 1992).

3.4. Vendor managed inventory (VMI)

Sometimes called vendor-managed replenishment (VMR),

was introduced later. It represents the highest level of

partnership where the vendor is the primary decision-maker

in order placement and inventory control (Alberto and

Zamolo 2005). Under a VMI system, the supplier decides

on the appropriate inventory levels of each of the products

(within previously agreed upon bounds) and the appro-

priate inventory policies to maintain these levels (Simchi-

Livi et al. 2000).

3.5. Collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment

(CPFR)

In the late 1990s the voluntary inter-industry commerce

standards (VICS) Association (VICS 2006) developed the

CPFR initiative’ and published a first ‘CPFR guidelines’.

CPFR began first with a pilot program between Wal-Mart

and Warner-Lambert, called CFAR (collaborative fore-

casting and replenishment). CPFR is a set of business

processes that are established and empowered by a formal

agreement to cooperate on strategy, tactics and execution

by resolution of exceptions. This agreement is the first of

the nine-steps (figure 4).

However, the basics of CPFR are straightforward: first,

the partners share information about demand. If the buyer

is a manufacturer or assembler then demand is generated

by the manufacturer or assembler’s trial master-production

schedule. Then, significant differences between the buyer’s

and seller’s demand forecast, labelled ‘exceptions’, are

Figure 4. The nine steps of CPFR process (Hammond

and Larry 2001).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

discussed and resolved. These are steps 3–5 above. Then,

buyer and supplier share plans for orders that the buyer

will place with the supplier, based on the shared demand

forecasts. Again, exceptions are identified and resolved

(steps 6–8). Subsequently, using the shared order plan,

actual orders are generated (step 9). The foundation for

steps 3–9 is the so-called ‘front-end agreement’, under

which the roles of the buyer and supplier and their

capabilities to perform these roles are assessed. In this

step, targeted performance and measures are also adopted.

In step 2, strategies and tactics are specified in detail. See

Hammond and Larry (2001) for more details on the

CPFR steps.

4. Comparative approaches

The problem today is that confusions still exist about the

described strategies because of the similarity of their

theoretical definitions (Derrouiche et al. 2005a). For

example, Alberto and Zamolo (2005) consider CRP and

VMI as the same strategy; Disney and Towill (2002)

consider that VMI comes in many different forms and is

described by terms such as SCR, CRP, ECR, RR, CPFR

and CIM; Jonah and Hui-Ming (2003) consider VMI just

as a ‘pull’ replenishing practice designed to enable a QR

from the vendor to address actual demand. In order to

differentiate these strategies, several studies have been

developed (Derrouiche et al. 2005a and 2005b).

In their study, Simchi-Livi et al. (2000) propose the

degree of partnership as criteria of differentiation between

the different collaborative strategies (figure 5). The degree

of partnership ranges from information sharing where the

retailer helps the vendor to plan demand more efficiently, to

consignment schemes where the vendor completely man-

ages and owns the inventory until the retailer sells it. Using

this criteria, the present authors classified QR as low and

VMI as high degrees of partnership. Later, the same

authors used a new criterion: a decision point of order

generation, Inventory ownership and new skills employed

by vendors, to compare the different strategies. These

strategies were then classified in different levels (in an

increasing order) as following: QR, CRP, Advanced CRP

and VMI.

Duke (1998), Cooray and Ratnatunga (2001) and Cox

(2001) identified the power relationships as other criteria.

The selection of a retailer–supplier relationship (RSP)

strategy is highly dependent on the power structure of the

RSP. Duke (1998) proposed a comprehensive survey on

power and conflict handling of buyer–supplier in a variety

of countries and industries. Cooray and Ratnatunga (2001)

further identified that power relationships are related to

cultural differences between the retailer and the supplier.

Cox (2001) has argued that the collaborative approach may

not be the ultimate solution for all SC scenarios. The power

exchange and shift between retailers and suppliers of RSP

strategies can be explained by a retailer–supplier power

structure as shown in figure 6.

This power structure can show that collaborative

strategies are different and the power between partners

changes. In the case of the VMI there is a high level of

power for the supplier (and low level power for the retailer),

but the QR gives more power for the retailer. According to

this study the CPFR is presented as a strategy with a high

degree of power for the two partners.

Figure 5. Some criteria to differentiate collaborative strategies (Simchi-Livi et al. 2000).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Gustafsson and Norrman (2001) proposed another point

of view based on three main dimensions: (a) the organiza-

tional scope of management (internal logistics, SC and

supply network), (b) the degree of operational activity

(execution, planning or more strategic choices) and (c) the

decision-making frequency; whether the concepts (and

support system) is based on real-time information/decision

making or periodical decisions made on ‘batch run’

information (figure 7).

According to these criteria, they consider the network

managed supply (NMS) as a strategy which addresses

real time execution in SC networks with the idea that end

consumers’ real time demand should control the flow of

goods in the network. VMI (which is a brick stone of

NMS) is often referred to as a used in a dyad and has

previously often not been based on real time data.

These approaches made classification and comparison of

different collaborative strategies possible. However, these

approaches allow only basic comparisons between the

collaborative strategies and the methods used do not allow

understanding their limits, their application areas, the

definition of what is necessary as input and output for each

of them, the context (or relationship) to which one strategy

is better than one another and so on. Based on this

statement, a new framework will be proposed in the

following sections, which helps answering some of these

questions.

5. Building a framework for collaborative supply chain

strategies

To characterize the collaborative strategies framework five

key criteria have been used (figure 8):

(a) extent of the collaboration;

(b) objects involved in the collaboration;

(c) nature of the collaboration;

(d) decision level;

(e) frequency of decisions.

The proposed framework is mainly based on a comparison

grid and gives an overview of its interpretation using a

cartography representation.

Figure 7. Some dimensions of SCM (Gustafsson and Norrman 2001).

Figure 6. Retailer–supplier relationship power structure

(Jonah and Hui-Ming 2003).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

5.1. The comparison grid

The grid allows the presentation of any collaborative

strategies according to the five proposed criteria. This

permits to distinguish what-is (and is-not) addressed and

to know who-is-doing-what, how-it-is-done, who-is-

collaborating-with-whom, what-is-necessary for the colla-

boration and its importance (figure 9).

5.1.1. Extent of the collaboration. The SC is composed

(in the large sense) of several entities (enterprises), which

collaborate in a production process or in a service. This

requires certain integration between the involved entities.

The integration can be considered from an internal point of

view between different functions within each entity

(figure 10), as well as from an external one between an

entity and its environment. This last point can be analysed

according to two steps:

(1) Bi-level external integration that concerns the

integration between the entity processes and its

first tiers’ processes (direct suppliers and custo-

mers). Its goal is to accelerate the information

flows, encourage the information sharing and,

improve the direct collaboration,

(2) Multi-level external integration which is a complete

integration of the whole SC from the earliest

suppliers to the end customers.

5.1.2. Objects involved in the collaboration. Several

authors draw distinctions between three different objects

that can exist in collaboration: data, information and

knowledge. Beckman (1997) proposed a five-level objects’

hierarchy in which any object of the hierarchy can be

transformed from a lower level to a more valuable higher

level (table 1).

In practice it is difficult to determine precisely when data

becomes information and at what moment information

becomes knowledge.

5.1.3. Nature of the collaboration. In order to make

difference between collaboration types, the temporal

aspect and the type of the used transfer method have been

used. The following main cases have been distinguished

(figure 11).

Figure 8. Framework to analyse the collaborative

strategies.

Figure 9. Analysis grid.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(1) Make objects available (case 1): The partner B puts

at the disposal of the partner A a set of data (i.e. the

partner B gives the possibility of access to a part of

its database to the partner A, within an extranet

context).

(2) Exchange objects (case 2): There is a sequential

exchange (in both directions): The partner A sends a

set of data to the partner B and vice versa

(exchanged data is not necessarily of same nature

and context).

(3) Share objects (case 3): The two partners (A and B)

develop and/or use the same set of data for different

uses.

Contrarily to (case 1) and (case 2), in (case 3) the

two partners (A and B) can develop new knowledge (with its

associated values and beliefs) from the initial shared data.

This, associated to the development of new knowledge can

also lead to a collective learning and strategic collective

expertise (Hult et al. 2003).

5.1.4. Decision level and frequency of decisions. Accord-

ing to Thomas and Griffin (1996), John et al. (2000) and

Huang et al. (2003), the collaboration orientation exists on

a continuum from strategic to operational level.

Strategic level addresses issues such as production

strategy and sourcing strategy. Tactical level addresses

issues such as forecasting, scheduling and ordering of short

lead time materials. Operational level addresses issues such

as inventory deployment, detailed scheduling and manage-

ment of machine breakdown (Thomas and Griffin 1996).

Generally authors consider that strategic decisions concern

the long-term, tactical decisions are related to the medium-

term and operational decisions deal with daily events in a SC

(Huang et al. 2003). For this reason, the strategic-tactic-

operational criteria are described in the proposed frame-

work as a representation of both decision level and

frequency decision level.

To enhance the use of this grid, a cartographic repres-

entation has been introduced to propose a visual interpre-

tation of the collaborative strategy generated from the grid.

Figure 10. Extent of the collaboration in the SC.

Table 1. Objects involved in the collaboration (Beckman 1997).

1-Data Text, fact, code, image, sound 5attribute value4 (1þmeaningþ structure¼ 2)

2-Information Organized, structured,

interpreted, summarized data

5object attribute value4 (2þ reasoningþ abstraction

þ relationshipsþ application¼ 3)

3-Knowledge Case, rule, process, model 5relation object attribute value4 (3þ selectionþ experienceþprinciples

þ constraintsþ learning¼ 4)

4-Expertise Fast & accurate advice,

explanation & justification

of result & reasoning

5relation abject attribute value

certainty importance4(4þ integrationþdistributionþ navigation¼ 5)

5-Capability Knowledge repository,

integrated performance

support system.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

5.2. The collaborative cartography

The idea of the cartography consists of drawing two curves

corresponding to the MAX and the MIN of the various

criteria (figure 12).

(1) The MIN curve shows what CPFR can do at

‘minimum’. Example: CPFR permits (in the worst

case) to a collaborating partner to ‘make available’

to his direct partner (who belongs to the first tier) a

set of data that concern the execution level.

(2) The MAX curve shows the best practices of CPFR.

Example: CPFR permits to a collaborating actor to

share a set of strategic information, responsibilities,

risks, etc. with all the partners of the first tier.

The cartographic representation establishes ranges of

collaboration for a given CSCS. The practical use of these

shapes for the SC partners is to understand the current used

strategy. It also helps to create a match between the

collaboration needs and the CSCS that better fits to these

needs. Thus, the cartography can show the collaboration

range for a considered strategy. The comparison of the

shapes of different cartographies can help to understand

the main differences between different collaborative strate-

gies (figure 12).

6. Application of the framework to the CPFR

This section shows how the proposed framework can be

used to complement the CPFR model. The original CPFR

scheme attempts to provide a roadmap for applying SC

collaboration (Ireland and Bruce 2000). The use of the

proposed framework allows the SC partners to discuss

the critical features of CPFR during the initiation and

implementation of the CPFR. The five criteria of theFigure 11. Nature of the collaboration.

Figure 12. Cartography and some possible shapes.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

framework’s analysis grid do not explicitly exist in

the original model of CPFR. Figure 13 illustrates how the

CPFR is presented on the analysis grid and figure 14

presents its graphical interpretation. The aim here is to give

answers to some questions, such as: how the steps of CPFR

are presented on the grid, what are the Inputs/Outputs of

each step and what are the interactions between the

different steps. Hereunder the first two steps are summar-

ized as an example:

Step 1 of the CPFR (develop collaboration arrangement)

addresses each partner’s expectations and the actions and

resources necessary for success. To accomplish this, the

partners co-develop a general business agreement that

includes the overall understanding and objective of the

collaboration, confidentiality agreements and the empow-

erment of resources (both actions and commitment) to be

employed. This step is vital for the continuation of this

collaboration and is considered as a strategic action. It is

also the result of a common development and sharing bet-

ween two SC actors. The output of this step is a published

CPFR front-end agreement that gives both partners a co-

authored blueprint for beginning the collaborative relation-

ship. The document clearly defines the process in practical

terms. It also identifies the roles of each trading partner and

how the performance of each will be measured.

In Step 2 of the CPFR (create joint business plan), the

two partners exchange tactical information about their

corporate strategies and business plans in order to

collaborate on developing and sharing a joint business plan.

The partners first create a partnership strategy and then

define category roles, objectives and tactics. The develop-

ment of a joint business plan improves the overall quality of

forecasting by including data from both parties. The result

from this step is a mutually agreed-on joint business plan

that clearly identifies the roles, strategies, and tactics for the

items to be collaborated on.

The projection details of the nine steps of the CPFR and

their interactions are clearly drawn on the grid shown in

figure 13. Skjoett-Larsen et al. (2003) contend that the

diffusion of CPFR is very slow, especially in Europe, owing

to a gap between the understanding of CPFR and its

implementation in practice. To address this problem, the

framework proposes another view.

7. Towards a UML model of the collaboration

To enhance the use of this framework, another view of the

framework has been introduced: the information system

view (figure 15). Only the basic principles of this view will

be explained in this paper.

This view consists of using the unified modelling language

(UML) representation to draw a collaborative structure

and exchanging/sharing information flow. This view

includes the objects (data, process, organization) of existing

information systems that are relevant to the integration of

the partner in a given SC (Bowersox et al. 2000). Even

though most enterprises have their own information

systems (i.e. their own ERP), this approach allows these

partners identifying and managing the information to be

shared. The following sections explain the objects that are

necessary for the construction of a collaborative informa-

tion system and its constraints and specificities.

Figure 13. Analysis grid applied to the CPFR.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

7.1. Modelling a collaborative information system

A collaborative SC is an evolutionary structure (Chen et al.

2004) that needs to be periodically evaluated and adapted

to its economic environment. The indicators such as overall

inventory levels, reactivity of the partners can be internal or

external (with respect to the user/partner) but all of them

need relevant information from the partners to be

constructed. These indicators are subjected to a manage-

ment process (construction, validation, modification, etc.).

Several model objects have been identified in this approach

to represent the processes (Derrouiche et al. 2005b).

(1) The collaborative entity allows the description of the

entities involved in the collaboration (services,

departments, groups, teams, enterprises, etc.).

(2) The roles define the functions (in a broad sense) of

the various actors within the processes.

(3) A collaboration structure represents the nature of

the collaboration (exchange, sharing, etc.) between

collaborative entities that carry out the roles within

the considered collaboration. One or more colla-

borative structures associated to a given role in

collaboration, may exist.

(4) The partners carry out actions on information

flows.

Figures 16 and 17 illustrate the generic objects used by a

collaborative SC.

7.2. Constraints and specificities

The method used for the analysis (using the grid) can have

an impact on the constraints put on the partners’ informa-

tion system. These constraints impact all levels of the

information system (Chen et al. 2004). From the objects

used in the definition of the grid, one can identify three types

of constraints on the information flows of the considered

Collaborative Supply Chain (Derrouiche et al. 2005a):

(1) Temporality: the data exchanged have a limited

lifespan and must be exchanged on time (e.g.

computational results, forecasts, levels of inventory,

etc.)

(2) Reliability (or veracity): does information coming

from a partner have the same reliability as internal

information? This question of reliability depends

directly on the degree of confidence between the

partners.

(3) Security: this last constraint is related to the

security of transmission and the confidentiality of

data exchanged.

Based on the information identified in the grid for the

information exchange, information flows have been clus-

tered into different categories (both quantitative and

qualitative). For each category a management mode and

specific use have been defined (figure 18):Figure 14. Cartography of the CPFR.

Figure 15. Additional view of the framework.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

(1) The properties are defined as identifier-value pairs

and to define the objects exchanged within the

framework (values from a simulation, estimates

from a calculation, etc.).

(2) The indicators characterize the state, at a given

time, of the supply chain (SSC, 06). The objectives

are associated to these indicators. They can be

common to two partners (resulting from a negotia-

tion) or specific to a given partner.

(3) The documents that contain the structured informa-

tion are exchanged within an identified context

between the partners.

(4) The controls used for the management of an

informational flow. They characterize the flows

that permit the execution of the processes.

The organizational component of a SC should enhance the

collaboration between and among those who contribute to

Figure 16. UML diagram of the collaboration.

Figure 17. Diagram of the actors.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

the logistic processes. The entire set of constraints related

to reliability, temporality and security of information

contribute to the construction of a secure and adaptable

information infrastructure (Hannus et al. 2003). The

collaborative structure must facilitate collaboration be-

tween partners by controlling the provision of the whole or

a part of the logistic flows of each partner. It must also

allow contextualized data which facilitate the mechanisms

of control, access and implementation.

8. Conclusion

In SC management, relationships can be extended from the

simple exchange of basic information to a more elaborate

level of experiences, risks and profits sharing. SC colla-

boration plays a crucial role in improving overall perfor-

mance that benefits all partners. Owing to the confusion

that still exists between the definition of collaborative

strategies (or CSCS) and the difficulties to understand their

limits, a critical study of some comparison works has been

presented in this paper.

This study led us to propose a framework based on a

comparison grid. This grid permits the projection of any

CSCS according to some identified criteria. Moreover, this

helps in understanding which collaborative context is

addressed, who are the involved actors, how they are

collaborating, what are their interactions, what are their

collaboration needs, etc. A detailed use of the grid within

the CPFR strategy case is given. It particularly shows how

the nine steps of the theoretical CPFR are projected on the

grid and permits to highlight the interactions between them.

The importance of such managerial/information system

approaches is the potential to analyse each relationship

between partners according to the strategic level and the

operational level. The presented work is not a substitute for

the existing information systems but just an efficient way to

identify the shared objectives and information and their

management modes. A future extension will be the

definition of context sensitive ‘patterns’ to better manage

the collaboration.

Based on different kinds of analyses, our goal is to define

some standard modes for collaboration (characteristics,

sharing processes, organizational structures). This goal of

standardized modes of collaboration must be in line on the

one hand with the managerial approach and on the other

hand with the context in which the SC is operating.

References

Alberto, A.F.T. and Zamolo, E., From a traditional replenishment system

to VMI. Int. J. Prod. Econ., 2005, 96, 63–79.

Beckman, T., A methodology for knowledge management. International

Association of Science and Technology for Development AI and Soft

Computing Conference, Banff, Canada. 1997.

Bowersox, D.J., The strategic benefits of logistics alliances.Harv. Bus. Rev.,

1990, 68, 36–43.

Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Keller, S.B., How supply chain competency

leads to business success. Supply Chain Mgmt Rev., 2000, 4, 70–78.

Boyson, S., Corsi, T.M., Dresner, M.E. and Harrington, L.H., Logistics

and the Extended Enterprise: Benchmarks and Best Practices for the

Manufacturing Professional, 1999 (Wiley: New York).

Chen, R.-S., Lu, K.-Y. and Chu, Y.-M., Streamlining the supply chain

information system of the semiconductor industry using multi-XML

schema. Int. J. Comput. Applic. Technol., 2004, 19, 125–131.

Figure 18. Diagram of information flow.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Chen, F., Market segmentation, advanced demand information and supply

chain performance. Mfg Service Ops Mgmt, 2001, 3, 54–67.

Cooray, S. and Ratnatunga, J., Buyer–supplier relationships: a case study

of a Japanese and Western alliance. Long Range Planning, 2001, 34, 727–

740.

Cox, A., Understanding buyer and supplier power: a framework for

procurement and supply competence. J. Supply Chain Mgmt, 2001, 37,

8–15.

Derrouiche, R., Neubert, G. and Bouras, A., Benchmarking framework of

collaborative supply chain strategies. International Conference on

Industrial Engineering and Systems Management, Morocco, 2005a, pp.

269–278.

Derrouiche, R., Neubert, G., Bouras, A. and Pernelle, P., Extended

framework for analysis and comparison of collaborative supply chain

strategies. IFIP 5.7 Advances in Production Management Systems,

September, pp. 18–21, 2005b, Rockville, USA.

Dettmer, H.W., Breaking the Constraints to World-Class Performance, 1998

(ASQ Quality Press: Milwaukee, WI).

Disney, S.M. and Towill, D.R., A procedure for the optimization of the

dynamic response of a VMI system. Comput. Ind. Engng., 2002, 43, 27–

58.

Duke, R., A model of buyer-supplier interaction in UK grocery retailing. J.

Retailing Consumer Services, 1998, 5, 93–103.

Gilmour, P., Benchmarking supply chain operations. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.

Logistics Mgmt, 1999, 29, 283–290.

Goldratt, Eliyahu M., It’s Not Luck, 1994 (North River Press: Great

Barrington, MA).

Governing, S., Information flows in capacitated supply chains in fixed

ordering costs. Mgmt Sci., 2002, 48, 644–651.

Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Ronald, M.E., A framework for supply

chain performance measurement. Int. J. Prod. Economics, 2004, 87, 333–

347.

Gustafsson, J. and Norrman, A., Network managed supply. 6th Interna-

tional Symposium on Logistics, Austria, July 2001.

Hammond Dan Van and Larry Roth, CPFR for Beginners, 2001. Available

online at: http://test.uc-council.org/CPFRForBeginners_Nov2001-

NineSteps.ppt#610,11,Diapositive 11 (accessed March 2006).

Hanman, S., Benchmarking your firm’s performance with best practice. Int.

J. Logistics Mgmt, 1997, 8, 1–18.

Hannus, T., Poignee, O. and Schieffer, G., The implementation of a web

based supply chain information system, EFITA Conference, Hungary.

2003. Available online at: http://www.date.hu/efita2003/centre/pdf/

1104.pdf (accessed March 2006).

He Qi-Ming, Jewkes, E.W. and Buzacott, J., The value of information used

in inventory control of a make-to-order inventory-production system.

IIE Trans., 2002, 34, 999–1013.

Horvath, L., Collaboration: key to value creation in supply chain

management. Int. J. Supply Chain Mgmt, 2001, 6, 205–207.

Huang, G.Q., Lau, J.S.K. and Mak, K.L., The impacts of sharing

production information on Supply Chain dynamics. Int. J. Prod. Res.,

2003, 41, 1483–1517.

Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. Jr. and Nichols, E.L. Jr., Organizational

learning as a strategic resource in supply management. J. Ops Mgmt,

2003, 21, 541–556.

Ireland, R. and Bruce, R., CPFR only the beginning of collaboration.

Supply Chain Mgmt Rev., 2000, 4, 80–88.

Jonah Tyan and Hui-Ming Wee, VMI: a survey of the Taiwanese grocery

industry. J. Purchasing Supply Mgmt, 2003, 9, 11–18.

Klastorin, T.D., Kamran Moinzadeh and Joong Son, Coordinating orders

in supply chains through price discounts. IIE Trans., 2002, 34, 679–689.

Available online at: http://faculty.washington.edu/kamran/Timing

DiscPaper.pdf (accessed March 2006)

Kurt Salmon Associates and Joint Industry, ECR Operating Committee,

ECR industry benchmarking survey. Joint industry project on ECR, 1998.

Lambert, D.M., Knemeyer, A.M. and Gardner, J.T., Supply chain

partnerships: model validation and implementation. J. Bus. Logistics,

2004, 25, 21–42.

Laseter, T.M., Balanced Sourcing: Cooperation and Competition in Supplier

Relationships, 1998 (Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco).

Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang, S., The bullwhip effect in supply

chains. Sloan Manage. Rev., 1997, 38, 93–102.

Li, L., Information sharing in a supply chain with horizontal competition.

Mgmt Sci., 2002, 48, 1196–1212.

Maloni, M.J. and Benton, W.C., Supply chain partnerships: opportunities

for operations research. Eur. J. Opl Res., 1997, 101, 419–429.

Mentzer, J.T., Min, S. and Zacharia, Z.G., The nature of interfirm

partnering in supply chain management. J. Retail., 2000, 76, 549–568.

Moinzadeh, K., A multi-echelon inventory system with information

exchange. Mgmt Sci., 2002, 48, 415–426.

Schonberger, R.J., Strategic collaboration: breaching the castle walls. Bus.

Horizons, 1996, 39, 20–26.

Simatupang Togar M. and Sridharan Ramaswami, An integrative frame-

work for supply chain collaboration. Int. J. Logistics Mgmt, 2005, 16,

257–274.

Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R., A benchmarking supply chain

collaboration: An empirical study. Int. J. Benchmarking, 2004, 11, 484–

503.

Simchi-Livi, D., Kaminsky, P. and Simchi-Livi, E., Designing and

Managing the Suppy Chain-Concepts, Strategies and Case Studies, 2000

(McGraw-Hill: Singapore).

Skjoett-Larsen, T., Thernøe, C. and Andresen, C. Supply chain collabora-

tion: theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.

Logistics Mgmt, 2003, 33, 531–549.

Supply Chain Council. Available online at: www.supply-chain.org/

(accessed March 2006).

Stank, T.P., Crum, M.R. and Arango, M., Benefits of interfirm

coordination in food industry supply chain. J. Bus. Logistics, 1999, 20,

21–41.

Taylor, A.T., Supply chain coordination under channel rebates with sales

effort effects. Mgmt Sci., 2002, 48, 992–1007.

Thomas, D.J. and Griffin, P.M., Co-ordinated supply chain management.

Eur. J. Opl Res., 1996, 94, 1–15.

Troyer, T. and Denny, D., QR evolution. Discount Merchandiser, 1992, 32,

104–107.

VICS: Voluntary Interindustry Commerce Standards Association. Avail-

able online at: www.vics.org/committees/cpfr/ (accessed March 2006).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

16:

59 0

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Documents

Supply chain management: a framework to characterize the collaborative strategies