The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-4093.htm

Supply chain collaboration:

whats happening?
Soonhong Min, Anthony S. Roath, Patricia J. Daugherty,
Stefan E. Genchev, Haozhe Chen and Aaron D. Arndt

Supply chain
collaboration

237

Division of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michael F. Price College

of Business, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA, and

R. Glenn Richey
Department of Management and Marketing, The University of
Alabama,Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA
Abstract
Purpose Collaboration has been referred to as the driving force behind effective supply chain
management and may be the ultimate core capability. However, there is a fairly widespread belief that
few firms have truly capitalized on its potential. A study was undertaken to assess the current level of
supply chain collaboration and identify best practice.
Design/methodology/approach Supply chain executives provided insights into collaboration.
Survey data, personal interviews, and a review of the collaboration literature were used to develop a
conceptual model profiling behavior, culture, and relational interactions associated with successful
collaboration.
Findings Positive collaboration-related outcomes include enhancements to efficiency, effectiveness,
and market positions for the respondents firms.
Research limitations/implications The small sample size represents a limitation, but is
balanced by the quality of the respondent base and their expertise/experience. Another limitation
involves securing input from only one party to the collaborative relationships. Developing a
longitudinal study would help determine how collaboration-related factors and relationships change
over time.
Practical implications Several respondents mentioned a blurring of lines between
organizations contrasted to an us vs them approach. This was expressed in a number of different
ways treating the arrangements as if they both were part of the same operation, treating them as
co-owned, and employing a new focus on the best common solution. Many of the respondents
indicating rewards are not distributed evenly still admitted they get enough out of the collaborative
arrangements to make it worthwhile.
Originality/value Real-world practical experiences are recounted involving many of todays top
companies.
Keywords Supply chain management, Partnership, Resource efficiency
Paper type Research paper

Collaboration is one of the most talked about topics in business today (Barratt, 2004;
Bowersox et al., 2003). Collaboration is defined as two or more companies sharing the
responsibility of exchanging common planning, management, execution, and
performance measurement information (Anthony, 2000). The general idea is that
much can be gained from collaborating with supply chain partners. Collaboration has
been referred to as the driving force behind effective supply chain management (Ellram
and Cooper, 1990; Horvath, 2001) and, as such, may be considered the ultimate core
capability (Sanders and Premus, 2005). However, theres also fairly widespread belief

The International Journal of Logistics

Management
Vol. 16 No. 2, 2005
pp. 237-256
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-4093
DOI 10.1108/09574090510634539

IJLM
16,2

238

that few firms have truly capitalized on the potential of collaboration (Barratt, 2003;
Crum and Palmatier, 2004). Managers may talk about collaboration and its potential
benefits as if it were part of their organizations value structure, yet it seems that few
companies are actually engaged in the level of integration that collaboration suggests
(Fawcett and Magnan, 2004). Sabath and Fontanella (2002, p. 24) summed it up:
Collaboration arguably has the most disappointing track record of the various supply
chain management strategies introduced to date. Supply chain collaboration seems to
have great potential, but further investigation is needed to understand its practical
value.
In order to gain greater insights in the area, a study was undertaken to examine
supply chain collaboration through a qualitative research approach. The study makes
important contributions by:
.
presenting data from an executive panel of top industrial companies;
.
utilizing an in-depth look at practitioners perspectives on collaboration as a
foundation; and
.
developing a conceptual model of collaboration based upon the executive
panel input as well as a synthesis of previous literature-based studies.
The qualitative approach yielded valuable insights. Data obtained from the panel
companies provided broader knowledge than would be obtained in a case study and
deeper insights than typical quantitative studies.
In the following sections, relevant literature is reviewed, the research background
and methodology are discussed, and the proposed model of supply chain collaboration
is introduced. This is followed by a discussion of the research findings, managerial
implications, and conclusion and research limitations.
Literature review
Collaboration has been widely examined in recent years across disciplines including
sociology (Powell et al., 2005), psychology (Stern and Hicks, 2000; Konczak, 2001),
marketing (Gadde et al., 2003; Jap, 1999, 2001; Perks, 2000), management (Cross et al.,
2002; Sawhney, 2002; Singh and Mitchell, 2005), and supply chain management
(Holweg et al., 2005; Tuominen, 2004). The current research examined collaboration
within a supply chain context.
The fundamental rationale behind collaboration is that a single company cannot
successfully compete by itself. Customers are more demanding; competition is
escalating (Kotler, 1997). Thus many firms seek to coordinate cross-firm activities and
work reciprocally over time to produce superior performance (Anderson and Narus,
1990; Stern and Reeve, 1980). Firms enter into interfirm collaborative arrangements in
order to share risks and rewards. The objective is to secure higher performance than
would be achieved by operating individually (Lambert et al., 1999).
The marketing channels literature has frequently examined the phenomenon of
ongoing relationships and the efficiency of these relationships through a relationship
marketing perspective (Sin et al., 2005). Relationship marketing is characterized by
reciprocal, interdependent, and long-term relationships. Included in this perspective
are questions related to the interaction of organizations (e.g. buyers and sellers), how
they cooperate and communicate, how they develop trust, and how organizations
mutually develop the types of governance structures that contribute to efficiency.

Organizations have long recognized that better relationships lead to better

performance. Based upon this, researchers have examined the elements of
relationships associated with better supply chain management (Lambert et al., 1999).
Collaborative practices have been argued to be vital to the creation of firm
capabilities and/or performance outcomes. Such practices have been examined in many
different ways in different contexts. In the literature, for example, two primary
conceptualizations of collaboration have surfaced: collaboration as an
interorganizational business process and collaboration as a foundation of
interorganizational relationships.
First, collaboration has been viewed as a business process whereby collaborative
partners work together toward common goals that mutually benefit the partnering
firms (Stank et al., 2001; Mentzer et al., 2001). Collaborative processes include joint
decision-making (Stank et al., 2001) and joint-problem-solving (Spekman et al., 1997) as
a natural extension of sharing information among independent supply chain partners
(Sabath and Fontanella, 2002; Stank et al., 1999). As such, a collaborative supply chain
involves two or more independent companies (that) work jointly to plan and execute
supply chain operations with greater success than when acting in isolation
(Simatupang and Sridharan, 2002, p. 19).
Second, collaboration has been portrayed as the formation of interfirm linkages or
partnerships in which the parties involved work together and share information,
resources, and certain degrees of risk in order to accomplish mutual objectives
(Bowersox et al., 2003; Golicic et al., 2003; Ellram and Edis, 1996; Sriram et al., 1992).
Typically close relationships first develop across functional areas within an
organization. This internal functional interdependence establishes the foundation for
functional interdependence extending into the partner firm. The result is an integration
of intra and interfirm activities. Participants become functionally interdependent and,
therefore, pursue mutually beneficial outcomes (Jap, 2001). Supply chain entities create
cross-organizational linkages because they have something to gain. In other words,
firms voluntarily agree to integrate human, financial, or technical resources in order to
create a better business model (Bowersox et al., 2003, p. 22).
Successful collaboration requires a change from standard business practice,
particularly relating to information exchange (Stank et al., 2001). Free exchange of data,
operating plans, and financial information is needed to gain the full benefits of
collaboration (Quinn, 1999). Realistic, informed, and detailed information sharing
contributes to improved decision-making and supply chain efficiency. While
collaboration facilitates information and knowledge transfer, the creation of new
knowledge is one of the primary objectives of collaboration (Simonin, 1997; Hardy et al.,
2003). Verespej (2005, p. 21) summarized the challenge in relation to information sharing:
You need to use information in the supply chain to change the decision-making process and to
get people involved on a proactive basis in order to capitalize on opportunities not just
prevent problems.

Concerning the expected outcomes of supply chain collaboration, the literature

suggests the following benefits:
.
Supply chain capabilities that include better demand planning (McCarthy and
Golicic, 2002), inventory visibility (Sabath and Fontanella, 2002; Stank et al.,
2001, 1999), and new knowledge and skills (Verespej, 2005);

Supply chain
collaboration

239

IJLM
16,2

240

Supply chain efficiency measured in reduced inventory and cost savings (Sabath
and Fontanella, 2002; Stank et al., 1999); and
Supply chain effectiveness including improvements in customer responsiveness
(Sabath and Fontanella, 2002) and better access to target market segments
(McCarthy and Golicic, 2002).

Firms engage in collaboration to develop, maintain, and even enhance supply chain
capabilities that contribute to enhancing firm performance and, ultimately, competitive
advantage (Hardy et al., 2003).
Research background and methodology
Much of the published work relating to supply chain collaboration and collaborative
relationships focuses on formation/set-up of the arrangements, roles and
responsibilities, and guidelines for their operation (Manrodt and Fitzgerald, 2001).
There has also been a focus on case histories of specific collaborative ventures
(Batenburg and Rutten, 2003; Ellram and Edis, 1996; Esper and Williams, 2003; Lambe
et al., 2002).
An in-depth qualitative analysis approach was used to further develop the body of
knowledge on supply chain collaboration. Qualitative analysis methods are gaining
ground in logistics/supply chain management research (Lambert et al., 2004; Rogers
et al., 2004; Christopher and Peck, 2004; Payne and Peters, 2004; Lemke et al., 2003;
Pfohl and Buse, 2000). The purpose of the current study is to confirm and/or expand
previous research findings. This will be accomplished by means of an integrative
model of supply chain collaboration. Qualitative interviews with management
executives and panel survey data provide the foundation of this model. The current
study is based on practitioner views of supply chain collaboration and, as such, reflects
the current state of supply chain collaboration practice.
A survey was developed following a review of the literature and exploratory
interviews with key business people. The survey relied primarily upon open-ended
questions to explore respondents views on collaboration. Each respondent was asked
to select a collaborative relationship believed to be the most important to his/her
companys future success. The survey was e-mailed to 100 members of the Council of
Supply Chain Management Professionals, who are also members of The University of
Oklahoma Logistics/Supply Chain Executive Panel. The majority of respondents held
Director-level or higher positions (Vice President, etc.) within their firms. Job titles
indicated direct involvement in logistics and supply chain operations.
A total of 62 completed surveys were received (62 percent response rate). Of those,
seven respondents indicated their firms did not have a collaborative relationship with a
trading partner. The remaining 55 firms those indicating they do have a
collaborative relationship with one or more trading partners were used for analysis
purposes. The Appendix provides a list of 52 respondent companies; three surveys
were returned anonymously. The 55 respondent firms included 29 manufacturers,
11 third-party logistics firms, 5 retailers, and 10 other types of firms. The annual firm
sales ranged from a minimum of $30 million to a maximum of $28 billion with average
annual firm sales of $4.4 billion. The respondent firms averaged 16,095 employees and
ranged from 85 employees to 110,000 employees. Following receipt of the completed
survey, selected respondents were contacted and asked to participate in follow-up

in-depth interviews to gain further insights into their collaborative experiences. The
information obtained during those interviews has been used to supplement the basic
survey data and is incorporated into the research analysis.
A qualitative analysis method was utilized for data analysis and subsequent
development of a conceptual model of supply chain collaboration (Silverman, 2000).
Throughout the iterative and time-intensive data analysis process, four of the seven
co-authors served as coders to identify codes (i.e. reoccurring words, concepts, or
ideas); integrate them into categories according to emergent, common properties; and
develop a cause-and-effect model of collaboration. The analysis process started with
coding five sample transcripts in a joint session to develop a common coding procedure
and to reach agreement on a single codebook with common codes and categories. Then,
the coders coded the data independently in the four rounds of the reiterating data
analysis process. Coding differences were reconciled through negotiations among the
coders until they reached inter-coder agreements; the lead author performed the
mediating role. The inter-coder reliability was assessed by calculating the simple
percentage of the agreement among coders in four different rounds. The repeated
coding-recoding process helped achieve the highest possible degree of post-negotiation
inter-coder reliability (perfect consensus) as well as internal validity (a proper
understanding of the phenomenon) (Carter and Ellram, 2003). The inter-coder
reliability showed 87.10 percent in the first round, 94.19 percent in the second round,
and 98.39 percent in the third round until consensus was reached in the fourth round.

Supply chain
collaboration

241

A model of supply chain collaboration

Figure 1 shows a conceptual model of supply chain collaboration which was developed
based upon the empirical data the responses to the survey supplemented with
interview material. The proposed model covers the progression of such relationships
including antecedents, collaboration, and consequences. Each is discussed and
supported with data from the surveys. Follow-up interviews were conducted with

Figure 1.
A conceptual model of
supply chain collaboration

IJLM
16,2

242

a select group of respondents to gain increased insight into collaboration. The

respondents were chosen based upon their answers to the survey. For example, if
individuals provided detailed comments on questions related to the interaction with
their partners, they were asked more questions and encouraged to elaborate further.
Additionally, if the initial response indicated unique or interesting collaborative
experiences, the respondents were contacted for follow-on interviews. Finally, a few
respondents were chosen at random to further explore their thoughts and relationship
experiences. The interviews with the panel members revealed greater insights
concerning the collaboration process at their organizations.
Antecedents of collaboration
The responses to the question about whats involved in developing a collaborative
relationship centered in the following areas strategic intent, internal alignments,
relationship orientation, investments, free flow of information/heightened
communication, and formalization. These areas are described in greater detail.
Strategic intent
The survey respondents indicated that clear strategic intent leads to successful
collaborative arrangements. For example, a firms objective to grow, capture market
share, and/or improve service offerings with the help of collaborative partners can drive
the entire supply chain collaboration process. Clear strategic intent provides focus for
the collaborative relationship and shapes interactions to gain the greatest cross-firm
rewards/improvements. Without such a roadmap, optimal results cannot be achieved.
Internal alignments
Supply chain collaboration requires firms to adopt a completely new business model
and to work closely with a limited set of supply chain partners. The selection of the
right supply chain partners is critical. One respondent recommended process mapping
to define step-by-step supply chain processes. Process mapping can help to determine
what can be done internal to the organization and what needs to be accomplished with
an external partner.
Creating internal alignments (and ultimately external alignments) can yield
additional dividends by helping to streamline operations in basic areas such as
manufacturing cycles, forecasting methods, customer service, sales, logistics, and
information systems. Such alignments (that is matching) can create a seamless
customer value delivery process. This may result in reconfiguration for the
collaboration partners. A cautionary observation from the respondents noted that
intended reconfigurations inside the firm could not be accomplished without top
management support. As the respondents pointed out only the top managements
attention to changes will drive the necessary adjustments toward external
collaboration.
Relationship orientation
Many of the respondents expressed the need to emphasize the development of a
relationship (versus a transactional orientation) and understanding of each others
business. Of course, thats to be expected. However, the responses also gave an
indication of what relationship development means in practice. The common thread

was ongoing, long-term interactions built on mutual trust and commitment. One
respondent likened a collaborative relationship to a work-in-progress:

Supply chain
collaboration

Weve executed an evergreen business contract that assumes our relationship will be ongoing
in order to eliminate the need to annually review and rewrite the entire agreement.

An underlying theme throughout the discussion of collaborations seems to be a focus

on cooperation and joint efforts with a feeling of we are in this together. The impacts
that collaborative actions will have on both parties are taken into account when
making decisions. This contrasts to a traditional supplier-customer relationship with
an us vs them approach. As one respondent stated:
This is not a Do (what) I say type of relationship, but one in which both parties work out
solutions that are mutually beneficial.

Several respondents noted that mutual trust can provide a foundation between
collaborative partners and can lead to sharing of critical market-based data. However,
building trust is not easy. Trust between partners must be earned. One respondent
defined the requirements: trust comes only after the other party proves its abilities to
offer solutions and also demonstrates loyalty. Another respondent expressed this issue
stating:
We have entrusted our supplier with our most sensitive internal operations, which is the
hardest step in the collaborative relationship.

A trust-based, long-term relationship also requires commitment from the parties

involved. Commitment implies the parties are tolerant of each others deficiencies
(within reason) and that each will cooperate and not act opportunistically. This is
important because most collaborative partners are not equal in terms of clout or
bargaining power. If a partner is to be trusted, that partner cannot take advantage of a
relatively stronger position. For example, one respondent acknowledged that even
though one of his companys customers is somewhat captive, his company works hard
to meet the customers needs in a collaborative, mutually beneficial arrangement.
Relationship-specific investment
Sustainable collaborations must be supported with sufficient resource investments.
Financial and non-financial investments including time, money, training, technology
up-dates, and other resources are required. Respondents also talked about a different
type of investment top managements attention. Unless support is provided by
people with power within the organizations, the long-term outcome is at risk.
The return on investments at the respondent firms seems to be positive. Several
respondents explicitly stated building and maintaining relationships and then
dedicating personnel to managing the relationships, the processes, and the information
was worth the effort. They also pointed out that collaborative relationships do not
thrive unless they are encouraged and supported through sufficient commitment of
management time. Time may be the costliest investment.
Free flow of information and heightened communication
Information sharing between the collaborative partners occurs in a variety of forms
that include point-of-sale (POS) data, promotion plans, insights into inventory levels,
etc. Information sharing was described as a two-way street.

243

IJLM
16,2

They share with us their movement and we use our market knowledge and add our
sensitivity to the numbers.

Information sharing at many of the respondent firms seems to be so rich, frequent, and
in-depth that it could almost be termed a co-mingling of information. One respondent
offered an attention-grabbing example:

244

My company assumes a great deal of liability for maintaining inventory levels at the
customer locations and, as a result, my company has better knowledge of customer needs and
ordering habits than the customers themselves.

Several respondents referred to a heightened communication between collaborative

partners. To differentiate heightened communication from the information exchange
discussed above, the emphasis is more on how collaborative partners interact. This
involves more frequent meetings on a regular basis and other forms of interactions at
the senior management level. The intent of the heightened communication is to identify
opportunities and areas for improvement.
Formalization
An interesting study finding is that formalization is necessary for successful
collaboration execution. Formalization is defined as the extent to which
decision-making is regulated by explicit rules and procedures (Dwyer and Oh, 1987).
Approximately one-third of the respondents (20 of the 55 respondents that returned the
surveys) consider formalization an essential part of the collaboration process. The
areas of formalization suggested by the respondents include:
.
co-developing performance metrics key performance index, scorecard,
product/service deliverables and the resulting incentive;
.
prior agreements on collaboration goals or objectives;
.
determining roles and responsibilities of each partner as well as reporting
mechanisms in the relationship;
.
laying out collaborative implementation plans;
.
standardizing information technology;
.
specifying information to be shared; and
.
aligning collaboration schedules.
In this context, a respondent described a collaborative arrangement as a long-term
contract. Table I summarizes the antecedents of collaboration that emerged during
data analysis.
The nature of collaboration
The respondents were not provided with a definition of collaboration. They were asked
to explain what collaboration means within their organization.
The definitions of collaboration offered by the respondents deal with three major
constructs: behaviors, culture, and relationship interaction. First, the majority of the
respondents described collaboration as working together. Second, some of the
respondents defined collaboration a culture of sharing. The remaining respondents
considered collaboration to be a partnering relationship. The respondents referred to

Strategic intent
Internal alignment
Relationship orientation
Relationship-specific investment

Information flow
Formalization

Capability-based functional integration

Process mapping
Streamlining internal operation
Ongoing
Relational
Long-term oriented
Time
Personnel
Employee training
Physical resources
Information technology
Free flow of information and communication
Performance metrics
Goals and objectives
Roles, responsibilities, and reporting mechanisms
Collaborative planning and scheduling
Collaborative technology
Type of shared information

joint planning, management, and measurement, sharing goals, objectives, benefits,

resources, information, and risks with partners, dividing tasks among firms for
specialization, as well as building close relationships with other firms. Thus, it is
suggested that collaboration should be defined as a firms culture of working together
with other firms toward a common set of goals that bring mutual benefits to a
partnering relationship. The principal features of collaboration are discussed below.
Shared information is at the center of collaboration
According to the survey respondents, shared information is an essential ingredient of
day-to-day operations as well as more strategic collaborative activities. Information
covering a wide range of activities is shared among various partners. Shared
information provides a common base for partners and triggers the flows of products,
services, funds, and feedback between the partners. Information sharing is frequent
and exchanges become a matter of routine that encompasses multiple levels across the
firms.
Information sharing may occur formally in periodic review sessions or informally
between collaborative partners. One manufacturer stated, Our contact and I speak
fairly frequently although it is not pre-planned or formal. A packaged food
manufacturer and its major customers arrange quarterly meetings to discuss various
issues including customer demand, package size changes, new item development,
in-store display support, cost-benefit analysis between different logistics efficiency
programs (e.g. direct plant ship vs inventory carrying costs), and lead times.
A retailer respondent provided a detailed explanation of the nature of shared
information in a collaborative relationship. His company shares information relating to
marketing planning, performance evaluations, forecasting, and replenishment of
hundreds of SKUs. Forecasting data (e.g. demand forecasting, materials requirements,
etc.) are considered essential elements of shared information due to the strong impact
on production and shipping scheduling as well as inventory management. In addition,
production schedules and the resulting materials requirements are routinely shared by

Supply chain
collaboration

245

Table I.
Antecedents of
collaboration

IJLM
16,2

246

their key collaborative partners. The forecasting data provided by the retailer drive the
vendors subsequent scheduling. Also, marketing planning in the form of sales
promotions and market intelligence (e.g. market trends, customer preferences, and
competitor activities) is shared with their partners. This helps collaborative partners
jointly work on new business development.
How is information shared? Many survey participants mentioned automated
information exchange via information technology such as electronic data interchange
(EDI), database (e.g. Wal-Marts shared database called RetailLink), data warehouse
and data mining techniques, and the internet to illustrate their communication
channels. A distributor emphasized that shared information provides supply chain
visibility that can trigger immediate, corrective actions relating to the flows of raw
materials, finished goods, and services as needed.
One of the aspects of the arrangements is detailed track and trace of containers from
China to a variety of ports in North America, east and west coast. We have the ability to
redirect specific containers from their original ship-to-locations when they are 72 hours
out from port. Providing this track and trace detail information is a small marginal cost
to the manufacturers, but will have a significant impact on providing visibility to product
in the delivery pipeline and driving re-handling and re-shipping costs out of our value
chain.

Joint planning
The next component of collaboration, joint planning, is closely related to and
dependent upon information sharing. Information drives collaboration that starts with
joint business planning between collaborative partners. A manufacturer stated:
We routinely share information regarding our volume projections, and they in turn are quick
to contact us regarding anticipated changes in their capacity outlook.

Joint planning is required to co-align operations as well as capacities of each

collaborative partner. A well-known packaged food manufacturer involves major
customers (including Wal-Mart, Kroger, and Target) in the strategic planning process.
During the planning process, the manufacturer and its customers jointly prioritize
goals and objectives based on individual company goal expectations.
Joint problem solving
Collaborative partners must also work together to solve supply chain problems. For
example, a manufacturer described how the company worked with customers to create
store-ready pallets of product in order to minimize handling at the customers
distribution centers. Another manufacturer recounted how channel-level product
movement information is reviewed and suppliers are consulted in order to develop the
proper mix of products to maximize sell-through. Similarly, a durable goods
manufacturer reported on joint cost reduction efforts as well as process improvements
covering delivery of product involving his company and its distributors. A 3PL
respondent reported on how projects are managed jointly via a project web site. The
3PL firm assigns a leader to work with the client to manage the process, changes,
up-dates, and solves problems as necessary.
Joint problem solving can result in mutually developed process improvement ideas.
For example, a retailer recounted the following:

We brainstormed with our current suppliers on ways to reduce cost by changing their process
and/or our requirements. We came up with a change in delivery schedule to streamline their
operations (we carried a little more inventory) and we secured backhauls for them to spread
their transportation cost. We also used our existing carrier base to move the product from
their location enroute to pick up deliveries for us.

Respondents indicated that joint problem solving is frequently accomplished through

the formation of cross-functional teams or by co-locating each others personnel. One
example included development of an Alliance Team consisting of people from each
organization representing various functional areas. The Alliance team meets regularly
to solve issues ranging from quality control to distribution operations.
Joint problem solving often results in breaking down boundaries between
collaborative partners. Forming cross-functional, cross-organizational teams and
co-locating may evolve into a virtual integration of the supply chain process. The
following description of the relationship between a 3PL and its client provides an idea
of how intertwined the collaborative partners have become. The clients
representative (employee) is deeply involved in the 3PLs operations:
.
The representative proactively informs the 3PL provider of current liability
issues that may influence the providers coverage.
.
The representative helps the 3PL build a direct relationship with the primary
liability carrier to minimize costs as well as risks.
.
The representative speaks for the 3PL regarding interactions with equipment
manufacturers on out-of-warranty equipment problems and steers the company
away from equipment not suitable for the companys working environment.
.
The representative works with the 3PL to facilitate injured employees return to
work after receiving proper medical care.
Joint performance measurement
The success of collaborative efforts cannot be assured unless performance is properly
monitored and measured. The majority of the respondents stated that common metrics
should be developed and used to determine rewards (e.g. amount and timing, etc.) for
successful collaborative efforts and also to identify performance gaps that need to be
addressed. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are fairly common and typically cover
specific targets on costs, productivity, and savings goals. KPIs are modified at least
annually. One respondent provided more specific guidelines for the timing of
performance evaluations. A routine process was recommended involving:
.
daily capacity planning meetings;
.
monthly KPI status review;
.
quarterly executive business reviews; and
.
continual up-dating of key metrics/goals.
The collective information obtained (from the four components) can be used to expand
the collaboration in scope and boundary. In the specific instances cited, the performance
evaluation results were used to redefine operational processes and re-assign personnel to
help accomplish mutual goals. Regular business reviews identify appropriate changes to
tactical situations that may have long-term implications.

Supply chain
collaboration

247

IJLM
16,2

248

Leveraging resources and skills

A manufacturer stated that the expected outcome of collaboration is the identification
of ways to grow individual business and obtain desired rewards. This often involves
mutually leveraging each others resource base and skills. For example, a manufacturer
explained how the companys international supplier leverages its distribution network
with the others market reach to distribute non-competitive products in the US market.
Another example involves a 3PL and its client in which slots on all vessels and
terminal operations at seaports are shared between the partners and decisions on all
service lanes are made jointly. This allows greater utilization of potentially slack
resources. Leveraging skills is made possible by specialization. A respondent
illustrated this well:
We trade work between us. That is, the things I do well are the things I do. And the things
my supplier does well are the things my supplier does.

Table II provides a concise summary of the key collaborative activities information

sharing, joint planning, joint problem solving, joint performance measurement, and
leveraging resources and skills. These activities provide the framework for successful
collaboration and can be used to guide daily operations as well as longer-term strategic
planning.
Consequences of collaboration
Collaboration-associated benefits are not likely to be immediately visible; however,
potential long-term rewards are enticing.

Information sharing

Joint planning
Joint problem solving

Joint performance measurement

Table II.
Key collaboration
activities

Leveraging

Forecasting
Customer demand
Materials requirement
Marketing planning
Production capacity and scheduling
Mutual sales and performance targets
Budgeting
Prioritizing goals and objectives
Product development/redesign
Logistics issues (shipping, routing, backhauling,
pallet size, packaging, etc.)
Marketing support (marketing materials, delivery
schedule, store display, etc.)
Quality control
Cost-benefit analysis (inventory carrying cost, lead
time, customer service, etc.)
Performance reviews on a regular basis
Measuring KPI (customer service, cost savings,
productivity, etc.)
Determining rewards and taking corrective actions
Resources and capacity
Skills and knowledge
Specialization

Efficiency, effectiveness, and profitability

In terms of the specific outcome of collaborative efforts, as expected, the responses
centered in traditional performance areas. For example, efficiency and effectiveness were
frequently mentioned. Efficiency is the measure of how well expended resources are
utilized; effectiveness refers to the extent to which goals are accomplished (Mentzer and
Konrad, 1991). The survey respondents reported benefits such as efficiency (e.g. cost
reduction, reduced inventory, shortened lead-time, streamlining supply chain process,
etc.), effectiveness (improved customer service, increased market share, increased sales,
new product development, etc.), and profitability. For example, a manufacturer and its
customer developed store-ready pallets of product to minimize handling issues at the
customers distribution centers. Another example is found in new product development.
Several manufacturers commented that collaboration with their customers generated a
better, more profitable marketing mix as well as new product ideas.
These benefits can also be achieved by leveraging potential synergistic effects
associated with achieving economies of scale and/or acquiring complementary
resources and capabilities. For instance, two respondents indicated collaboration has
helped their companies maximize asset utilization (e.g. truckload transportation,
transportation capacity sharing, etc.) resulting in substantial capital relief. In addition,
several panel members acknowledged that designing/redesigning logistics processes
optimized product/service flows and reduced retail store inventory levels.
Respondents reported numerous examples to illustrate how collaboration can be
financially rewarding through the coordination of procurement activities. One retailer
was able to reduce thermopackaging-related costs by 12 percent and their vendor
partner boosted profit by 8 percent as a result of adjusting sourcing scheduling.
Another retailer talked about his companys decision to allocate more sales promotion
dollars to their collaborative trading partner. The decision resulted in significantly
increased transaction volume between the two collaboration partners.
Reinforcement and expansion of the relationship
True collaboration evolves over time as the partners explore the potential for mutual
benefits. The respondents mentioned the need to understand and share each others
value systems in order to build a strong base for collaboration. Firms usually work
with a very limited set of potential partners to test the waters. This typically requires a
series of exploratory sessions to discuss expectations and to determine whether there is
sufficient fit between the organizations to warrant further exploration.
If both parties are satisfied with the relationship, collaboration involvement is likely
to escalate as they begin to trust each other. One respondent described reaching a level
of comfort after the collaborative partner had met all agreed upon contractual
performance requirements. As a result, more doors were opened with respect to
information sharing and resource commitment. The openness of a collaborative
relationship can establish a hotline between collaboration partners, link each others
information systems, promote candid input from trading partners, encourage
development of mutual business plans, and in extreme cases result in opening
the books to each other.
Another manufacturer talked about outsourcing more transportation requirements
to a preferred carrier as confidence in the 3PL increased. In return, the 3PL partner
lived up to its verbal commitment and ended up with hundreds of thousands of dollars

Supply chain
collaboration

249

IJLM
16,2

250

of increased revenue. As a result, the partners became more willing to share potential
gains and potential risks because of the long-term opportunities associated with
the relationship. In describing a similar arrangement, a 3PL respondent noted that
a successful collaboration has changed how our client views our company as a
partner.
The complex dynamics of the supply chain mean that expectations of collaborative
partners change usually escalate over time. As expectations and the relationship
are examined, a new focus often emerges. This commonly prompts a re-evaluation of
goals, objectives, performance metrics, and rewards.
A respondent pointed out that when a collaborative arrangement grows and succeeds,
all parties feel a sense of ownership. As such, mutual cooperation is strengthened. This is
consistent with commonly proposed best business practice. One of the primary motives
for working together through collaborative efforts is to gain operational and competitive
advantages such as decreased cycle times, lower inventory and operating costs, and
increased efficiencies in process activities (Dahlstrom et al., 1996).
One final benefit of collaboration is a refocusing of strategic resources and efforts.
This is shown with a feedback loop in Figure 1. As collaborative partners learn from
the ongoing relationship, they modify business practices to better meet each others
needs. Such calibration ensures that the relationship remains dynamic, adaptable, and
valuable to the involved parties. Ideally, the second component of the collaboration
model, which defines the nature of collaboration, becomes fluid. Outcomes of the
relationship and interactive feedback are used to make improvements.
The potential benefits of collaboration are summarized in Table III.
Discussion
Based upon practitioners views on supply chain collaboration, the previously introduced
conceptual model of supply chain collaboration was developed to help provide better
understanding of collaboration as well as its antecedents and consequences.
First, concerning the nature of collaboration, two essential components of
collaborative arrangements (e.g. cooperation and information sharing) were observed.
The respondents recounted their experiences of working together to plan, implement,
and monitor supply chain activities to integrate cross-firm operations, and to focus on
Mutuality
Efficiency

Effectiveness

Profitability
Reinforcement and expansion of the relationship
Table III.
Consequences of
collaboration

Mutually beneficial and synergistic

Cost reduction
Reduced inventory
Shortened lead-time
Streamlining supply chain process
Improved customer service
Increased market share
Better pricing
New product development
Return on investment
Sales per target segment
Trust
Commitment
Interdependent
Mutual involvements

common goals. The respondents stressed that sharing information went beyond
routine data to incorporate confidential or proprietary information. The respondents
also emphasized the need for a systemic course of action: collaboration partners must
act on the information in a way that helps business operations.
Second, the survey respondents placed emphasis on the need to formalize
collaboration arrangements (e.g. detailing of performance metrics as well as goals and
objectives) as an important prerequisite and foundation for collaboration.
Third, collaborations that are successful often result in the development of a new
culture and operating atmosphere. One respondent mentioned working in an environment
that encouraged the spirit of achieving a mutually profitable relationship. Another said
that collaborative relationships should bring the greatest good to the greatest number of
people in an honest and mutually beneficial manner. Within this context, several of the
respondents pointed out that collaboration evolves over time as the parties get to know one
another. Jointly shared experiences can help them learn how to leverage certain areas to
create and exploit opportunities. These cultural changes forge supply chain relationships
that, in turn, reinforce collaborative efforts.
Managerial implications
Several respondents mentioned a blurring of lines between organizations in contrast
to an us vs them approach. However, there is still accountability on both sides along
with an awareness that they are in this together. This idea was expressed in a
number of different ways treating the arrangements as if they both were part of the
same operation, treating them as co-owned, and employing a new focus on the best
common solution. As such, collaboration is about integration within and outside the
boundaries of individual firms, which makes collaborative efforts hard to accomplish.
The following discussion focuses on the key managerial implications that emerged
from the research.
Collaborations are typically tailored towards the customer. Customers generally
initiate the efforts and design the arrangement. There is a feeling among many of the
respondents that customers have benefited the most. This unevenness is somewhat
balanced by the potential for gain. Many of the respondents indicating rewards are not
distributed evenly still admitted they got enough out of the collaborative
arrangements to make it worthwhile.
Collaboration is good, but in reality it is only as good as you make it. You
must invest efforts to make it work.
Collaboration goals often center on supply chain efficiency (figuring out better ways
to do things) and better inventory control. Examples of good progress were noted
including increased business volume, inventory reductions, decreased lead time, and
higher service levels.
Different industries have different degrees of collaboration and cooperation. To
date, the food industry has probably been the best at developing and benefiting from
collaboration.
Conclusion and limitations
This research was undertaken to provide a profile of current collaborative practices.
While a relatively small group of companies participated in the research, many top
companies are represented. Therefore, although the sample size represents a limitation,

Supply chain
collaboration

251

IJLM
16,2

252

that limitation is balanced by the quality of the respondent base and their
expertise/experience in the area. Another limitation is that input was secured from only
one party to the collaborative relationship. Future research can add to the knowledge
base by using a dyadic approach and talking to two (or more) parties/organizations
involved in a collaborative arrangement. Also, since collaboration suggests a
time-oriented process, another area for future research could be the development of a
longitudinal study associated with the panel members to determine whether and/or
how the antecedents and collaboration factors change throughout the relationship.
The participants shared their experiences and their hopes regarding collaboration.
It became clear that they are committed to collaborative relationships and they are
hopeful about what can be accomplished through focused inter-company efforts. For
the most part, they recounted positive outcomes including improved efficiency,
effectiveness, and enhanced market positions. The respondents reported on the
collaborative relationship that was most important to their continued company
success. Considering that, on average, the respondent firms had only been involved in
the relationships slightly less than five years, they are receiving a good return on their
investment. It will be interesting to see how they move forward. The researchers intend
to continue to work in this area to better define how firms can truly exploit the
maximum benefit from collaborations. The contributions of the current research
in-depth knowledge of working collaborative relationships, insights from top
industrial companies, and a proposed conceptual model of collaboration will
provide the base for future research.
References
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm
working partnerships, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 42-58.
Anthony, T. (2000), Supply chain collaboration: success in the new internet economy, Achieving
Supply Chain Excellence through Technology, Montgomery Research Inc., San Francisco,
CA, Vol. 2, pp. 41-4.
Barratt, M. (2003), Positioning the role of collaborative planning in grocery supply chains, The
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 53-66.
Barratt, M. (2004), Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain, Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 30-42.
Batenburg, R. and Rutten, R. (2003), Managing innovation in regional supply networks: a Dutch
case of knowledge industry clustering, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 8 Nos 3/4,
pp. 263-70.
Bowersox, D.J., Closs, D.J. and Stank, T.P. (2003), How to master cross-enterprise collaboration,
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 18-27.
Carter, C.R. and Ellram, L.M. (2003), Thirty-five years of the journal of supply chain
management: where have we been and where are we going?, Journal of Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 27-39.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004), Building the resilient supply chain, International Journal of
Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P. and Parker, A. (2002), Making invisible work visible, California
Management Review, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 25-46.
Crum, C. and Palmatier, G.E. (2004), Demand collaboration: whats holding us back?, Supply
Chain Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 54-61.

Dahlstrom, R., McNeilly, K.M. and Speh, T.W. (1996), Buyer-seller relationships in the
procurement of logistical services, Journal Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 110-24.
Dwyer, F.R. and Oh, S. (1987), Output sector munificence effects on internal political economy of
marketing channels, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 347-58.
Ellram, L.M. and Cooper, M.C. (1990), Supply chain management, partnerships, and the
shipper-third party relationship, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 1-10.
Ellram, L.M. and Edis, O.R.V. (1996), A case study of successful partnering implementation,
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 20-8.
Ellram, L.M. and Edis, O.R.V. (1996), A case study of successful partnering implementation,
International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 20-8.
Esper, T.L. and Williams, L.R. (2003), The value of collaborative transportation management
(CTM): its relationship to CPFR and information technology, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 55-65.
Fawcett, S.E. and Magnan, G.M. (2004), Ten guiding principles for high-impact SCM, Business
Horizons, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 67-74.
Gadde, L-E., Huemer, L. and Hakansson, H. (2003), Strategizing in industrial networks,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 357-64.
Golicic, S.L., Foggin, J.H. and Mentzer, J.T. (2003), Relationship magnitude and its role in
interorganizational relationship structure, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 57-75.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N. and Lawrence, T.B. (2003), Resources, knowledge and influence: the
organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 321-47.
Holweg, M., Disney, S., Holmstrom, J. and Smaros, J. (2005), Supply chain collaboration: making
sense of the strategy continuum, European Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 170-81.
Horvath, L. (2001), Collaboration: the key to value creation in supply chain management,
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 205-7.
Jap, S.D. (1999), Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 461-75.
Jap, S.D. (2001), Pie sharing in complex collaboration contexts, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 86-99.
Konczak, L.J. (2001), The process of business/environmental collaborations: partnering for
sustainability, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 515-8.
Kotler, P. (1997), Marketing Management, 9th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lambe, C.J., Spekman, R.E. and Hunt, S.D. (2002), Alliance competence, resources, and alliance
success: conceptualization, measurement, and initial test, Academy of Marketing Science
Journal, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 141-58.
Lambert, D.M., Emmelhainz, M.A. and Gardner, J.T. (1999), Building successful partnerships,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 165-81.
Lambert, D.M., Knemeyer, A.M. and Gardner, J.T. (2004), Supply chain partnerships: model
validation and implementation, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 21-42.
McCarthy, T.M. and Golicic, S.L. (2002), Implementing collaborative forecasting to improve
supply chain performance, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 431-54.

Supply chain
collaboration

253

IJLM
16,2

254

Manrodt, K.B. and Fitzgerald, M. (2001), Seven propositions for successful collaboration,
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 66-72.
Mentzer, J.T. and Konrad, B.P. (1991), An efficiency/effectiveness approach to logistics
performance analysis, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 33-62.
Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001),
What is supply chain management?, in Mentzer, J.T. (Ed.), Supply Chain Management,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 5-62.
Lemke, F., Goffin, K. and Szwejczewski, M. (2003), Investigating the meaning of
supplier-manufacturer partnerships: an exploratory study, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 Nos 1/2, pp. 12-35.
Payne, T. and Peters, M.J. (2004), What is the right supply chain for your products?,
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 77-92.
Perks, H. (2000), Marketing information exchange mechanisms in collaborative new product
development, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 179-89.
Pfohl, H-C. and Buse, H.P. (2000), Inter-organizational logistics systems in flexible production
networks: an organizational capabilities perspective, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 388-408.
Powell, W.W., White, D.R., Koput, K.W. and Owen-Smith, J. (2005), Network dynamics and field
evolution: the growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences, The
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 110 No. 4, pp. 1132-206.
Quinn, F.J. (1999), Cooperation and collaboration: the keys to supply chain success, Logistics
Management & Distribution, Vol. 38 No. 2, p. 35.
Rogers, D.S., Lambert, D.M. and Knemeyer, A.M. (2004), The product development and
commercialization process, International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 43-56.
Sabath, R.E. and Fontanella, J. (2002), The unfulfilled promise of supply chain collaboration,
Supply Chain Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 24-9.
Sanders, N.R. and Premus, R. (2005), Modeling the relationship between IT capability,
collaboration, and performance, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-24.
Sawhney, M. (2002), Dont just relate collaborate, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 43
No. 3, p. 96.
Silverman, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2002), The collaborative supply chain, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 15-30.
Simonin, B.L. (1997), The importance of collaborative know-how: an empirical test of the
learning organization, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 1150-74.
Sin, L.Y.M., Tse, A.C.B., Yau, O.H.M., Chow, R.P.M., Lee, J.S.Y. and Lau, L.B.Y. (2005),
Relationship marketing orientation: scale development and cross-cultural validation,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 185-94.
Singh, K. and Mitchell, W. (2005), Growth dynamics: the bidirectional relationship between
interfirm collaboration and business sales in entrant and incumbent alliances, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 497-522.
Spekman, R.E., Salmond, D.J. and Lambe, C.J. (1997), Consensus and collaboration:
norm-regulated behaviour in industrial marketing relationships, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 31 Nos 11/12, pp. 832-56.

Sriram, V., Krapfel, R. and Spekman, R.E. (1992), Antecedents to buyer-seller collaboration: an
analysis from the buyers perspective, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 303-20.
Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P.J. and Autry, C.W. (1999), Collaborative planning: supporting
automatic replenishment programs, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 75-85.
Stank, T.P., Keller, S.B. and Daugherty, P.J. (2001), Supply chain collaboration and logistical
service performance, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Stern, A.J. and Hicks, T. (2000), The Process of Business/Environmental Collaborations:
Partnering for Sustainability, Quorum, Westport, CT.
Stern, L.W. and Reeve, T. (1980), Distribution channels as political economies: a framework for
comparative analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 52-64.
Tuominen, M. (2004), Channel collaboration and firm value proposition, International Journal
of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 178-89.
Verespej, M. (2005), Supply chain collaboration, Frontline Solutions, available at: www.
frontlinetoday.com (accessed August 2005).

Supply chain
collaboration

255

Appendix. Respondent firms

The University of Oklahoma
Logistics/supply chain executive panel
ABF Freight Systems Inc.
Alberto-Culver Company
Bi-Lo, Inc.
Blockbuster, Inc.
Bosch
Campbell Soup Company
Chef Solutions, Inc.
Colgate Palmolive Company
ConAgra Foods, Inc.
Cooper Tire
CVS
Del Monte Foods
Dean Foods Company
EAS
Emerson
Fleischmanns Yeast
Freese and Associates Inc.
Galderma Laboratories, L.P.
GENCO Supply Chain Solutions
Godiva Chocolatier Inc.
Harley-Davidson
Heinz North America
Ingersoll-Rand Company
International Paper
IR Productivity Solutions
Louisville Slugger

Mattel, Inc.
Menlo Worldwide
Mercury Marine
Michael Foods
Mighty Auto Parts
Murphy Warehouse Company
NCR Corporation
New World Pasta Company
New York City Housing Authority
Oce USA Inc.
Papa Johns International
PEGASUS Logistics Group
Pinnacle Foods
Sabath Supply Chain Consultants
Sargento Foods Inc.
Standard Corporation
Standard Register
Steven Myers & Associates
The Revere Group
Thomson Learning
Transplace
Unilever
Unisource Worldwide Inc.
VICS
Volvo Logistics North America
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Table AI.

IJLM
16,2

256

(Soonhong Min is an Assistant Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michael
F. Price College of Business at The University of Oklahoma. He has published in Journal of Business
Logistics, Journal of Retailing, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
International Marketing Review, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, and the E-Business
Review and co-authored a book, Supply Chain Management. He holds a PhD from The University of
Tennessee and can be reached at The University of Oklahoma, Division of Marketing and Supply
Chain Management, Michael F. Price College of Business, 307 West Brooks Suite 1, Norman, OK
73019. Tel.: 405-325-0430, E-mail: smin@ou.edu
Anthony S. Roath is an Assistant Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management,
Michael F. Price College of Business at The University of Oklahoma. His research interests include
international supply chains, relational management/governance, and logistics modeling and
simulation. He holds a PhD from Michigan State University and can be reached at The University of
Oklahoma, Division of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michael F. Price College of
Business, 307 West Brooks Suite 1K, Norman, OK 73019. Tel.: 405-325-5893, E-mail: asroath@ou.edu
Patricia J. Daugherty is Division Director and Siegfried Chair in Marketing and Supply Chain
Management, Michael F. Price College of Business at The University of Oklahoma. She has
published extensively in logistics journals and has co-authored two books. Her current research
interests include supply chain relationships and reverse logistics. She holds a PhD from Michigan
State University and can be reached at The University of Oklahoma, Division of Marketing and
Supply Chain Management, Michael F. Price College of Business, 307 West Brooks Suite 1H,
Norman, OK 73019. Tel.: 405-325-5899, Fax: 405-325-7688, E-mail: pdaugher@ou.edu
Stefan E. Genchev is a PhD Candidate in Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michael
F. Price College of Business at The University of Oklahoma. He holds a MBA from The University of
Oklahoma. He has published in Business Horizons, Industrial Marketing Management, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics, and
Transportation Research: Part E. Before joining the PhD program, he worked for DHL International
for four years in Bulgaria. He can be reached at The University of Oklahoma, Division of Marketing
and Supply Chain Management, Michael F. Price College of Business, 307 West Brooks Suite 1,
Norman, OK 73019. Tel.: 405-325-3561, E-mail: sgenchev@ou.edu
Haozhe Chen is a PhD student in Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michael F. Price
College of Business at The University of Oklahoma. He holds a MBA from The University of
Alabama. He has published in Business Horizons, Industrial Marketing Management, and
Transportation Research: Part E. His industry background includes eight years of managerial
experience in international trade business. He can be reached at The University of Oklahoma,
Division of Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michael F. Price College of Business, 307
West Brooks Suite 1, Norman, OK 73019. Tel.: 405-325-3561, E-mail: haozhechen@ou.edu
Aaron D. Arndt is a PhD student in Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michael
F. Price College of Business at The University of Oklahoma. He holds a MBA from Washington
State University. He has published in Business Horizons and Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management. Prior to joining the PhD program, he worked in finance for two years as a
salesman and as a loan processor. He can be reached at The University of Oklahoma, Division of
Marketing and Supply Chain Management, Michael F. Price College of Business, 307 West
Brooks Suite 1, Norman, OK 73019. Tel.: 405-325-3561, E-mail: aarndt@ou.edu
R. Glenn Richey is an Assistant Professor of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at The
University of Alabama. He has published supply chain research in academic journals including
International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics, and Transportation Research: Part E. His
current research interests include collaboration, reverse logistics, technological readiness, and
supply chain quality management. He holds a PhD from The University of Oklahoma and can be
reached at The University of Alabama, Department of Management and Marketing, 129 Alston Hall,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487. Tel.: 205-348-8922, E-mail: grichey@cba.ua.edu)