E-Supply-Chain-Collaboration-and-Integration_-Implementation-Issues-and-Challenges.pdf

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332031161
E-Logistics and E-Supply Chain Management: Applications for Evolving
Business
Chapter · March 2019
CITATION
1
READS
16,864
1 author:
Sudhanshu Dinesh Joshi
Doon University
129 PUBLICATIONS 3,565 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sudhanshu Dinesh Joshi on 27 March 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Deryn Graham
University of Greenwich, UK
Ioannis Manikas
University of Greenwich, UK
Dimitris Folinas
ATEI Thessaloniki, Greece
E-Logistics and E-Supply
Chain Management:
Applications for Evolving
Business

Lindsay Johnston
Joel Gamon
Jennifer Yoder
Adrienne Freeland
Austin DeMarco
Kayla Wolfe
Alyson Zerbe
Jason Mull
E-logistics and e-supply chain management : applications for evolving business / Deryn Graham, Ioannis Manikas and
Dimitris Folinas, editors.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: “This book explores the creation of integrated supply chains, the developments of virtual business, and the
processes of re-engineering for business development”--Provided by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-4666-3914-0 (hardcover) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-3915-7 (ebook) -- ISBN 978-1-4666-3916-4 (print & perpetual
access)
1. Business logistics. 2. Electronic commerce. I. Graham, Deryn, 1961-
HD38.5.E4736 2013
658.70285--dc23
2012051621
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.
Managing Director:
Editorial Director:
Book Production Manager:
Publishing Systems Analyst:
Development Editor:
Assistant Acquisitions Editor:
Typesetter:
Cover Design:
Published in the United States of America by
Business Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
Copyright © 2013 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

9
Copyright © 2013, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
Chapter 2
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-3914-0.ch002
INTRODUCTION
Supply Chain Management (SCM) collabora-
tion includes logistics, transportation, strategic
alliances, industrial marketing, purchasing, eco-
nomics and organizational behavior (Kern and
Willcocks, 2002; Zheng et al., 2000), describes a
widevarietyoftransactionaltorelationalbusiness
relationships at firm level.
Co-operative supply chain relationships
achievebenefitsfortheparticipants(Christopher,
2005; Stevens, 1989), however, it is also appar-
ent that full SCM implementation is not being
achieved (Kempainen and Vepsalainen, 2003).
Thisisbecausepartnersarestilltakingashort-term
view, often in the face of increasing market-place
complexity and uncertainty and are limiting the
extent to which they extend their collaborative
Sudhanshu Joshi
Doon University, India
E-Supply Chain Collaboration
and Integration:
Implementation Issues and Challenges
ABSTRACT
Formulation of supplier integration strategy is essential to optimize the value chain. In the chapter, the
authors review the literature on integration of supplier relationship practices and its impact on opti-
mization of value chain. The review is based on e-collaborative framework for optimized value chain,
which comprises the supplier integration strategy, i.e., information sharing, e-business systems, and
policy-based supplier selection have positive influence on the long-term planning and supply chain
practices. The chapter reviews 368 articles on empirical research in e-collaboration and supply chain
management. It finds the majority of authors are using a combination of the entity of analysis, while still
focusing on the firm level rather than the network level. In this, another encouraging fact is that most
of the authors prefer to consider a combination of various elements of exchange in their analysis. The
potential limitation of the study is that it does not attempt to trace out trends using regression techniques.
The extension of this study could be statistically testing the figures observed in this chapter and setting
a grounded theory approach for future research in e-collaboration and supply chain.

10
A Review of E-Supply Chain Collaboration and Integration
focus (Fawcett and Magnan, 2002). SCM can be
seen as an integrative, proactive approach (Mat-
thyssens and Van den Bulte, 1994) to manage the
total flow of a distribution channel to the ultimate
customer-like“awell-balancedandwell-practiced
relay team” (Cooper and Ellram, 1993).
The advent of e-business has created several
challenges and opportunities in the supply-chain
environment. The Internet has made it easier to
share information among supply-chain partners
and the current trend is to try to leverage the ben-
efits obtained through information sharing (also
calledvisibility)acrossthesupplychaintoimprove
operational performance, customer service, and
solution development (Swaminathan and Tayur,
2003). A key feature of SCM is an early decision
toreducethenumberofsuppliersinthechain(the
elimination of multiple sourcing) (Ellram, 1991)
because maintaining close, intense relationships
can be very expensive in management effort
(Cavinato, 1992; Langley and Holcomb, 1992).
The intention is to have no more “partners” than
necessary and to work more closely, effectively,
and over the longer term (Peck and Juttner, 2000;
Scott and Westbrook, 1991) with those who have
the most critical impact on the overall operation
(Cooper et al., 1997).
GiannakisandCroom(2004)proposeanSCM
paradigmconceptualframework,the“3SModel”
containingthesynthesisofbusinessresourcesand
networks,thesynergybetweennetworkactorsand,
the synchronization of operational decisions. The
International Marketing and Purchasing Group’s
dyadic interaction approach summarized by Kern
and Willcocks (2002), supply chain integration
reviewed by Fawcett and Magnan (2002) and,
networks of relationships described by Harland
et al. (2001) and Kempainen and Vepsalainen
(2003) all suggest that exposing the relationship
managementaspectsofsupplychainrelationships
and their impact on performance (Giannakis and
Croom, 2004) is highly problematical.
In Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG)
sector, this collaboration aspect has been ex-
pressedthroughtheEfficientConsumerResponse
(ECR) movement. ECR encompasses multiple
technological and managerial innovations which
aim to transform retailers, distributors, and
manufacturers into more efficient inter-linked
organizations placing special emphasis on col-
laboration (JIPOECR, 1995). One of the first
forms of supply-chain collaboration has been the
practice of Vendor-Managed Inventory (VMI) or
Continuous Replenishment Program (CRP), as it
is often called in the context of grocery retailing,
where the buyer shares demand information with
the supplier who, in turn, manages the buyer’s
inventory.ThepracticeofCollaborativePlanning
Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR) has ex-
tended this collaboration to include the exchange
of forecasts based on widely shared information
(usually Point-of-Sales [PoS] data and promotion
plans), having a more strategic focus and placing
moreemphasisonthedemandside.Primarily,For
an effective Supply Chain in a FMCG Industry,
the existing supplier relationship is combination
of 3Cs—Cooperation, Coordination and Col-
laboration and Open Market Negotiations among
suppliers (as mentioned in Figure 1), and there
is wide range of attributes covered under it,
including Price Based discussions, Adversarial
relationships, Supplier selection and Contracts,
InformationExchangesusingWIPLinksandEDI
andSupplyChainIntegrationusingJointPlanning
and Technology Sharing.
More specifically, the Supplier relationship
practices including VMI/CRP has been imple-
mented at the level of the retailer’s central ware-
house,basedonthedailysharingofthewarehouse
inventoryreportdataandordersinformation.Most
CPFR initiatives also focus on the central ware-
houseratherthanonstorereplenishment,anddeal
mainly with mid-/long-term replenishment plan-
ning for promotion items and new product intro-
ductions. The VMI/CRP practice has been exten-
sively studied by researchers but mainly from the
perspective of evaluating the impact of informa-
tion sharing on supply-chain performance rather

11
thanfromtheInformationTechnology(IT)imple-
mentation perspective.
Furthermore, studies on CPFR mainly define
it as a new practice and discuss its adoption or
evaluate its business impact. Vendor-Managed
Inventory (VMI) is gradually becoming an im-
portant element of supply chain management
strategy of organizations.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive and critical literature review of
empirical research work in the areas of Supply
chainmanagement,e-Collaboration,SupplyChain
Integration, Customer Relationship Program
(CRP), Vendor-Managed Inventory (VMI), Con-
tinuous Replenishment Program (CRP), Collab-
orative Planning Forecasting and Replenishment
(CPFR), and e-commerce, Point of Sale (PoS). A
Step-by-Step approach was adopted for literature
review (also illustrated in Figure 2):
Step 1: The assessment period of articles is be-
tween 1994 to 2006, a 12 year timeline was
selected (based on availability of research
work). The year 1994 was taken as the base
year for data collection as the first research
based on E-collaboration and Supply Chain
practices was first appeared in 1994 (Dunn
et al.1994). The year 2006 is chosen as the
terminating point of data collection for
providingalandmarktoenddatacollection.
Step 2: The articles were collected from four
major management science publishers viz.
Ebscohost,ScienceDirect,Taylor&Francis,
Emerald Insight.
Step 3: Filtration of the search string “e-collab-
oration and Supply chain” among selected
management and technology databases.
Burgess et al. (2006) and Soni et al. (2011)
adopted similar approach for review based
research.
Step 4: Flynn et al. (1990) explained that any
empirical research article can have one or
more of the following empirical research
designs viz. single case study, multiple case
study, panel study, focus group and survey.
Weselectedempiricalresearcharticlesfrom
the selected population of journals on the
similar lines.
Step 5: Classification of the articles is based on
following parameters: Empirical research
growth in SCM.
◦
◦ Purpose of empirical research
◦
◦ Citation index per sub topic searched
(see Tables 1 and 2)
Figure 1. Supplier relationship based on cooperation, coordination, and collaboration (3C) (source:
adapted from Spekman et al., 1998)

12
SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT
RELATIONSHIP
Within the supply chain, the need for much
closer, long-term relationships is increasing due
to supplier rationalization (Refer. Figure 2 and
Table 3) and globalization and more information
about these interactions is required (Wilding &
Humphries, 2006).
StudiesincludingWilding&Humphries,2006
demonstrated that the existing theoretical model
including Williamson’s economic organizations
failureframeworkcouldprovidepowerfulinsights
into the research subject and especially revealed
the important part played by co-operation, co-
ordination and collaboration (C3 behavior) in
reducing the inherently negative effects of close
proximity and limited choice relationships (see
Figure 4).
The research specifically tested the well-ac-
cepted Williamson’s economic organizations
failure framework as a theoretical model through
which long-term collaborative relationships can
be viewed.
Thereisastrategicdimensionintothenetwork
oforganizations(ReferFigure3)thatareinvolved
Figure 2. Literature review methodology (adopted from Soni and Kodali, 2011)

13
in the up-stream production and downstream dis-
tribution processes and activities focused on the
satisfactionofcustomersandmaximizationofboth
current and long-term profitability (Christopher,
1992, 2005; Cox and Lamming, 1997; Harland,
1996a; Kempainen and Vepsalainen, 2003)
preliminary meant for reduction in inventory, to
increase customer service reliability and build a
competitive advantage for the channel (Boddy et
al., 2000; Cavinato, 1992; Fawcett and Magnan,
2002; Hines and Jones, 1996).
FromtheSupplyChainRestructuringperspec-
tive, vital feature for an effective Supply Chain is
to reduce the number of suppliers in the chain
(Ellram, 1991). The adverse relationship leads to
extensive loss in management objectives (Cavi-
nato, 1992; Langley and Holcomb, 1992). There
wasanimmenseneedtobeidentifiedtoward“lean
partners” to work more closely, effectively and
for longer duration and its impact on overall op-
eration (Scott and Westbrook, 1991; Cooper et
al., 1997; Peck and Ju ttner, 2000). Functional
framework was analyzed by Harlan, 1996 and
Hines and Jones, 1996 between Japanese Lean
automotive Producers and their western counter-
parts. Inter-organizational Strategic alliances
emerged as key tool of Confliction Resolution &
Competitive Intelligences (Anscombe and Kear-
ney, 1994). Further extension to this study was
giving by Bechtel and Jayaram (1997) and Perks
andEaston(2000)whosuggestthatSCMprovides
business environment in which firm closely co-
operate rather than compete to achieve mutual
goals and are incentivized to join in collaborative
innovation (Harland, 1996a).
The concept of VMI as tool for strategic part-
ners’roletoshareconfidentialdemandinformation
andtocateruncertaintybyreplenishinginventory
orders(CooperandEllram,1993;Lamming,1993;
Benchtel and Jayaram, 1997).
Researchers explained Supply Chain Integra-
tion as an overview towards the need for closer
relationships, including supplier’ trust, commit-
ment, co-operation, co-ordination and collabora-
tion between supply chain members to ensure the
successasperobjectives(Christopher,2005;Hines
and Jones, 1996; Spekman et al., 1998). Supply
Chain Collaboration increases the scope of its
operations and minimizes the confliction among
the partners and act as tool to tackle operational
problems(Sakoetal.,1994).Forbetterprofitabil-
ity & performance close long-term relationships
between customers and suppliers is suggested
(Giannakis and Croom, 2004).
Lammingetal.(2001)citedthatbyinstrumen-
talising and developing the unique capabilities of
partnership, it is possible to create a guard from
system-levelforces.Supplierrelationshipmanage-
ment is based on function of Partnership, whose
success depends upon the duration to build trust
(Sakoetal.,1994).Whenmistrustisentrenched,a
shiftfromadversarialtoco-operativerelationship
styles is extremely difficult. Moreover, Macbeth
and Ferguson (1994) and Kern and Willcocks
(2002) propose that despite the availability of
modern information systems, the practice of
managing supply chain players is wasteful of
resources and drags performance backwards
rather than promoting continuous improvement.
Furthermore, Cooper et al. (1997) believe that
achieving true supply chain integration is “a lofty
and difficult goal” and research indicates that
companies continue to struggle to operationalise
SCM principles such that they support dynami-
cally changing business influences (Braithwaite,
1998). We conclude that since SCM appears to
implicitly require a move towards a limitation of
the number of market players involved – small
numbers, effective supply chain relationship
management presents a more complex set of
challenges to achieve success.
COLLABORATION CHALLENGES
Academics have used a number of approaches
within SCM research to capture perspectives
containing the key facets of inter-organizational,

14
Table 1. Literature review and research contributions
Author (Year of
Publication)
Period Reviewed Journals
Sample
Size
Area of Research
Dunn et al. (1994) 1986-1990 N/A N/A Types of research in SCM
Croom et al.
(2000)
Not restricted Not restricted 84
Suggests the way of reviewing literature
critically
Ho et al. (2002) N/A N/A N/A State of empirical research in CPFR based SCM
Carter and Ellram
(2003)
1965-1999 JSCM 774
Types of research, methodologies used and data
analysis techniques in JSCM
Gammelgaard
(2004)
1998-2003
IJPDLM, IJOPM, JBL, JOM and
IJLM
N/A Prevailing schools of thought
Frankel et al.
(2005)
1999-2004 JBL 108
Types of research approaches including CPFR/
VMI etc
Sachan and Datta
(2005)
1999-2003 IJPDLM, JBL and SCMIJ 442
Analysis of references on the literatures on
Supplier relationship using ecommerce
Kovacs and
Spens(2005)
1998-2002 IJLM, IJPDLM and JBL N/A
Analysis of methodologies applied in different
subfields of SCM
Halldorson and
Arlbjorn (2005)
1997-2004 IJLM, IJPDLM and JBL 71 Analysis of types of research
Reichhart and
Holweg (2006)
2004
JOM, IJOPM, MS, IJPR, JBL and
IJPDLM
89
Analysis of methodologies applied in different
sub-filed of SCM
Spens and Kovacs
(2006)
1998-2002 IJLM, IJPDLM and JBL 378 Analysis of types of research
Burgess et al.
(2006)
No Restriction-
July 2003
Not restricted 100 Analysis of object of study and methods applied.
van der Vaart and
van Donk (2008)
Not restricted
IJOPM, IJPDLM, IJLM, IJPR,
IJPE, Interfaces, JBL, JOM and
MS
36 Survey research in Supply Chain Integration
Wolf (2008) 1990-1996
IJLM, IJPDLM, IJPE, IJPR, JBL,
JOM, and PPC
282 Analysis of the nature of SCM research
Fabbe-Costes and
Jahre (2008)
2000-2006
IJLM, IJLRA, IJOPM, IJPDLM,
JBL, JOM, SCMIJ, Transporta-
tion Journal and Transportation
Research- Part E
38
Studies the link between supply chain integration
and performance
Giunipero et al.
(2008)
1997-2006
IJOPM, IMM, Management Sci-
ence and Decision Sciences
405
Carried out review of 405 articles focusing on
categories covered within the SCM literature,
various levels of the chains examined and sample
populations and industries studied as well as
research methods employed
BPMJ-Business Process Management Journal, CCE- Computers and Chemical Engineering, CIE- Computer and Industrial Engineering,
EJOR- European Journal of Operational Research, EJPSM- European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, IJLM-The Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Management, IJLRA- International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, IJOPM- International Journal
of Operations and Production Management, IJPDLM- International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, IJPE- Inter-
national Journal of Production Economics, IJPR- International Journal of Production Research, IMDS- Industrial Management and Data
Systems, IMM- Industrial Marketing Management, JMTM- Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, JOM- Journal of Operation
Management, JSCM- The Journal of Supply Chain Management, LIM- Logistics Information Management, PPC- Production Planning and
Control, SCMIJ- Supply Chain Management International Journal

15
operational,andinter-personaldynamics.Gianna-
kis and Croom (2004) propose an SCM paradigm
conceptualframework,the“3SModel”containing
the synthesis of business resources and networks,
the synergy between network actors and, the
synchronization of operational decisions. The
International Marketing and Purchasing Group’s
dyadic interaction approach summarised by Kern
and Willcocks (2002), supply chain integration
reviewed by Fawcett and Magnan (2002) and,
networks of relationships described by Harland
et al. (2001) and Kempainen and Vepsalainen
(2003) all suggest that exposing the relationship
managementaspectsofsupplychainrelationships
and their impact on performance (Giannakis
and Croom, 2004) is highly problematical. The
literature also contains examples of research
describing relationship behaviors between one/
many buyers, one/many sellers and dominant
market “players” in both public and private sec-
tor situations. Within the marketing literature
Porter’s (1980) five forces model of competitive
advantage considers short-term, arms-length
competition and the exercise of market power by
limiting competition through the creation of bar-
riers to entry (Rugman and D’Cruz, 2000). Cox
et al., (2000) alternatively see the combination
of resource utility and scarcity creating a power
regime in which the involved parties will employ
adversarial/non-adversarialandarms-length/col-
Table 2. Literature review and research contributions
Journal
Name
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Empirical
Research
Articles
BPMJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 0 7
TR 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 6
CCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SCMIJ 0 0 6 2 7 4 4 3 3 6 10 9 16 70
PPC 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 6 1 2 12
EJOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 4 10
EJPSM 1 3 1 0 4 3 8 6 2 1 0 0 0 29
IJLM 0 1 2 3 1 1 0 4 2 1 5 5 4 29
IJLRA 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 4 5 5 4 27
IJOPM 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 6 4 3 4 5 6 32
IJPE 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 4 11 7 7 36
IJPR 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 2 7 1 17
IMDS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 8
IMM 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 17
JMTM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 8
JOM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 5 2 2 9 5 27
JSCM 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 3 1 1 4 1 16
LIM 0 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 10
OMEGA 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 7
Total 1 6 13 8 13 19 25 26 37 35 60 62 63 368

16
Table3.Transactionalternativebetweenbusinesses,consumersandgovernmentalorganizations(source:
Chaffey, 2012)
Consumer or Citizen Business (Organization) Government
Consumer-to-Consumer (C2C) Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Government to Consumer (G2C)
eBay Transactional: Amazon
National Government Transactional: Tax-Inland
Revenue
Peer-to-Peer(Skype) Relationship Building: BP National Government Information
Blogs and communities Brand Building: Unilever Local Government Services
Products Recommendations Media Owner: News corp.
Social Networks: MySpace, Bebo
Comparison Intermediatry: Kelkoo,
Pricerunner
Consumer-to-Business (C2B) Business-to-Business (B2B) Government to Business (G2B)
Priceline Transactional: Euroffice Government Services and Transactions: Tax
Consumer- Feedback,
Community and Compaigns
Relationship Building: BP Legal Regulations
Media Owned: eMap Business Publications
B2B Marketplaces: EC21
Consumer to Government (C2G) Business to Government (B2G) Government to Government (G2G)
Feedback to Government through
pressure group or individual sites
Feedback to Government Business and
Non Governmental Organization
Inter-government Services
Exchange of Information
Figure 3. Supplier-relationship optimization model

17
laborative arrangements depending on their rela-
tivepowerpositions(ReferTable4).Inthe1990s,
UK motor industry supply chains, employing
economicpowerwasadrivingobjectivetoachieve
the “vantage point” (Lamming, 1993). Examples
of small numbers or monopoly (Fishwick, 1993),
and strong market power relationships between
dominant firms are also found within the retail
sectorwheremajorsupermarketssuchasWalmart
with their own brands, fought “price wars” with
global companies such as Coca Cola and Pepsi.
Eventually, the balance of power was restored
to prevent intense, adversarial influence from
destroying long-term relationships (Christopher,
2005). In the public sector, Harland et al., (2000)
revealed that UK health authority procurement
Figure 4. Alternative strategies for modification of the e-business supply chain (source: Chaffey, 2012)
Table 4. Strategic options for e-partnerships
Sno. Partnering Arrangement
Technical Infrastructure
Integration
Examples
1
Total Ownership
(More than 51% Equity in
Company)
Technical Issues in Merging
Company Systems
Purchase of Booker(Distribution Company Iceland
(Retailer), Since 1996 CISCO has made over 30
Acquisition (not all SCM- Related)
2
Investment Stack
(Less than 49% Equity)
Technical Issues in Merging
Company Systems
Cisco has also made over 40 investment in hardware and
software suppliers.
3 Strategic alliance
Collaboration tools and Groupware
for new product development
Cable and Wireless, Campaq and Microsoft new
e-Business solution a-services.
4 Profit Sharing Partnership As above Arrangement sometimes used for IS outsourcing
5 Long Term contract
See Above. Tools for managing
Service level Agreements (SLAs)
Important
ISPs have performance on SLAs with penalty Clauses.
6 Preferred Suppliers
Permanent EDI or Internet EDI Links
setup with Preferred partners
Tesco Information Exchange.
7 Competitive Tendering
Tender issued intermediary or buyers’
website
Buyer arranged auctions
8 Short-term contract As above As above
9 Sport Markets and Auctions
Auctions at Intermediaries or buyers
website
Business to Business Marketplaces,
Example www.freemarkets.com

18
relationships contained distinctive features such
as dedicated suppliers with reduced availability
of alternatives and, where the government made
therulesandcouldsanctionanti-competitiveness.
ParkerandHartley’s(1997)recommendedthatthe
UKMinistryofDefense(MoD)shouldacceptthat
its major procurements operated under monopoly
or near-monopoly conditions rather than attempt-
ing to maintain a competitive semblance. They
concluded that adversarial competition should be
abandonedandcollaborationbasedonlong-term,
trusting relationships should be established.
These examples suggest, regardless of power
orsectorconsideration,collaborationispreferable
to adversarial competition, however, managing
close proximity as illustrated in Figure 5.
McDonald et al. (1997) and Moorman et al.
(1992) view C3 behavior as similar or comple-
mentary, co-ordinate actions needed to achieve
mutual outcomes with reciprocation over time
and rather than pure exchange, are used to create
real value as an organizational competence know
as “collaborative advantage”. Morgan and Hunt
(1994)andOliver(1990)describetheimportance
of pursuing mutually beneficial interests but ad-
ditionally emphasize the fundamentally co-oper-
ative nature of business life characterized by
balance and harmony. Moreover, this powerful
combination of behavioral variables can often
lead to the discovery of even more successful
ways to co-operate and new objects of co-opera-
tion (Doz and Baburoglu, 2000). C3 behavior is,
therefore, essential to maintaining a successful
business partnership (Metcalf et al., 1992; Rug-
man and D’Cruz, 2000), especially when linked
with commitment to the achievement of shared,
realistic goals (Lewin and Johnston, 1997; Sheth
and Sharma, 1997). As already mentioned, in the
quantitative data analysis C3 behavior appeared
to make a strong contribution to relationship suc-
cess. However; effectiveness could be reduced
when the sincerity of the other party’s intentions
was doubted. The overwhelming majority of re-
spondents placed strong emphasis on personal
relationships (“hitting it off”) (Gulati, 1995;
Kempainen and Vepsalainen, 2003) and culture-
matching (relating to the way the other side do
things) (Moss Kanter, 1994). This counters the
enlightened, self-interest approach (Faulkner,
2000) and underlines the central importance of
commitmentandtrusttorelationshipstabilityand
productiveness (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Excel-
lent, long-term commercial arrangements, fre-
quent, interactive, open communications, and
constructive conflict that supported repeated
cycles of exchange, risk-taking and successful
fulfillment of expectations were also described
as important contributors (Doney and Cannon,
1997). These appeared to strengthen the willing-
ness of parties to rely upon each other and to
developadaptionandinterdependence(Eisenhardt
et al., 1997; Madhok, 2000). However, opportu-
nisticbehaviorsuchasadversarialbidding,inflex-
ible and unduly bureaucratic commercial prac-
Figure 5. Integrated e-procurement mechanism between buyers-supplier

19
tices, unwillingness to share proprietary data and
uncaring use of power were clearly evident and
potentially capable of undermining relationship-
building(HumphriesandWilding,2003;Faulkner
and de Rond, 2000; Palmer, 2001).
The literature says comparatively based on
empiricalresearchabouttherelationshipdynamics
within long-term, closely collaborative, dyadic
relationships.Wehypothesizedthatthisproximity
couldgeneratebothpositiveandnegativefeedback
behaviors. Our research detected a spectrum of
thesephenomenaandthemanagersinmanycases
clearlyunderstoodthelimitationsontheirfreedom
and were employing C3 behaviors to improve the
performance of their partnerships. The literature
is generally aware of these dynamics but our
contribution to theory is a research methodology
that allows them to be exposed in an integrated
manner and comes close to provide a balance of
resultsusingGiannakisandCroom’s(2004)“3S”
SCM paradigm conceptual framework.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATION
OF E-COLLABORATIONS
Humphries and Wilding (2004a) and Spekman
et al. (1998) suggest that co-operative, co-co-
ordinating and collaborative behaviors involve
working together/jointly to bring resources into
a required relationship to achieve effective opera-
tions in harmony with the strategies/objectives
of the parties involved, thus resulting in mutual
benefit. McDonald et al. (1997) and Moorman
et al. (1992) view C3 behaviour as similar or
complementary, co-ordinate actions needed to
achieve mutual outcomes with reciprocation over
time and rather than pure exchange, are used to
create real value as an organisational competence
know as “collaborative advantage”. Morgan and
Hunt (1994) and Oliver (1990) describe the im-
portanceofpursuingmutuallybeneficialinterests
but additionally emphasize the fundamentally
co-operative nature of business life characterized
bybalanceandharmony.Moreover,thispowerful
combinationofbehavioralvariablescanoftenlead
to the discovery of even more successful ways
to co-operate and new objects of co-operation
(Doz and Baburoglu, 2000). C3 behaviour is,
therefore, essential to maintaining a successful
business partnership (Metcalf et al., 1992; Rug-
man and D’Cruz, 2000), especially when linked
with commitment to the achievement of shared,
realistic goals (Lewin and Johnston, 1997; Sheth
and Sharma, 1997).
DISCUSSION
This chapter, through a systematic and critical re-
viewofe-collaborationsandsupplychainresearch
literaturebasedonfewparameterincludingSupply
Chain Integration, Customer Relationship Pro-
gram (CRP), Vendor-Managed Inventory (VMI),
ContinuousReplenishmentProgram(CRP),Col-
laborative Planning Forecasting and Replenish-
ment(CPFR),PointofSale(PoS)providesinsights
into the growth of empirical research
The review enables to brief present status of
e-SCM practices in the current set of existing
literature. The gaps that were identified and the
significantfindingsofthereviewwillbediscussed
in the subsequent part of this section.
Findings
1. Empirical research in Supply Chain based
e-collaborations is growing and shows
highestgrowthduringperiodof2000-2004.
TheorybuildingismostpopularamongSCM
researchers while theory verification is also
on the rise but percentage wise the rise is
very slow and gradual. Wallenbergburg and
Weber(2005)pointedoutthatdespitedebate
in the field of logistics and SCM, research
on methodology and theory development
still lacks the focus. They also advocated
that theory development (or theory build-

20
ing) will advance, as shown in the field
of marketing research, through a rigorous
empirical research approach.
2. In the review, 115 issues were identified
out of which performance measurement,
supply chain integration, status of SCM
in a field or industry or nation, relation-
ship management, information sharing and
commitment, collaboration, strategy for-
mulation, IT, green supply, quality, supply
chain practices, incentives, identification of
barriers for SCM, critical success factors,
design of supply chain and selection of type
of supply chain were most visited issues by
researchers. Many researchers have even
tried to analyze these often visited issues
by researchers. Many researchers have even
tried to analyze these often visited focal is-
suesintheirliteraturereviews,vanderVaart
and van Donk (2008) performed a review
on survey-based methodologies on supply
chain integration, similarly Fabbe-Costes
and Jahre (2008) analyzed the relationship
between performance of supply chain and
supply chain integration Issues like “status
of SCM in a field, industry or nation” also
gained appreciable attention in article by
Arlbjorn et al. (2008) (status of Nordic
research in logistics and SCM), Bales et al.
(2008)(developmentofsupplychaininaero-
space sector). Brun et al. (2008) (logistics
and SCM in luxury fashion retail). Mangan
and Christopher (2005) (Supply chain
Management of future), McMullan (1996)
(SCM practice in Asia-Pacific) and last but
not least Sahay et al. (2003) (architerture
of Indian supply chains). Also, relationship
managementwaswidelyresearchedinSCM
by various authors like Benton and Maloni
(2005) (power-driven buyer-seller relation-
ship), Boger et al. (2001) (supply chain
relationships in Polish pork sector), Kwon
and Suh (2004) (factors affecting trust and
commitment in supply chain relationships),
Parry et al. (2006) (to core competence
posted by developing closer supply chain
relationships), etc.
3. Harland (1996) distinguishes four main
uses of the term “e-Collaboration in Supply
Chain”:
a. Internalsupplythatintegratesbusiness
functionsinvolvedintheflowofmate-
rialsandinformationfromtheinbound
to the outbound end of the business;
b. E-Collaboration using web technol-
ogy as the management of supply
relationships;
c. E-commerce as the management of
inter-business chains, and
d. E-Commerce and Supplier/Vendor
Relationship as strategic management
of inter-business networks.
Among these four uses strategic manage-
ment as a major function SCM is apparent.
Macbeth and Ferguson (1991), Cavinato
(1999) and Bechtel and Jayaram(1997) had
devoted their study explaining strategic na-
ture of SCM and concluded that majority of
functions in SCM are performed at strategic
level. On the other hand, the under-explored
areaoforganizationalbehaviorcanalsobring
stronger theories in SCM as emphasized by
the works of various authors such as Ellram
(1991) (industrial organization),Co and
Barro(2009)(stakeholderstheory),Knoppen
and Christiaanse (2007) (supply chain
partnering) and Wilding Willamson orga-
nizational failure framework). According
to Ketchen and Giunipero (2004), the idea
of a supply chain organization has been pre-
sented but this has yet to be systematically
investigated (Giunipero et al., 2008).
4. Regardinglevelofanalysisatnetworklevel,
out of 80 records only nine were found to
be before year 2000. This trend implies
growing awareness among researcher about
considering network level for analysis to get
optimum benefit in supply chain.

21
5. Researchersseemedtoprefer“combination”
of various entities of analysis for empirical
researchoversingleentities.Similartrendis
observedinidentifyingmostfrequentlyused
elementofexchangeinSCManditwastraced
that researchers preferred “combination” of
elements of exchange instead of focusing on
single element of exchange.
6. Asignificantproportionofarticlesaddressed
use of performance measurement in their
research. Majority of authors employed
performance analysis for measuring per-
formance of “combination” of various enti-
ties of analysis at “firm” level considering
“combination” of elements of exchange in
their analysis.
7. It is noteworthy that only six articles out
of 87 articles, published before year 2000
considered performance measurement in
their theory or framework. Such trend also
gives an indication about more and more
researchers advocating use of performance
measurement in SCM.
Gaps Identified
There exists a huge gap between theory building
and theory verification. The rate at which theory
buildingisprogressingisfaraheadoftheoryveri-
fication.Adisciplinecanonlyreachmaturitystage
if rate of theory building and verification is same.
SinceSCMisgrowingdiscipline,thereisnotmuch
evidence available in supply chain literature that
highlights the importance of theory verification
in SCM but it can be argued that at some stage in
lifecycleofadiscipline,theoryverificationshould
mark the maturity of that discipline.
Among plethora of issues to be addressed in
SCM, 115 issues to be specific, only 16 issues
spanned more than 50 percent of articles. Such
a trend reflects deficiency in treatment of SCM
paradigm. Many issues to name a few like Dis-
tribution Requirement Planning (DRP), power
balance, risk management, supply chain security,
conflict management, strategic alignment, vis-
ibility, virtual supply chain etc. have not received
sufficient attention in the empirical research.
The possible reason for such a scenario could be
overemphasis of SCM researchers on core issues
like performance measurement, integration, col-
laboration, relationship management etc. Such
core issues are majorly broader in nature with
respect to all the levels of management. While
issues like DRP and visibility are confined to
tactical and operational level. On the other hand,
issues like power balance, risk management, sup-
ply chain security, conflict management etc. are
new to SCM discipline and are catching up with
other issues, but slowly. Surprisingly, issue like
“strategic alignment” (Which means aligning the
supply chain strategy with competitive strategy
of the focal firm) has received very scanty atten-
tion considering its importance in SCM. Only
Quesada et al. (2008) had attempted an empirical
investigation into strategic alignment.
Empirical research in SCM is predominately
performedinthedevelopedcountriesofNorthern
AmericaandEuropewhilemerely5percentofthe
research is performed for developing countries.
Countries like India and China are outsourcing
hubs for global supply chains of apparel, auto-
mobile and electronic consumer goods. Hence,
there is higher need of developing and examining
the supply chain frameworks for such countries.
One of the reasons for lack in empirical research
in these countries may be difficulty in carrying
out survey and action research or it may be lack of
knowledge in SCM. However, these reasons need
proper examination and factual support before
they can be established.
The existence of performance measures for
retailers and distributors in supply chain are
almost negligible. It is also observed that only
one article measuring performance of retailer
and three articles measuring performance of sup-
plier are seen in the sample of articles. The same
comment of applicable to performance measures
devised for various levels of analysis as very few

22
articles displayed any picture of measurement at
dyad(twoarticles),chain(fivearticles)ornetwork
(13 articles) level.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
This chapter presents new avenues of further
researchine-collaborationandsupplychainman-
agement. The research findings and gaps lead to
following implications for future research. They
are discussed as follows:
Researchers must focus on verifying already
existing theories in Supplier relationship man-
agement and e-commerce as a huge amount of
literature on theory building is accumulated and
must get verified. It is also emphasized that large
body of Supply Chain Practices needs more stan-
dardized terminology and constructs. According
to Chen and Paulraj (2004), the existence of clear
definitional constructs on which Supply Chain
Collaborationresearchisstilllacking.Thiscauses
a uneven research field that is open to the danger
of a lack of generalization. In this context, the
remarkablerecommendationofFabbe-Costesand
Jahre (2008, p. 143) that in order to contribute to
theorybuildingweneedtostabilizethevocabulary,
to agree on formal conceptual definitions, and to
define their properties clearly before measuring
anything.
Traditionally,SCMisaninterlinkeddiscipline,
with influences from logistics and transporta-
tion, operations management and materials and
distribution management, marketing, as well as
purchasing and IT (Giunipero et al., 2008). It thus
addressesplethoraofissuesandamongthemsome
are often visited by empirical researchers while
several other not frequently addressed issues like
DistributionResourcePlanning(DRP),efficiency
ofsupplychain,powerbalance,riskmanagement,
supply chain security, conflict management, stra-
tegic alignment, visibility, virtual supply chain,
etc. must be given more attention by performing
empirical studies on them and hence help in
promotion of their importance in Supply Chain
paradigm.
Future empirical studies must target inter-
organizational level more than intra-firm and
intra-functional scope at firm level only. Such
studies must at least address “dyad” level with
inter-organizational scope and if possible the
complete “network” must be under scanner for
analysis. The advantage associated with multi-
level analysis is that it gives integrated solutions.
SimatupangandSridharan(2008)highlightedthat
thechainmembersrealizethatintegratedsolutions
result in economy of scale that eventually lower
costs and enhance revenues (Bowersox, 1990;
Buzzell and Ortmeyer, 1995). They also pointed
that supply chain collaboration with the design
of inter-organizational process improvements
coupled with information systems is simply not
sufficientenough.Rather,onehastodesignsupply
chaincollaborationsoasincorporatedynamicsof
collaborative efforts.
Ideally, every practical framework based on
empirical study or any other relevant empirical
study must involve an element of performance
measurement of respective “Entity of analysis”
at “network” level considering all the possible
“elements of exchange” at various echelons of
supply chain. Presently, such approach is lacking
the empirical research thus future research efforts
in this direction must take aforementioned aspect
of performance measurement into consideration.
According to Charan et al. (2008), there is an
emergingrequirementtofocusontheperformance
of the Supply Chain (SC) or network in which
company is a partner. Such system can facilitate
inter-understanding and integration among the
SC members. It is worthwhile to add essential
characteristics of performance measurement
system given by Morgan (2004) that performance
measures must be linked with the strategy of an
organization,bepartofintegratedcontrolsystem,
have internal validity and enable proactive man-
agement; and second, the performance measure-

23
mentsystemmustbedynamic,intra-connectable,
focused and usable.
Sachan and Datta (2005) pointed out in their
reviewthatmostofthemulti-nationalFMCGfirms
are targeting developing and under developing
countries either as new market for their products
or for sourcing the raw material due to low cost.
Researchworkinthisareaisnotremarkable,there
is a huge scope of research in this area. In our
review too same fact is highlighted that very less
empiricalstudiesintheareaofe-collaborationare
published for developing and under developing
countries. It is high time for the researchers to
start focusing on these avenues of cost reduction
and profit making.
CONCLUSION
The chapter reviewed 368 articles on empirical
researchine-collaborationandsupplychainman-
agement,withprimaryfocusofresearchoncontent
of Supply Chain based e-collaboration in articles.
The Chapter started with identifying empirical
researcharticlesoutof1,807researcharticlesand
found368empiricalresearcharticles,followedby
classification of each of the selected articles into
nine classes. It highlights the growth of empiri-
cal research in e-collaboration and supply chain
management. Findings of chapter also initiate a
debate of theory building vs. theory verification
in e-collaboration and supply chain management
and also brought inadequately addressed issues
into limelight. Classification of articles on basis
of entity of analysis, level of analysis and element
of exchange is found to be very instrumental in
measuring length and breadth of empirical re-
search in Supply Chain based e-collaborations.
It was found out that more and more authors are
using combination of entity of analysis. But still
focus is on firm level rather than network level. In
this, another encouraging fact is that most of the
authors prefer to consider combination of various
elements of exchange in their analysis. It was also
found out that SCM research is still very much
confined in developed countries of America and
Europe, which is a discouraging. Also, perfor-
mancemeasurementinasupplychainseemstobe
anareaofmoreexploration,especially,measuring
performance at network or chain level.
The potential limitation of the study is that it
does not attempt to trace out trend using regres-
sion techniques neither it endeavors’ to test the
hypothesis so as to establish a grounded theory,
that could lay down a perfect platform for future
research. It, however, succeeds in revealing the
descriptive statistics behind various classes that
addresses content of e-collaboration and sup-
ply chain in empirical research. The extension
of this study could be statistically testing the
figures observed in this chapter and lay down a
grounded theory approach for future research in
e-collaboration and supply chain.
REFERENCES
Bales, R. R., Maull, R. S., & Radnor, Z. (2004).
The development of supply chain management
withintheaerospacemanufacturingsector. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal,
9(3),250–255.doi:10.1108/13598540410544944
Bechtel, C., & Jayaram, J. (1997). Supply chain
management: A strategic perspective. Interna-
tional Journal of Logistics Management, 8(1),
15–34. doi:10.1108/09574099710805565
Benton, W. C., & Maloni, M. (2005). The influ-
ence of power driven buyer seller relationships
on supply chain satisfaction. Journal of Opera-
tions Management, 23(1), 1–22. doi:10.1016/j.
jom.2004.09.002
Boger, S., Hobbs, J. E., & Kerr, W. A.
(2001). Supply chain relationships in the
Polish pork sector. Supply Chain Manage-
ment: An International Journal, 6(2), 74–82.
doi:10.1108/13598540110387573

24
Bowersox, D. J. (1990). The strategic benefits of
logistics alliances. Harvard Business Review,
68(4), 36–43.
Brun, A., Caniato, F., Caridi, M., Castelli, C.,
Miragliotta, G., & Ronchi, S. (2008). Logistics
& supply chain management in luxury fashion
retail: Empirical investigation of Italian firms.
International Journal of Production Economics,
114(2),554–570.doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.02.003
Burgess, K., Singh, P. J., & Koroglu, R. (2006).
Supply chain management: A structured lit-
erature review and implications for future
research. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 26(7), 703–729.
doi:10.1108/01443570610672202
Buzzell, R. D., & Ortmeyer, G. (1995). Chan-
nel partnerships streamline distribution. Sloan
Management Review, 36(3), 83–96.
Carter, C. R., & Ellram, L. M. (2003). Thirty-five
years of the journal of supply chain management:
Where we have been and where we going? The
JournalofSupplyChainManagement,39,27–39.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2003.tb00152.x
Cavinato, J. L. (1992). A total cost/value model
for supply chain competitiveness. Journal of
Business Logistics, 13(2), 285–301.
Chaffey, D. (2012). E-business and e-commerce
management (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Publication.
Charan, P., Shankar, R., & Baisya, R. K.
(2008). Analysis of interactions among the
variables of supply chain performance mea-
surement system implementation. Business
Process Management Journal, 14(4), 512–529.
doi:10.1108/14637150810888055
Chen, I. J., & Paulraj, A. (2004). Towards a
theory of supply chain management: The con-
structsandmeasurements. JournalofOperations
Management, 22(2), 119–150. doi:10.1016/j.
jom.2003.12.007
Christopher, M. (2005). Logistics & supply chain
management: Creating value-adding networks.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Ltd.
Co, H. C., & Barro, F. (2009). Stakeholder
theory and dynamics in supply chain collabora-
tion. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 29(6), 591–611.
doi:10.1108/01443570910957573
Cooper, M. C., & Ellram, L. M. (1993). Charac-
teristics of supply chain management & the im-
plicationsforpurchasing&logisticsstrategy. The
International Journal of Logistics Management,
4(2), 13–24. doi:10.1108/09574099310804957
Cooper, M. C., & Gardner, J. T. (1993). Building
good relationships – More than just partnering
or strategic alliances? International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
23(6), 14–26. doi:10.1108/09600039310044876
Ellram,L.M.,&Edis,O.R.V.(1996,September).
A case study of successful partnering implemen-
tation. International Journal of Purchasing &
Materials Management, 20-38.
Fabbe-Costes, N., & Jahre, M. (2008). Sup-
ply chain integration and performance: A re-
view of the evidence. International Journal
of Logistics Management, 19(2), 130–154.
doi:10.1108/09574090810895933
Fawcett, S. E., & Magnan, G. M. (2002). The
rhetoric and reality of supply chain integra-
tion. Internal Journal of Physical Distribu-
tion & Logistics Management, 32(5), 339–361.
doi:10.1108/09600030210436222

25
Flynn, B. B., Kakibara, S. S., Schroeder, R. G.,
Bates, K. A., & Flynn, E. J. (1990). Empirical re-
searchmethodsinoperationsmanagement. Jour-
nal of Operations Management, 9(2), 250–284.
doi:10.1016/0272-6963(90)90098-X
Giannakis, M., & Croom, S. R. (2004). Towards
the development of a supply chain management
paradigm: A conceptual framework. Journal
of Supply Chain Management, 40(2), 27–36.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2004.tb00167.x
Giunipero, L. C., Hooker, R. E., Matthews, S. C.,
Yoon, T. E., & Brudvig, S. (2008). A decade of
SCM literature: Past, present and future implica-
tions. JournalofSupplyChainManagement,44(1),
66–86. doi:10.1111/j.1745-493X.2008.00073.x
Halldorsson,A.,&Arlbjorn,J.S.(2005).Research
methodologies in supply chain management
– What do we know? In Kotzab, H., Seuring,
S., Muller, M., & Reiner, G. (Eds.), Research
MethodologiesinSupplyChainManagement(pp.
107–122).Heidelberg,Germany:Physica-Verlag.
doi:10.1007/3-7908-1636-1_8
Harland, C. M. (1996). Supply chain manage-
ment: Relationships, chains and networks.
British Journal of Management, 7(1), 63–80.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.1996.tb00148.x
Kempainen, K., & Vepsalainen, A. P. J. (2003).
Trends in industrial supply chains and net-
works. Internal Journal of Physical Distribu-
doi:10.1108/09600030310502885
Kern, T., & Willcocks, L. (2002). Exploring rela-
tionships in information technology outsourcing:
The interaction approach. European Journal
of Information Systems, 11, 3–19. doi:10.1057/
palgrave/ejis/3000415
Ketchen, D., & Giunipero, L. (2004). The in-
tersection of strategic management and supply
chain management. Industrial Marketing Man-
agement, 33(1), 51–56. doi:10.1016/j.indmar-
man.2003.08.010
Knoppen, D., & Christiaanse, E. (2007). Sup-
ply chain partnering: A temporal multidisci-
plinary approach. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 12(2), 164–171.
doi:10.1108/13598540710737343
Kwon, I. G., & Suh, T. (2004). Factors affect-
ing the level of trust and commitment in supply
chain relationships. The Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 40(2), 4–14. doi:10.1111/j.1745-
493X.2004.tb00165.x
Langley,J.C.Jr,&Holcomb,M.C.(1992).Creat-
ing logistics customer value. Journal of Business
Logistics, 13(2), 1–27.
Macbeth, K. D., & Ferguson, N. (1991). Stra-
tegic aspects of supply chain management.
Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 2(1), 8–12.
doi:10.1108/09576069110002699
Mangan, J., & Christopher, M. (2005). Man-
agement development and the supply chain
manager of the future. International Journal
of Logistics Management, 16(2), 178–191.
doi:10.1108/09574090510634494
Matthyssens, P., & Van den Bulte, C. (1994).
Getting closer and nicer: Partnerships in the sup-
ply chain. Long Range Planning, 27(1), 72–83.
doi:10.1016/0024-6301(94)90008-6
McMullan, A. (1996). Supply chain manage-
ment practices in Asia Pacific today. Inter-
national Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, 26(10), 79–95.
doi:10.1108/09600039610150479

26
Morgan,C.(2004).Structure,speedandsalience:
Performance measurement in the supply chain.
Business Process Management Journal, 10(5),
522–536. doi:10.1108/14637150410559207
Parry,G.,Graves,A.,&James-Moore,M.(2006).
Thethreattocorecompetenceposedbydeveloping
closer supply chain relationships. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications,
9(3),295–305.doi:10.1080/13675560600859524
Peck, H., & Juttner, U. (2000). Strategy and
relationships: Defining the interface in sup-
ply chain contexts. The International Jour-
nal of Logistics Management, 11(2), 33–44.
doi:10.1108/09574090010806146
Quesada, G., Rachamadugu, R., Gonzalez,
M., & Martinez, F. L. (2008). Linking order
winning and external supply chain integra-
tion strategies. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 13(4), 296–303.
doi:10.1108/13598540810882189
Sachan, A., & Datta, S. (2005). Review of sup-
ply chain management and logistics research.
International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, 35(9), 664–704.
doi:10.1108/09600030510632032
Scott, C., & Westbrook, R. (1991). New stra-
tegic tools for supply chain management.
International Journal of Physical Distribu-
doi:10.1108/09600039110002225
Simatupang, T. M., & Sridharan, R. (2008).
Design for supply chain collaboration. Business
Process Management Journal, 14(3), 401–418.
doi:10.1108/14637150810876698
Soni, G., & Kodali, R. (2011). A critical analysis
of supply chain management content in empirical
research. Business Process Management, 17(2),
238–266. doi:10.1108/14637151111122338
Swaminathan, J., & Tayur, S. (2003). Models for
supplychainsine-business. ManagementScience,
49(10). doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1387.17309
Van der Vaart, T., & van Donk, D. P. (2008). A
critical review of survey-based research in supply
chain integration. International Journal of Pro-
ductionEconomics,111(1),42–55.doi:10.1016/j.
ijpe.2006.10.011
Wilding, R., & Humphries, A. S. (2006).
Understanding collaborative supply chain
relationships through the application of the
Williamson organisational failure framework.
International Journal of Physical Distribu-
doi:10.1108/09600030610672064
Zheng, J., Harland, C., Lamming, R., Johnsen,
T., & Wynstra, F. (2000). Networking activities
in supply networks. Journal of Strategic Market-
ing, 8, 161–181.
View publication stats

E-Supply-Chain-Collaboration-and-Integration_-Implementation-Issues-and-Challenges.pdf

More Related Content

Similar to E-Supply-Chain-Collaboration-and-Integration_-Implementation-Issues-and-Challenges.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

E-Supply-Chain-Collaboration-and-Integration_-Implementation-Issues-and-Challenges.pdf