Collaborative Forecasting and Planning in Supply Chains The Impact On Logistics & Production Performance in Pakistani Industries

Collaborative forecasting and planning in
supply chains the impact on Logistics &

Production performance in Pakistani
Industries
Authors
Abdul Momin
MBA - Supply Chain Management, Iqra University, Karachi Pakistan
Bashir Ahmed Khan

MBA Supply Chain Management, Iqra University, Karachi Pakistan
Bilal Habib
Saiyed. M. Fauzan Ali

Shakir Hussain
2
Collaborative forecasting and planning in supply chains The impact on Logistics &
Production performance in Pakistani Industries
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1: Introduction....................04
1.1 Background of the study.....................
04
1.2 Problem statement..................05
1.3 Research questions.............................................................................................................05
1.4 Operational definition.....................06
Chapter 2: Literature Review.......................07
2.1 Empirical Review.......................07
Chapter 3: Research Methodology...................................10
3.1 Conceptual framework...................10
3.2 Hypothesis..............11
3.3 Research Design.................11
3.3.1 Method of data collection......................11
3.3.2Statistical Technique...............12
Chapter 4: Results and interpretation...............................................................13
3
4.1 Factor Analysis (Exploratory): Hypothesized Model....................................13

4.2 Reliability analysis.................................................................................21
4.3 Reporting Factor Analysis Results....................................................................................23
4.4 Hypothesized Model...........................................................................................................24
Chapter 5: Conclusion and implications..................................................................................33
5.1Discussion.......................................................................................................................33
5.2 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................34
5.3 Implications.......................................................................................................................34
5.4 Significance of the study....................................................................................................34
5.5Limitation...........................................................................................................................35
REFERENCES........3637
4
1.
Introduction
1.1
Background of the Study

The research paper in the study has been centered around Collaborative forecasting
and its progressive, impact on production and logistics performance. According to the general
actuality, all the supply chain partners (collaborative Supply Chain Partners) have diverse and
particular objectives from one another along the whole supply chain, this worldwide
phenomena has its own particular effect on distinctive organizations and business. Because of
their unique and likewise business arena's the part of collaboration have dependably been an
exceptionally troublesome, tedious, yet the most critical and a huge part for organizations to
consider.
With the beginning of the 21st century, the trend of specialization in one field in the
industry has given birth to so many sub industries, the concept and Idea of a whole in home
production has almost vanished, people and firms with different core competencies have
emerged as a way out/ solution providers for all the business and Industries.
For collaborative business forms, between authoritative integrative exercises are
extremely huge. Along these lines, numerous studies have exactly inspected the effect of
integrative exercises on execution.
5
1.2
Problem Statement
The importance of collaboration and joint effort can never be centered on enough in a
Supply Chain. Nonattendance of collaboration results in expanded demand variability

through the Supply Chain. Collaborative Forecasting and planning is driven by organizations
today in order to make their supply chains more responsive, enhance logistics and generation,
execution and keep all the supply chain people tuned into the end customer request. As per a
late concentrate, Supply Chain integration is found to have vital influence in the general
execution of the Supply Chain in an organization (Kim, 2006). Collaborative activities are
vital for an organization regarding production performance and collaborative activities have
been the objective of a few late studies, and the significance of joint effort and collaboration
in business change has been complemented, in this manner the essential issue articulation of
our research study is to distinguish the effect of internal and external collective impact on
logistics and production performance.
1.3
Research Question
Research Questions are the most key bit of a qualitative research, as we have to take
the feedback of the people groups which fall under our objective populace. As
demonstrated by our issue of the study, the research inquiries are as under;
To examine effects of Collaborative forecasting and planning with main Suppliers on
Logistics and Production Performance.

To examine effects of Collaborative forecasting and planning with main Customers on
Logistics and Production Performance.

To sight see that Internal Collaborative forecasting and planning can affect Logistics
and Production Performance.
6
To examine the interrelationship between Collaborative forecasting and planning with
main suppliers and Internal Collaborative Forecasting and Planning

To find out the interrelationship between Collaborative Forecasting and Planning with
Main Customers and Internal Collaborative Forecasting and planning

To find out the Interrelationship between Collaborative Forecasting and Planning with
main Suppliers and Collaborative Forecasting and Planning with Main Customers
1.4 Operational Definitions

Collaboration (IV)
Collaboration characterizes as the readiness of divisions to cooperate. Collaborative
activities are normally immaterial, less effectively managed, and hard to support without
collaborative efforts, and speak to a more elevated amount of interrelationship.
Internal Collaboration (IV)
The Collaborative activities that are performed within the organization with joint
effort.
External Collaboration (IV)
The Collaborative activities that are performed outside the organization, the joint
efforts of organization with the main customers and main suppliers.
Logistics (DV)
The activity of transporting manufactured goods to customers.
7
2.
Literature review
2.1
Empirical Review
Troilo, (2014) examined the part of internal and external collaborative forecasting
related to product innovation in the Chinese firms. Data was accumulated from 2700 firms,
spread across more than 25 urban groups' in 15 enterprises. Logistic regression, Poisson
regression, and least square methodologies were used. Results exhibited that foreign and
domestic Collaborations have a positive association with product innovation.
Bhakoo, Singh & Sohal, (2012) added to an understanding of the method for
collaborative planning that accomplices use to direct inventories in an Australian Hospital. A
Survey of 40 respondents was coordinated. The results highlighted the vicinity of a collection
of collaborative planning amongst wholesalers/vendors and clinics.
Winkelen, (2010) identified how associations can get more esteem from joining in
between hierarchical learning collaboration. Seven learning-based inter-organizational
collaborations were considered using a subjective exploratory research plan. Two discoveries
were seemed to affect, first individuals not translating the consequences of the learning and
second the associations not sharing and upgrading that learning. This complemented the
importance of intra-hierarchical learning exchange frameworks and furthermore the part
individuals play in exchanging information.
Singh and Power, (2009) explored a model of coordinated effort considering firms
having a strong working association with their suppliers and customers. Issues joined with
collaborative relationship among the organizations and their trading accomplices were tended
to in Supply Chain Management. Data was assembled from 418 Australian producing plants
8
to test the model. The outcomes upheld the collaboration model, with both collaborative
based develops influencing performance.
Maon, Lindgreen & Vanhamme, (2009) intended to highlight and recognize current
practices, particularities, and troubles in a debacle alleviation supply chain. Researchers
concentrated on the key missions of calamity relief enterprises: in the first case, counteractive
activity and arranging and, second, response and recovery. The technique used was both SCM
and logistics, organization composing and outlines drawn from veritable cases instruct the
change of the theoretical model. Results demonstrated that planned endeavors amidst
ventures and catastrophe alleviation associations help workplaces meet SCM challenging.
Sari, (2008) investigated the impact of inventory framework blunders on the
advantages of collaborative supply chain network under distinctive Supply Chain
circumstances. Examination sees in precise stock records result in performance diminishes in
addition, analyst in like manner comprehends the threatening impact of off course stock
information is more grounded where lead times are shorter and demand vulnerability in the
market place is lower. Two synergistic exercises were considered in four-stage supply chain
system. The fundamental practice is a merchant directed inventory framework where the
supplier takes the full commitment of managing the retailer's stock. The second practice is a
collaborative planning, expecting, and reviving task, where all people team up to organize,
gage, and restore the inventory. Results demonstrated that while the inaccurate stock records
result in significant performance diminishes for all supply chain networks, their impact is
liberally more important for the supply chains where people cooperate more about on key
supply chain activities.
Soosay, Hyland and Ferrer, (2008) analyzed how collaborative relationship enhances
development persistently in a supply chain system. A subjective methodology was grasped
9
for analyzing the segments and data were assembled from semi-sorted out meetings with 23
directors in ten contextual investigations. The objective was to acknowledge how these
associations possessed with collective relationship and their hugeness for productive
development and to demonstrate how differentiating connections can impact on the operation
of firms and their capacities to advance. Discoveries have exhibited diverse frameworks
where firms teamed up with customers and suppliers in the supply chain system. This was
evident in the viewpoints of administrators over each one of the associations broke down,
supporting the noteworthiness of collaborative effort and capable appropriation of assets all
through the supply chain network system.
Sandberg, (2007) dissected the results of a survey which looks at the situation in
authentic supply chains concerning logistics collaboration. A survey was created covering key
subjects from the writing. The review was sent to the logistics boss at Swedish manufacturing
associations and a net reaction rate of 37.8 percent (177/482) was accomplished. Beside
descriptive statistics, factor analysis and analysis for variance (ANOVA) was used for the
examination. Three essential conclusions were drawn. In any case, there is a sensible
relationship in the middle of coordinated effort and positive results experienced from the
cooperation. Second, the best management is a crucial driver for joint effort. Third, there are
not kidding contrasts between Supply Chain Management (SCM) theory and practice.
Kampstra and Ashayeri (2006) dissected the crevice between the interests in Supply
Chain Collaboration (SCC) and for the most part few recorded cases of fruitful applications.
Viewpoints of the creators rely on their total field experiences and writing. Three substances
of SCC were recognized setting up the essentials of the collaborative process; where the
methodology starts; and where it closes, extended care for experts in SCM by exhibiting
10
when collaborative effort is significant; what to change; what to change to; and how to get
changes going.
Vereecke, (2006) experimentally broke down the relationship between production
network Collaboration and execution change. Hypotheses were made with estimations of
supplier and customer collaboration and performance changes. Tests from 374 firms from the
designing/collecting industry transversely more than 11 European countries were considered.
Results exhibited that frail empirical support was available for a positive relationship between
supplier (or customer) collaboration and performance improvement.
3.
Research Methodology
3.1
Conceptual framework
The figure above is demonstrating Manufacturer (Internal), Supplier (External) and

Customer (External) as independent variables, whereas Logistics and Production performance
is the dependent variable. The degree of Collaborative forecasting and planning was
categorized into three dimensions: collaborative process operation, collaborative process
improvement and sharing resources.
3.2
Hypothesis
11
1. H1 breakdown:
a) H1a: The higher the degree of internal collaborative forecasting and planning, the
higher will be the degree of collaborative forecasting and planning with main
suppliers.
b) H1b: The higher the degree of internal collaborative forecasting and planning, the
higher will be the degree of collaborative forecasting and planning with main
wholesalers/retailers.
2. H2: The higher the degree of collaborative forecasting and planning with main
suppliers, the higher will be the degree of collaborative forecasting and planning with
main wholesalers/retailers.
3. H3: Internal collaborative forecasting and planning has a significant positive effect on
relative performance.
4. H4 break down:
a) H4a: Collaborative forecasting and planning with main suppliers has a significant
positive effect on relative performance.

b) H4b: Collaborative forecasting and planning with main wholesalers/retailers has a
significant positive effect on relative performance.

3.3
Design of the research

Data was collected from the Manufacturing Industry based in Karachi which includes
food, beverage, automobile, and FMCG companies. A questionnaire was sent to 50 supply
chain and logistics managers from among these companies.
3.3.1 Method of Data Collection:
A stratified sampling technique was used and data was collected using a quantitative
questionnaire and a bipolar scaling method called Likert Scale was utilized to measure the
response. Email Survey Method was utilized to collect data from our targeted respondents. A
link to the questionnaire was sent to each invitee and their response was recorded.
3.3.2
Statistical technique
12
Bivariate correlation was used to test the type and strength of relationship between
our independent variables, Confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to evaluate our variables
using SPSS and Linear Regression was used to test the impact of our independent variables
on the dependant variable.
4.
Results and interpretation
13
This area deals in presenting the results and findings, analysis of data, and discussion
about the findings which we achieved through using the SPSS tool, Data was collected using
a quantitative questionnaire and a bipolar scaling method called Likert Scale was utilized to
measure the response. Email Survey Method was utilized to collect data from our targeted
respondents. A link to the questionnaire was sent to each invitee and their response was
recorded, and after that the reliability test was used to check the validity of the data and
confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to test our variables.
4.1.
Factor Analysis (Exploratory): Hypothesized Model
Above model contains 4 variables, e.g. (Supplier, Customer, Organization and

Logistics & Production) three relationships between above model are identified to check the
significant positive impact of the independent variable on dependant variables.
14
Data Screening:
Missing Value:
The data were checked for missing value and in our sample of 50 respondents missing
values were identified.
Outlier:
The data were screened for Multivariate outliers and responses fall more than
0.996059 so there are no outliers in the data and the factor analysis was satisfied with a final
sample size of 50
Factor Analysis Test:
KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.
Approx. Chi-Square
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity
df
Sig.
.645
331.785
55
.000
15
Communalities
Initial
Extraction
IC2
1.000
.747
IC4
1.000
.678
IC5
1.000
.776
IC6
1.000
.720
CS1
1.000
.925
CS2
1.000
.925
CC1
1.000
.943
LPP2
1.000
.835
LPP3
1.000
.842
LPP4
1.000
.912
LPP6
1.000
.679
Extraction Method: Principal

Component Analysis.
16
Total Variance Explained

Component
Initial Eigenvalues
Total
% of
Cumulative
Variance
Extraction Sums of Squared
Rotation Sums of Squared
Loadings
Loadings
Total
% of
Cumulative
Variance
Total
% of
Cumulative
Variance
3.510
31.907
31.907
3.510
31.907
31.907
3.036
27.599
27.599
3.133
28.479
60.387
3.133
28.479
60.387
2.996
27.237
54.836
1.492
13.561
73.947
1.492
13.561
73.947
1.851
16.825
71.661
.849
7.721
81.668
.849
7.721
81.668
1.101
10.007
81.668
.521
4.741
86.409
.454
4.131
90.540
.319
2.901
93.440
.283
2.573
96.013
.261
2.375
98.389
10
.109
.995
99.383
11
.068
.617
100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
17
18
Component Matrixa
Component
1
IC2
.788
IC4
.772
IC6
.755
CS2
.750
.490
IC5
.744
-.448
LPP4
.917
LPP3
.870
LPP2
.838
LPP6
.686
CS1
.556
CC1
.716
.569

a. 4 components extracted.
.688
19
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
1
IC5
.870
IC6
.838
IC2
.825
IC4
.788
LPP4
.949
LPP3
.909
LPP2
.833
LPP6
.707
CS1
.938
CS2
.892
CC1
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
.938
20
Component Transformation Matrix
Component
.845
.198
.491
.073
-.267
.944
.103
-.165
-.439
-.112
.723
.522
.148
.239
-.475
.834

Interpretation:
Factor Analysis:
Initially, 50 respondents were examined for factorability of a correlation in which
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value was greater than 0.5 and Bartletts test of sphericity was also
significant (2 (50) = 331.785, 0.000) which indicated that the Fitness of Model test was
appropriate, in the table Total Variance Explained the cumulative % in the column of
Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings was 81% which indicated a good fit.
The cross loading issue was resolved by removing the components IC1, IC3, CS3,
CS4, CS5, CS6, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, CC6, LPP1 and LPP5 through factor analysis.
Rotated Component Matrix indicated a correlation among variables. The first
dimension is found among IC5, IC6, IC2 and IC4 in which surrogate value of IC5 was found
to be 0.870. Second dimension was identified among LPP4, LPP3, LPP2 and LPP6 in which
surrogate value of LPP4 was 0.949. The third dimension was identified among CS1 and CS2
in which surrogate value of CS1 was 0.938. However, CC1 was the only variable for the
fourth dimension and its surrogate value was 0.938.
Screen Plot diagram indicated a drop of eigenvalue.
21
4.2. Reliability Test

Reliability of IC Variables:
Reliability of 50 respondents was checked for components IC5, IC6, IC2 and IC4 in
which Cronbach's Alpha value was 0.863 which indicated that the components were reliable.
Case Processing Summary
N
Valid
Cases
Excludeda
Total
%
50
100.0
.0
50
100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
N of Items
Alpha
.863
Reliability of LPP Variables:
Reliability of 50 respondents was checked for variables LPP4, LPP3, LPP2 and LPP6
in which Cronbach's Alpha value was 0.881 which also indicated the reliability of the
components.
22
N
Valid
Cases
Excludeda
Total
%
50
100.0
.0
50
100.0

procedure.
Cronbach's
N of Items
Alpha
.881
Reliability of CS Variables:
Reliability of 50 respondents was checked for variables CS1 and CS2 in which
Cronbach's Alpha value was 0.898 which indicated that the components were reliable.

N
Valid
Cases
Excludeda
Total
%
50
100.0
.0
50
100.0

procedure.
23
Cronbach's
N of Items
Alpha
.898
4.3. Reporting Exploratory Factor Analysis Results
Component
Cronbach Alpha
IC
IC5
0.87
IC6
0.83
8
IC2
0.863
LPP
0.82
5
LPP4
0.9
49
LPP3
0.9
09
0.881
LPP2
0.8
33
LPP6
0.7
07
0.93
8
CS1
0.898
0.89
2
CS2
Eigenvalues
CC
0.78
8
IC4
CC1
CS
0.93
8
1
3.51
3.1
33
1.49
2
0.84
9
24
% of variance explained
31.9
07
28.
48
13.5
61
7.72
1
Cumulative % of variance explained
31.9
07
60.
39
73.9
47
81.6
68

a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.
Reduction of Data:
As reliability of data was tasted above, five new variables were created by taking
mean of below mentioned variables.
New
S.
No.
1
2
3
4
Varia
Description
Variables
ble
IC
Internal collaborative forecasting and
IC5, IC6, IC2, IC4
LPP
planning
Logistics and Production Performance
LPP4,
CS
Collaborative forecasting and planning
LPP6
CS1, CS2
CC
with Supplier
Collaborative forecasting and planning
CC1
with Customer
4.4. Hypothesized Model
LPP3,
LPP2,
25
Hypothesis Test 1:
H1 breakdown:
H1a: The higher the degree of internal collaborative forecasting and planning
(IC), the higher will be the degree of collaborative forecasting and planning with
main suppliers (CS).
Correlations
IC
Pearson Correlation
IC
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
CS
CS
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.724**
.000
50
50
**
.724
.000
50
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
50
26
Interpretation:
-
Sig value in the above table is 0.000 which is less than value 0.05 so
there is a relationship between these variables.
The value of r shows the strength of relationship and if the value lies :
o Between 0 0.4; relationship is weak
o Between 0.4 0.6; relationship is moderate
o Between 0.6 above; relationship is strong
The value of r is 0.724 and it lies above 0.6 so the relationship is strong.
The sign of r shows the direction and here it is positive. It means that
there is a direct relationship between the IC and CS.
H1b: The higher the degree of internal collaborative forecasting and planning
(IC), the higher will be the degree of collaborative forecasting and planning with
main wholesalers/retailers (CC).
Correlations
IC
Pearson Correlation
IC
CC
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
CC
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.731**
.000
50
50
**
.731
.000
50
50
Interpretation:
-

27

there is a direct relationship between the IC and CC.
H2: The higher the degree of collaborative forecasting and planning with main
suppliers (CS), the higher will be the degree of collaborative forecasting and
planning with main wholesalers/retailers (CC).
Correlations
CC
Pearson Correlation
CC
CS
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
CS
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
.700**
.000
50
50
**
.700
.000
50
50
Interpretation:
-
there is a direct relationship between the CC and CS.
28
H3: (IC) Internal collaborative forecasting and planning has a significant positive
effect on relative performance (LPP).
Variables Entered/Removeda
Model
Variables
Variables
Entered
Removed
Method
ICb
. Enter
a. Dependent Variable: LPP

b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Model
.109
R Square
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the
Square
Estimate
.012
-.009
1.44441
a. Predictors: (Constant), IC
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
df
Mean Square
1.208
1.208
Residual
100.144
48
2.086
Total
101.351
49
Sig.
.579
.450b
Sig.

b. Predictors: (Constant), IC
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
B
1
Std. Error
(Constant)
4.331
.885
IC
-.191
.252
Beta
-.109
4.893
.000
-.761
.450
29
Interpretation:
R Square (also called the coefficient of determination) value is .012 which indicates
the percent of the variance in independent variable due to change in dependent variable.
ANOVAb table tests whether the overall regression model is a good fit for the data. The sig.
value is 0.000 indicating the regression model is a good fit of the data. The B column of
Coefficients a table shows the relationship between dependent and independent variable.
The value of IC is -0.191426 and sig. value is 0.450 which is greater than 0.05 so CS
has no significant negative impact on LPP.
H4 break down:
H4a: (CS) Collaborative forecasting and planning with main suppliers has a
significant positive effect on relative performance (LPP).
Model
Variables
Variables
Entered
Removed
CSb
Method
. Enter

Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
30
.200a
.040
.020
.90117
a. Predictors: (Constant), CS
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
df
Mean Square
1.624
1.624
Residual
38.981
48
.812
Total
40.605
49
Sig.
2.000
.164b

b. Predictors: (Constant), CS
Coefficientsa
Model
Standardized
Sig.
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
Std. Error
2.873
.475
.185
.131
Beta
6.048
.000
1.414
.164
1
CS
.200
Interpretation:
R Square (also called the coefficient of determination) value is .040 which indicates
the percent of the variance in independent variable due to change in dependent variable.
value is 0.000 indicating that the regression model is a good fit of the data. The B column of
Coefficientsa table indicates the relationship between dependent and independent variable.
31
The value of CS is 0.185 and sig. value is 0.164 which is greater than 0.05 so CS has
no significant positive impact on LPP.
H4b: (CC) Collaborative forecasting and planning with main wholesalers/retailers
has a significant positive effect on relative performance (LPP).
Model
Variables
Variables
Entered
Removed
CCb
Method
. Enter

Model Summary
Model
R Square
Adjusted R
Std. Error of the Estimate
Square
.209a
.044
.024
.89950
a. Predictors: (Constant), CC
ANOVAa
Model
Sum of Squares
Regression
df
Mean Square
1.768
1.768
Residual
38.837
48
.809
Total
40.605
49

b. Predictors: (Constant), CC
F
2.186
Sig.
.146b
32
Coefficientsa
Model
Standardized
Sig.
Coefficients
B
Std. Error
(Constant)
4.212
.485
CC
-.187
.127
Beta
8.680
.000
-1.478
.146
1
-.209
Interpretation:
R Square (also called the coefficient of determination) value is .044 indicating that the
percent of the variance in independent variable due to change in dependent variable.
value is 0.000 and indicating that the regression model is a good fit of the data. The B column
of Coefficients table indicates the relationship between dependent and independent variable.
The value of CS is -0.187 and sig. value is 0.146 which is greater than 0.05 so CC has
no significant positive impact on LPP.
33
5.
Conclusion and implications

The conclusion of the study stated that there is a direct relationship between the
variables, Internal collaborative forecasting and planning (IC), Collaborative forecasting and
planning with suppliers (CS), Collaborative forecasting and planning with customers (CC),
however Internal Collaborative forecasting and planning, Collaborative Forecasting and
planning with Customers and Collaborative forecasting and planning with suppliers have no
significant positive impact on Logistics and production performance, the results are discussed
as under;
5.1.
Discussion:
The research indicates that the tests that we have run including reliability,
confirmatory factor analysis, and regression in which we tested the hypothesis where H1
stated that IC has significant relationship with CS and CC and from the correlation analysis
the value of the r was found to be above 0.6, which shows that there is a strong relationship
between internal collaboration and external collaboration, H2 stated that CS has significant
relationship with CC, and in this case the value of r was found to be above 0.6, thus
indicating a strong positive relationship between Collaboration with potential customers and
collaboration with potential suppliers. Regression analysis was run to check whether a unit
change in one variable will have impact on the other variable, the sig. value for H3 which
34
stated that Internal Collaborative forecasting and planning (IC) has positive and significant
impact on relative performance (LPP) was greater than 0.05 and thus accepting the nul it was
found that Internal collaboration has no impact on relative performance in Pakistani
Industries. Likewise H4 stated that Collaboration with Customers and Collaboration with
Suppliers have positive and significant impact on LPP however, sig. value here were was
found to be above 0.05 and thus accepting the nul it was concluded that neither collaboration
with upstream nor collaboration with downstream have any significant impact on relative
performance.
5.2.
Conclusion
In Pakistan a great part of the collaboration is directed towards external organizations
(upstream and downstream), where collaborating can win and execute projects, lessen costs
and oversee dangers, and create extra value.
Be that as it may, internal collaborative activities are additionally turning out to be
progressively critical. gaining excellence in internal collaboration can lessen practical
hindrances, exchange information and free individuals' potential prompting a general
change in efficiency. Internal and External Collaboration have a solid relationship as
organizations who concentrate on external collaboration additionally concentrate on
advancing an internal collaborative culture. Be that as it may, Collaborative activities don't
necessarily enhance business performance, at least not in our considered sample..
5.3.
Implications
The results demonstrate that, indicate that Internal Collaborative forecasting and
planning and collaborative forecasting and planning with customers and suppliers contribute
an important role in an organization as one increases the other will also increase, however
35
they do not have any contributing role in improving the organizations logistics and
production performance.
5.4.
Significance of the Study.

The significance of this study is to identify the impact of Collaborative forecasting
and planning with customer and supplier on logistics and production performance. The
significance of the study was assessed and for this purpose KMO test and Bartlett test of
sphericity was used which produced a value .645> .6, which shows that the study is
significant. Numerous of studies can be found in the literature that argue over the relationship
between Collaborative forecasting and planning and supply chain performance and many
studies have indicated a relationship between collaborative constructs and performance.
Organizations should not only focus on collaborative forecasting and planning in order to
improve their overall supply chain performance, they should also focus on continuous
improvement in order to improve production performance.
5.5.
Limitation.
This research has some limitations. It is highly important to discuss, it is better to
consider the research limitation rather than to reject it, because some issues need to be
addressed as if they are linked to the quality of the results. Due to limitation of time the
population sample comprised of only 50 respondents, whereas using an adequate sample with
high quality data collection efforts results in reliable, valid and generalizable results (Bartlett,
Kotrlik, & Higgins, 2001).It is suggested that sampling of data and method of collection
should be considered important in order to save resources and produce quality results.
36
REFERENCES:
Bartlett, J., Kotrlik, J., & Higgins, C. (2001), Organizational Research: Determining
appropriate sample size in survey research, Information Technology, Learning, and
Performance Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 43-50
Bhakoo, V., Singh, P., Sohal, A. (2012),"Collaborative management of inventory in Australian
hospital supply chains: practices and issues", Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 217 230
Kim, S.W. (2006), Effects of supply chain management practices, integration and
competition capability on performance, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 241-8
Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., Vanhamme, J. (2009) "Developing supply chains in disaster relief
operations through crosssector socially oriented collaborations: a theoretical model", Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp.149 164
Sandberg, E. (2007) "Logistics collaboration in supply chains: practice vs. theory", The
37
International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp.274 293

Kampstra, R.P.,
Ashayeri, J., Gattorna, J.L. (2006) "Realities of supply chain
collaboration", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp.312

330
Vereecke, A. & Muylle, S. (2006) "Performance improvement through supply chain

collaboration in Europe", International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 26 No. 11, pp.1176 - 1198
Sari, K. (2008),"Inventory inaccuracy and performance of collaborative supply chain
practices", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 4, pp. 495 509
Soosay, C. A., Hyland, P. W., Ferrer, M. (2008) "Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for
continuous innovation", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp.160 169
Singh, P. & Power, D. (2009),"The nature and effectiveness of collaboration between firms,
their customers and suppliers: a supply chain perspective", Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 189 200
Troilo, M.L. (2014),"Collaboration, product innovation, and sales: an empirical study of
Chinese firms", Journal of Technology Management in China, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 37 55
Winkelen, C. (2010),"Deriving value from inter-organizational learning collaborations", The
Learning Organization, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 8 23
38

Collaborative Forecasting and Planning in Supply Chains The Impact On Logistics & Production Performance in Pakistani Industries

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Collaborative Forecasting and Planning in Supply Chains The Impact On Logistics & Production Performance in Pakistani Industries

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Collaborative forecasting and planning in

supply chains the impact on Logistics &

Bashir Ahmed Khan

Saiyed. M. Fauzan Ali

4.1 Factor Analysis (Exploratory): Hypothesized Model....................................13

Background of the Study

Supply Chain. Nonattendance of collaboration results in expanded demand variability

To examine effects of Collaborative forecasting and planning with main Suppliers on

Logistics and Production Performance.

Logistics and Production Performance.

To examine the interrelationship between Collaborative forecasting and planning with

main suppliers and Internal Collaborative Forecasting and Planning

Main Customers and Internal Collaborative Forecasting and planning

1.4 Operational Definitions

The figure above is demonstrating Manufacturer (Internal), Supplier (External) and

positive effect on relative performance.

significant positive effect on relative performance.

Design of the research

Results and interpretation

Factor Analysis (Exploratory): Hypothesized Model

Above model contains 4 variables, e.g. (Supplier, Customer, Organization and

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Extraction Method: Principal

Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared

Rotation Sums of Squared

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

4.2. Reliability Test

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

Reliability of LPP Variables:

Case Processing Summary

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

Case Processing Summary

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the

4.3. Reporting Exploratory Factor Analysis Results

Cumulative % of variance explained

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Internal collaborative forecasting and

IC5, IC6, IC2, IC4

Collaborative forecasting and planning

4.4. Hypothesized Model

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

there is a relationship between these variables.

o Between 0.4 0.6; relationship is moderate

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

a. Dependent Variable: LPP

Std. Error of the

a. Dependent Variable: LPP

a. Dependent Variable: LPP

a. Dependent Variable: LPP

Std. Error of the Estimate

a. Dependent Variable: LPP

a. Dependent Variable: LPP

a. Dependent Variable: LPP

Std. Error of the Estimate

a. Dependent Variable: LPP

a. Dependent Variable: LPP

Conclusion and implications

Significance of the Study.

International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp.274 293

Ashayeri, J., Gattorna, J.L. (2006) "Realities of supply chain

collaboration", The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp.312

Vereecke, A. & Muylle, S. (2006) "Performance improvement through supply chain