You are on page 1of 18

Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365

Supply chain practice and information sharing
Honggeng Zhou a,1, W.C. Benton Jr.b,*
Department of Decision Sciences, Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire,
15 College Road, Durham, NH 03824, United States
Department of Management Sciences, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, 2100 Neil Avenue,
Columbus, OH 43210, United States

Available online 17 January 2007

Effective supply chain practice and information sharing enhances the current supply chain management environment. The
purpose of this study is to investigate the integration of information sharing and supply chain practice in supply chain management.
Data from 125 North American manufacturing firms were collected. The results show that (1) effective information sharing
significantly enhances effective supply chain practice; (2) supply chain dynamism has significant positive influence on effective
information sharing as well as effective supply chain practice. Supply chain dynamism has more influence on information sharing
than supply chain practice; (3) and effective supply chain practice becomes more important when the level of information sharing
increases. The findings show that both effective information sharing and effective supply chain practice are critical in achieving
good supply chain performance.
# 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Supply chain management; Information sharing; Supply chain practice

1. Introduction tion sharing focuses on information flow (Premkumar
and William, 1994).
During the past 10 years, supply chain management In this study, three categories of supply chain
and information technology management have attracted practice are considered: supply chain planning, just-in-
much attention from both practitioners and researchers. time (JIT) production, and delivery practice. A group of
As information technology evolves, firms tend to supply chain practice is regarded as effective supply
become more integrated. Therefore, integrating effec- chain practice if the selected best practices have been
tive supply chain practice with effective information implemented. Information sharing is another focus of
sharing becomes critical for improving supply chain this study. Information technology investment in
performance. Supply chain practice focuses on material Corporate America has increased significantly. It is
movement (Chopra and Meindl, 2001), while informa- estimated that the US information technology (IT)
spending will reach $497 by 2008 (http://www.itfacts.-
biz). Information technology has had an impressive
impact on supply chain practice. This study focuses on
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: (H. Zhou),
three aspects of information sharing: information (W.C. Benton Jr.). sharing support technology, information content, and
Tel.: +1 603 862 0869. information quality.

0272-6963/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

/ Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 1349 Effective supply chain practice and effective 2. partners. Powell. supply Mentzer. 1997. (2) the Wei. we review the literature on supply similar processes and groups them together. agile results of testing the relationship among supply chain manufacturing strategy. 1995. 1995. 1990).. Reductions in cycle time allow for running smaller batches. firms must work on both supply chain its suppliers and customers. An agile manufacturing dynamism. in which its . JIT production. cellular manufacturing.1. Benton Jr.1. demand forecast and coordination practices are In Section 4. Supply chain practice and efficiency of supply chains. Cellular manufacturing identifies similar products or In this section. Supply chain planning is driven by two leveraging the information sharing among supply chain objectives: (1) make a good forecast of future demand. and delivery perfor. Supply chain planning information sharing are two sources of supply chain Supply chain planning practices are used to process improvement. Section 7 provides the pull system. ment scale development are presented.1. a world class in supply chain practice. 1994. 2001). and delivery performance. Finally. and information sharing are given. information sharing. 2001. the research methodology and measure.3.1. The purpose of forecast on delivery performance has also been well this study is to investigate (1) the relationship between researched (Cook and Rogowski. Since these two major approaches are not and (2) coordinate various functions within a firm and independent. 2001). While some companies emphasize information from suppliers. Zhou.C. production is driven by customer demand. the relationships among these variables are planning from the extent to which effective supply chain examined and the research hypotheses are presented. customers. supply chain practice. Toyota. and (3) the impact of is necessary to achieve a firm’s goal (Hodge et al.. Section 8 concludes The objective is to meet the customer’s demand in a the study. Overall. 1996. precise and timely manner.. The importance of supply practice and information sharing simultaneously. Mart uses the cross docking technique. In this study. Aviv. Delivery practice chain practice (supply chain planning. Lee et al. In Section This study measures the effectiveness of supply chain 3. The impact of supply chain began to implement SAP in late 1990s. we consider three categories of supply 2. 2001. because they have been shown to shown that effective delivery practices have had be closely related to delivery performance (Schroeder significant impact on supply chain performance (Supply and Flynn. In Section 5.. Wal- not considered in this study. which enhances effective supply research. information sharing. supply chain practice. the value of the inter-firm cooperation and sharing In the next section. 2000). Several researchers have shown delivery performance. implemented. et al. 2000). MacDuffie et al. they are an Internet-based delivery process (Gurin. 2000). The literature taxonomy is provided in chain management.. Inter-functional coordination within a firm influence of supply chain dynamism on information is important because the alignment among the functions sharing and supply chain practice. and delivery performance. and internal improving supply chain practice.1. information sharing and supply chain practice on Womack et al. As an chain demand forecast has been well documented (Lee example. which in turn 2. chain dynamism.2.. Ford recently partnered sourcing and product return are not expected to have with the UPS logistics group to develop and implement significant influence on delivery performance. resources and maximizes output of production. Since Chain Council. Gavirneni et al. 1999. In a mance are in Section 6. and bottleneck removal (Flynn practice. W. Krajewski and information sharing and supply chain practice. Supply Chain Council. The model and the cycle time reduction. It can chain practice. 1996). supply chain reduce throughout time. JIT production includes five practices: pull system. 1996. the model and the results of testing the relationship 2. The extant literature and anecdotal evidence have and delivery practice). Delivery is clearly a competitive other categories of supply chain practice such as weapon for Dell Computers. The literature strategy allows production systems to cope with rapid review provides the theoretical foundation for this demand changes. others emphasize operations. et al. managerial implications.. 2002). information sharing. JIT production among supply chain dynamism. H. Bottleneck removal balances Table 1. Literature review improves the quality and timeliness of feedback. JIT production practices improve the responsiveness 2. we review the literature on information among supply chain partners (Hill.

a formal measurement scale has yet between manufacturers and customers. 2. the first asterisk means supply chain planning was discussed in Aviv (2001).. (1995) * Vijayasarathy and Robey (1997) * Womack et al. For example. warehouse serves as a switching station rather than a and software needed to support information sharing. (2000) * Liker and Yu (2000) * Krajewski and Wei (2001) * MacDuffie et al. (1999) * Gurin (2000) * Handfield and Nichols (1999) * Hill (1994) * Hodge et al. (1990) * means the particular topic was discussed in the particular article. respectively. W. Information quality measures the degree to which the tion sharing support technology includes the hardware information exchanged between organizations meets . validation. Zhou. Given the importance Information content refers to the information shared of delivery practice. (1996) * Lee et al. In sum. the scope of 2. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 Table 1 Literature review taxonomy Authors Supply chain practice Information sharing Supply chain Delivery dynamism performance Plan JIT Delivery Information Information Information production practice sharing support content quality technology * Aviv (2001) * Boyer et al. (1997) * Boyer and Pagell (2000) * * Chopra and Meindl (2001) * Cook and Rogowski (1996) * Dess and Davis (1984) * Fine (1998) * Fisher (1997) * Flynn et al.1.C. and information quality.1350 H. 1992). stocking place (Stalk et al. (1992) * * * Supply Chain Council (2000) * Sum et al. (1995) * Gavirneni et al. (1997) * Lee et al. Informa. Information quality information content. Benton Jr. This study considers three aspects of information sharing: information sharing support technology. Thus one contribution of this study is quality measures the quality of information shared the development. Information sharing information shared. Information to be developed. the three measurement scale for delivery practice. and testing of a reliable between manufacturers and customers. (1996) * Mendelson and Pillai (1998) * Mentzer (2001) * * McCormack (1998) * McGowan (1998) * Miller and Friesen (1983) * Neumann and Segev (1979) * Petersen (1999) * Powell (1995) * Ramdas and Spekman (2000) * Schroeder and Flynn (2001) * Seddon (1997) * Stalk et al. aspects of information sharing measure the technologies used to support information sharing. and the quality of information shared.2.2.

Fisher (1997) tion exchanged via EDI with customers and suppliers. As a mance to request. 1984). suggested that supply chains facing different environ- Their results demonstrated that information technology mental dynamism (e. et al. McGowan portation management. ability. The third accessible. Delivery performance information. H. Mendelson and Pillai. internal connectivity. completeness. The Supply Chain Council uses on-time- variables: information sharing support technology. external connectivity. A 2. and frequency. and demand for products in the market (Miller and mation sharing on only the hardware and software. and availability of forecast. timeliness. manufacturer information. surement criterion in supply chain management. and collaborative manufacturing. Dess and Davis.g. accurate and relevant. In this study.3. volatile demand versus stable investment alone is not enough. 2000). Only when manage. For example.C. management (SCM) IT applications have emerged and Petersen (1999) measured information quality by become widely adopted in supply chain management in currency. 1979. many supply chain frequency. Zhou. manufacturer information. there are category is supply chain execution management. trans- operating efficiency and customer service. Sum et al. and organization suggested that what makes the performance difference clock speed.2. information sharing in this study has four latent fill rate. is supply chain execution. The first category of the usefulness of an information system. credibility. Information content can be classified as supplier 2.2. demand) should use different supply chain practices. 2001). accuracy. Delivery performance is a key performance mea- tion (Handfield and Nichols. In ment teams both emphasize technology investment and this study. Since the two information ment Group benchmarks supply chain performance flows are completely different. accessibility.4. Neumann focuses on advanced manufacturing technology and and Segev (1979) studied four information character. The SCM ITapplications can be categorized and Robey (1997) measured information intensity and into three categories based on the length of the planning quality. Friesen. high the changes in business environment and are shown to performing firms had a higher percentage of informa. and retailer informa. which are delivery perfor- be used to measure the two information flows. istics: content. have a significant impact on operations. two latent variables will along three dimensions. The business environmental dynamism is defined as 2. delivery-to-schedule as one of its supply chain customer information. Liker and Yu (2000) used the information quality. Benton Jr. achieve effective firm performance. which nine aspects of information quality: accuracy. can a firm changes in both products and processes. Besides advanced manufacturing technology (Boyer McCormack (1998) measured information by accuracy. distribution information. and the infor. 2002). 1999.3. information sharing support technology Segev. All three clock speeds measure the pace of is how information is used. quoted order lead-time. Ramdas and Spekman (2000) mation that customers share with their manufacturers measured order fulfillment. emerging supply chain management IT applications. Supply chain dynamism and frequently updated information. Chopra and Meindl. which useful when the information is high quality. accuracy. recency. (1998) argued that the information system is perceived The second category is supply chain planning. Many managers mistakenly concentrate their infor. avail. 1997. Information sharing support technology number of researchers have identified several important Since this research focuses on manufacturing envir- characteristics of information quality (Neumann and onments. Information content the unpredictable changes in products. order fulfillment lead-time. which focuses on short term (1995) found that data accuracy is critical in affecting daily activities such as warehouse management. 1999). readily focuses on medium to long term activities. 1998). and order result. technologies. percentage of late deliveries as a performance measure. Boyer and Pagell. 1994). . / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 1351 the needs of the organizations (Petersen. 1983. The Performance Measure- (customer information). Schroeder and Flynn (2001) clock speed. This study measures two information flows: the McCormack (1998) measured delivery performance information that manufacturers share with their versus committed date and delivery performance versus customers (manufacturer information). bridges the first two categories as a supporting tool. process clock speed. and performance measures. supply chain dynamism measures the pace of choose the appropriate information to share. relevance. customer infor- mation.. 2. Fine (1998) ignoring the decision-making in the information sharing measured three environmental clock speeds: product process (Davenport. Vijayasarathy recent years. Information quality is an important determinant periods (Supply Chain Council.2. and completeness. W.

C. 1999. it transmits the information directly to and Chen. Chen. and supply chain dynamism (conceptual model). and delivery on supply chain activities and supply chain structures.1. Supply chain practice and information sharing feature price is lower for components with high inventory levels. Two anecdotal examples of information sharing sharing. the delivery performance includes on-time emerging manufacturing technologies have an influence delivery. 1) to test the influence of supply chain dynamism 3. Benton Jr. and efficient customer response (Chen order information. continuous effective and enables the supply chain planning. They showed research attempts that link supply chain practice and that the use of enterprise resource planning software information sharing. Suppliers also have backlog 2002. Lummus and Vokurka. 1.1352 H. appropriate suppliers. Spring and Sweeting (2002) synthesized a number of existing As can be seen from the literature review and the and emerging themes in supply chain management. is also found that those web-based emerging manu- facturing technologies make information transmission 3. Lee and Whang. 2000). the component 3. delivery performance. The Dell web site also allows customers to Effective information sharing between supply chain customize their orders. The research herein will test the profoundly changes the supply chain partner relation- linkages among supply chain dynamism. It reliability/dependability. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 In this study. supply chain practice. there have been no scholarly information and customer relationships. information sharing. mance. perfect order fulfillment rate. Once it receives the replenishment. Dell receives information sharing and supply chain practice on customer order information directly from its website. Dell also replenishment program.1. At the same time component availability information is shared with its customers. Sharing information with Fig. Zhou. information ships. Conceptual model and hypotheses among the supply chain partners much easier. . and supply chain practice are shown below. and delivery perfor. taxonomy given in Table 1. As an example. Shaw (2000) found that and inventory information. Supply chain practice. 1997. its customers makes the pull production system more including vendor managed inventory. W. collaborative forecasting and shares information with its suppliers. We use a structural equation model (as shown in Fig. Dell on information sharing and supply chain practice Dell is a good example of using information sharing to followed by a regression model to test the impact of improve its supply chain practices. The interaction between Dell and partners enhances most supply chain initiatives.1.

JIT practice and information sharing (Galbraith. effec- involved in Cisco’s product design process. As supply chain dynamism increases. Galbraith (1973) also and capacity information with its suppliers. When sharing simultaneously. 2000. Cisco outsources more than 50% chain practice and information sharing of its production capacity. 1973. 1973. and delivery practices. 2002). the importance of information sharing in supply chain management has not been comprehensively Hypothesis 3. W. Forster. suggested that appropriate structures such as lateral 3.2. . Cisco shares its order information electronically with information systems are suggested as an effective its component suppliers. Daft and Lengel. The previous studies focus on the positive influence on supply chain practice. To positive influence on information sharing. An improves Cisco’s ability to rapidly respond to the effective production system usually consists of self- demand changes in the supply chain. directly to its service and parts providers. Overall. Cisco shares information with its customers environment. which enhances supply chain planning. Based on the previous research studies (Lee and tion sharing feature improves customer service and Whang. inventory. Dell’s and anecdotal evidence (Brunn and Mefford. Sony’s particular group of supply chain practice (Schroeder logistics information system is linked directly to Dell’s and Flynn. Effective information sharing enhances effective supply chain practice. processing model described in Galbraith (1973). / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 1353 suppliers (especially long lead time suppliers) improve influence of one aspect of information sharing on one the supply chain planning capability.2. Supply chain dynamism has significant investigated. Please see the literature Dell receives service request. H. informa- tion processing capacity needs to increase in order to 1. Recently. Zhou. production. In the information online customer interfaces. In some instances.1. contained tasks. suppliers are also information processing capacity. Cisco also shares supply chain members is one way to increase production schedule. Benton Jr. sharing information among respond to demand changes. This informa. Forster. Finally. Many products are shipped mation processing capability. A significant number of Cisco’s orders originate from achieve superior firm performance. In supply chains. Forster (2000) extended the information processing theory into the supply chain Overall. date. Influence of supply chain dynamism on supply supply chain practices. This virtual manufacturing model is driven by information sharing. performance information processing capacity. For instance. 1986. tive supply chain planning and delivery practices can 4. Chen. the following hypothesis suppliers to improve its supply chain planning. JIT is developed: production. Information sharing allows approach to increase information processing capabil- Cisco to coordinate its supply chain in real time and ity. Cisco also has Since it has been suggested that supply chain significant two-way information sharing with its dynamism has a positive influence on supply chain suppliers. Cisco’s Information processing theory supports the influ- manufacturing model allows it to focus on its core ence of supply chain dynamism on information sharing competencies and innovation. and delivery practices. follows: information sharing is critical for managing the e- Hypothesis 2. Specifically. 2002).C. 3. following ways: 2000). Cisco Cisco also uses information sharing to enhance 3. Information sharing and supply chain practice (Galbraith. the research hypotheses are proposed as Based on the literature and anecdotal evidence. quality. Tushman drives the Cisco’s supply chain practices in the and Nadler. information system interacts with its customers and Supply Chain Council. 2002) makes the supply chain more responsive. Effective supply chain from its suppliers directly to its customers. Schroeder and Flynn. to enhance supply chain management. 2. 2004. Chen. it forwards the request taxonomy in Table 1. 2001. This study fills the information system. Hypothesis 1. Supply chain dynamism has significant supply chain and effective supply chain practices. Sony ships its research gap by considering various groups of supply monitors directly to the Dell’s customers. Through practices are the ‘‘structures’’ that can increase the virtual manufacturing model. Cisco’s logistics system is also driven by information relations and self-contained tasks can increase infor- sharing with its suppliers. 2001. 2000). Dell chain practice and various aspects of information outsources its warranty and repair service systems. 1978. Information sharing with suppliers significantly improve lateral relationships in supply chains.

information sharing and H5b. primary research instrument for the study is a rigorously Effective delivery practices directly impact the validated questionnaire. study. 2002) are also expected to improve sales value. Instrument design and data collection H4a. 2001). The sample list Ahmad and Schroeder (2001) showed the impact of EDI system on delivery performance. The data improvement in delivery performance.. Since delivery performance is one of the key supply chain measures. this study uses a regression H5c.000 employees. JIT production dynamism on information sharing and supply chain uses practices such as pull system and agile practice. McGowan. CEO. 125 were usable. The average number of employees in the 1998) and higher level of investment in information respondents’ firms was about 5000. Increases in the information quality improves make-to-stock strategy. Increases in the level of sharing customer infor- model to test the impact of supply chain practice and mation improves delivery performance. Thus. 1997. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 3. The pilot survey is designed H4b. 2000. collection instrument. chain practices suggests that effective supply chain practices have a positive influence on delivery 4. The H5d. ture and anecdotal evidence. 1997.C. revealed how Ford and UPS leverage information sharing to improve Ford’s delivery performance. 41% of the companies used H5a. Five companies are developed: had annual sales of more than $5 billion. Supply chain planning can provide an accurate customer demand forecast and thus meet The purpose of this study is to investigate (1) the the varying customer demand in a timely manner relationship between information sharing and supply through intra-firm and inter-firm coordination (Supply chain practice. Twenty-eight percent of the delivery performance. questions is shown with the summary statistics in Supply Chain Council.2. Increases in the level of sharing manufacturer literature review for the three groups of supply information improves delivery performance.1354 H. and (3) the impact of information sharing and manufacturing strategy to meet the customer demand supply chain practice on delivery performance. the following hypotheses $100 million and $500 million dollars. 4. Vice President. The median annual Chain Council. Effective supply chain planning practice has positive impact on delivery performance. as reported by the respondents. The in a timely fashion (Schroeder and Flynn. A total of 745 surveys were mailed. The study includes a wide variety of manufactur- tion sharing has positive influence on delivery ing industries. Thus. Research design and methodology performance. Because infor. Eight companies sharing support technology (Boyer et al. we hypothesize the following: 4. and Plant Higher information quality (Seddon.1. was between delivery performance. Bourland et al.3. companies used make-to-order strategy. President. Supply had more than 10. Director. W. The questionnaire for the main study was refined based on feedback from the pilot In addition. Table 2. ment for relevance and clarity. Gurin (2000) analysis is based on the 125 useable questionnaires. Regarding the manufacturing process. The sharing timely demand information may result in response rate was approximately 18%. Six percent of . The study involves two data collection stages: pilot survey and formal survey. Four academic researchers and H4c. Of performance. given the litera. Mentzer. (1996) demonstrated that the 134 returned questionnaires. Supply chain practice. Zhou. it is expected to The targeted respondents were senior executives (i. A summary of the survey supply chain delivery performance (Gurin. Effective delivery practice has positive impact on three industry executives critiqued the research instru- delivery performance. The sample list consisted of individuals at decision- mation sharing can facilitate the information exchange making levels. 2002. between customers and manufacturers. have a positive influence on delivery performance. Increases in the level of information sharing delivery performance support technology investment improves delivery per- formance. 2002). and in strategically oriented positions. (2) the influence of supply chain Chain Council.e. Manager). information sharing on delivery performance. 2001). studies also have shown that informa. Effective JIT production practice has positive to test the viability of the study and purify the data impact on delivery performance. Benton Jr.

Production planning information 3. Delivery schedule information 4. 5 = monthly.73 What percentage of the information in the following dimensions does your firm provide to your major customer in an electronical format [1 = 0– 10%.36 1.48 IB2. Planned order information 4. 7 = heavy investment] II1.43 2.33 1.16 IB5. 7 = 90–100%] ID1.07 2.12 2.20 To what extent have the following planning practices been implemented in your company [1 = not implemented. Future demand forecasting information 3.64 2.77 2.56 The following questions are designed to measure the use of information system support technologies including both hardware and software in your company.61 2. Changes in purchase order information 5.35 IB3.75 1.28 2.22 IA7.35 II5. Changes in purchase order information 4.94 II4.39 2. 2 = 10–25%. Production capacity information 2. Please indicate the amount of investment your company has in the following activities [1 = no investment. 6 = weekly.10 2. Information accuracy 5.60 IA6. 2 = 10–25%. 7 = extensively implemented] IIIA1. Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) 2. Enterprise resource planning systems (ERP) system 4.D.86 2.82 2. 7 = highly capable] IA1.66 2.27 1.09 IA9. Information completeness 5.19 2. Internal connectivity 5.66 2.88 1.64 IC4. 4 = moderate investment. External connectivity 4.60 ID7. 6 = 75–90%.02 1.23 IA8.24 1.26 1. Changes in delivery schedule 4. 3 = 25–40%.12 IC2.49 IA5.C. Zhou.48 1.86 . 4 = quarterly.59 ID4.58 ID5. Production capacity information 2.55 IA4.45 2.49 2. Order status information 4.05 II6. 3 = semi-annually. Lead time information for products 3.55 IB4. 7 = daily] IC1.52 2.23 2.16 2.47 What percentage of the information in the following dimensions does your major customer provide your firm in an electronical format [1 = 0–10%. Updating information frequently 5. Performance evaluation information 3.36 2.39 How often does your firm electronically provide your major customer with your firm’s information in the following dimensions [1 = never. Inventory level information 3.01 IB6. 5 = monthly. W. 2 = annually. 2 = annually.95 2.23 IA2.68 ID3. Future demand forecasting information 4. Inventory level information 3.30 2.42 2. 4 = quarterly. Benton Jr. Product design specifications 2. 6 = weekly.12 IB7. Order status information 5.68 IC5.93 2. 3 = 25–40%.62 IE3.00 1. Lead time information for products 3.64 IE5.40 How often does your major customer electronically provide your firm with its information in the following dimensions [1 = never. Advanced planning and scheduling software 4. E-procurement system 3. 3 = semi-annually. Information accessibility 5.88 1. Transportation/warehouse management software (WMS) 3. Assess your firm’s information system capability in the following dimensions: [1 = not capable. 6 = 75–90%. The use of historical data in the development of forecasts 5. Real-time information 4.21 2.13 2.53 IE2.50 ID2.58 IE4.03 2. Forecast/demand-management software 3.32 IA3.71 ID6.17 II7.78 2. 7 = daily] IB1.62 1. Delivery schedule information 5.98 II3. Changes in delivery schedule 4. Bar coding/automatic identification system 4. 4 = 40–60%.67 II8. Performance evaluation information 3. Electronic data interchange (EDI) capability 4. 5 = 60–75%. Planned order information 4. 7 = 90–100%] IE1. 5 = 60–75%. H. Production planning information 3.16 1. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 1355 Table 2 Survey questions and descriptive statistics Survey question Mean S.53 IC3.28 2. Information relevance 5. 4 = 40–60%. Product design specifications 3. Information availability 5.04 II2.

In this study. electronically.11 IIIB2. JIT production. The remain. questions IB1 to IB7 given ables MC1 to MC5 measure the level of manufacturer in Table 2 measure how often customer information is information shared electronically. W. percentage of manufacturer information that is provided delivery practice. . 4. New products account for a high fraction of total revenue 4. frequency of information sharing).40 1.70 2.64 1. 1992). 7 = extensively implemented] IIIB1.25 IIIB3. high scores will the level of customer information sharing be high. . etc. the scope of information replaced with the mean of each item.19 Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements about your business environment [1 = strongly disagree. the product of the information response bias.26 2. supply chain planning. sharing).12 1.23 the companies used assemble-to-order strategy. carriers. Agile manufacturing strategy 3.65 2. 7 = strongly agree] IV1.82 IIIC3. . customer information. The innovation rate of operating processes is high 3. We have real time visibilities of order tracking 4. Cellular manufacturing 3. 7 = extensively practiced] IIIC1. Online visibility of supply-chain demand requirements 3.D.64 1.3. . Cycle time reduction 4. delivery electronically. Both marketing and manufacturing functions are involved in supply chain planning process 3.96 1.21 2. and information tion are generated as follows: MC1 = (IC1  sharing. sources. On-time delivery 5.10 2.07 IIIC2.17 IIIC4. Bottleneck/constraint removal 4. Products and services are innovated frequently 4..30 1. MB7 = (IB7  1)(ID7  1)/7.35 2. Delivery reliability/dependability 5. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 Table 2 (Continued ) Survey question Mean S.18 IIIA4. We consolidate orders by customers. . the responses of those who returned early sharing frequency and information sharing scope was were compared with those who returned late to used to measure the level of electronic customer determine if there are any statistical differences (Lessler information sharing. We have a single point of contact for all order inquiries 5.12 1.83 To what extent have the following delivery practices been practiced in your company [1 = not practiced. To test the non. Compared to your competitors. The indicators for manufacturer informa- performance.02 1. supply chain practice.C.e. Benton Jr.41 V2.05 IIIA5. We deliver products to our major customer on a just-in-time basis 4. There are 11 latent Similarly. Each statement required responses electronic format. The missing values were customer information (i.96 IIIB4. There were no statistical sharing frequency and information sharing scope have differences between the early and late responses. The study resulted in a ID7 measure the percentage of electronically provided missing value rate of 2%. questions IC1 to IC5 measure how often variables: information sharing support technology. Pull system 3.55 The following questions relate to the performance of your firm. please indicate your position on the following dimensions [1 = significantly lower. Fifteen provided to manufacturers electronically (i.53 IV3. 4 = equal.97 2. . Vari- For customer information.03 IIIC5. the percent are engineer-to-order companies.36 V3. 1)(IE1  1)/7.42 2. manufacturer information is provided to customers manufacturer information.74 IV2.04 IIIB5.e.1356 H.15 IIIA6. We use automatic identification during the delivery process to track order status 3. Zhou.82 2.41 2. The indicators for customer information are 4.04 1.59 2. .98 IIIA3. based on a 7-point Likert scale. 7 = significantly higher] V1.41 1. ‘‘What-if’’ analysis has been implemented for supply/demand balancing 3. Variables MB1 to MB7 Descriptive statistics for each survey statement are measure the level of customer information shared in presented in Table 2. Only when both information and Kalsbeek. MC5 = (IC5  1)(IE5  1)/7. Questions ID1 to ing 10% were hybrid systems.08 To what extent have the following production practices been implemented in your company [1 = not implemented. IIIA2. supply chain dynamism. Perfect order fulfillment rate 4. A change in the demand information instantaneously ‘‘reconfigures’’ the production and supply plans 3. infor. Measurement scales generated as follows: MB1 = (IB1  1)(ID1  1)/7.. The designation of a supply chain planning team 3. Questions IE1 to IE5 measure the mation quality.

66 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.43 0.86 (variance explained): 3.79 Customer information MB1 0.63 0. second IV3 0.78 IIIA6 0.69 0.47 0.10 (51.81 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): IIIC4 0.63 0.76 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): IA4 0.84 (variance explained): 1.68 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.68 Supply chain dynamism IV1 0.63 (21.2%). largest eigenvalue information MC2 0.74 0.82 (variance explained): 4.70 IA9 0. largest eigenvalue V2 0. largest eigenvalue IIIA2 0. largest eigenvalue support technology II2 0.58 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.80 IA7 0.61 0. largest eigenvalue IIIC2 0.62 0.53 0.77 0.64 0.73.84 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.99 (60.93 (15.80 II7 0. largest eigenvalue MB2 0.70 Information sharing II1 0.53 0.86 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): 0.76 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.53 0.60 0.87 (17.90 (variance explained): 2.0%) Delivery performance V1 0.12 (70. Zhou.7%) .83.56 IA6 0.65 0.64 0. second IA3 0.75 MB6 0.69 0.58 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.9%). largest eigenvalue IV2 0.86.63 0.83 MB7 0.81.60 0.8%) MC5 0.67 (variance explained): 2.4%) IIIB5 0.84 Delivery practice IIIC1 0.96 (65.70 (variance explained): 4.41 0. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 1357 Table 3 Results of measurement validation Scale name Variable CITC Factor Scale statistics name loading Information quality IA1 0.74 1. Benton Jr. second IIIA3 0.54 0.C.74 0.75 Cronbach’s alpha: 0. second IIIB3 0. second MB3 0.39 0.89 (55.79 (variance explained): 2.75 0.59 (19.48 0.45 (48.46 0.65 0.89.8%). second IIIC3 0.04 (20.84 IA8 0.5%) IIIA5 0.54 0. largest eigenvalue IA2 0.82.86 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): IIIB4 0.77 0.74.74 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): 0.59 0.6%). second MC3 0.57 0.06 (50.74 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): IIIA4 0.70 0.59 0.60 0.78 II6 0.8%) IIIC5 0. H.58 II8 0.86 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): MC4 0.70 0.59 0.72 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.76 0.62 0.86.0%).77 (variance explained): 3.50 0.76 0.1%) II5 0. largest eigenvalue IIIB2 0.73 Plan IIIA1 0.6%) MB5 0.63 0.57 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.73 0.71 0. second II3 0.74 JIT production IIIB1 0.54 0.67 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): MB4 0.76 (variance explained): 2.99 (55%).47 0.79. second V3 0.89 (11.99 (11%) IA5 0.59 0.85 0.58 0.72 0.99 (59.69 0.46 0. W.6%).63 0.8%).73 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): II4 0.7%).66 0.48 0.74 0.84 Manufacturer MC1 0.52 0.75 0.94 (18.88 (12.

4. The RAMONA 0.67 (22. all measurement scales are deemed reliable factor analysis. and a RMSEAvalue between 0.08 indicates a be closely related to the underlying latent variable. the Corrected Item-Total discrepancy function value per degree of freedom.84 (61. A normed chi-square below 1 indicates that the The results of the measurement scales are shown in Table 3. For all construct scales Population discrepancy function value—biased 0.3%) 4. Table 4 Table 3 shows that all factor loadings meet the Fit measures of overall model in Fig.. 5. Validity and reliability of measurement for this set of items. 1993).05) 0.3.82 (variance explained): 1.76 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.37 0.3. Second.128 adjusted point estimate except ‘‘Delivery Practice’’. 0. First.49 0.50 test also suggests that one factor is the most appropriate . largest eigenvalue JIT production 0. second Delivery practice 0.C. instrument.1358 H. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 Table 3 (Continued ) Scale name Variable CITC Factor Scale statistics name loading Information sharing Information sharing 0.26 slightly larger than 1.60 Supply chain practice Supply chain planning 0. An Correlation (CITC) reliability test is used (Kerlinger. The root mean square coefficient alphas were calculated for the items of each error of approximation (RMSEA) measures the sample survey construct.382 unidimensionality requirement. The lower limit of 0.1. 1998). W. The literature review and in-depth interviews Practice’’ construct is a newly developed construct for conducted with business executives and researchers this study. The scree Normed chi-square (chi-square/degree of freedom) 1. only one eigenvalue is Root mean square error of approximation 0. which divides chi-square statistics by the degree of freedom. Thus.52 0.00. 1994).80 Cronbach’s alpha: 0.2. For the construct RMSEA—90% confidence interval (0.6 is influence of supply chain dynamism on supply chain considered acceptable for newly developed scales and practice and information sharing. 0.81 0. where 0. absolute RMSEA value of less than 0.70.7 for established scales (Nunnally. Zhou.51 0.70 or three steps: content validity. The normed is considered as the lowest acceptable value. The largest eigenvalue Chi-square test statistic 47.68. Benton Jr. the lowest significant factor loading to define the construct (Hair et al.. the CITC for all items are larger than that the items measure what they purport to measure. 0. ‘‘Delivery Practice’’ is scales determined to be unidimensional.13 (53.017. chi-square.43 0. the second largest eigenvalue is p-Value H0: close fit (RMSEA  0.55 0. ‘‘Supply Chain reliability.2%). construct validity.58 0.3%). largest eigenvalue support technology (variance explained): 2.00. the internal consistency in this study is measured Structural equation modeling is used to test the by Cronbach’s alpha.063 larger than 1.78 (19.6. Its Cronbach’s alpha is well above 0. The validation process for the survey instrument had All scales have Cronbach’s alpha values of 0. which established the basis of content validity for the survey is acceptable for a newly developed scale (Hair et al. and higher except ‘‘Supply Chain Practice’’.879 Degrees of freedom 32 explains more than 40% of the variance.05 suggests a good 1986).30 is generally considered to be (Hair et al. second Customer information 0.05 and 0. Cronbach’s program is used for this study.. In addition.3 and all constructs satisfy the Sample discrepancy function value 0. 1998). Since all Cronbach’s alpha and CITC measures are Unidimensionality was established with exploratory supported.73 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): Manufacturer information 0. Structural equation model testing and results Two approaches were used to measure reliability. The purpose of construct validity is to show 1998). In this test all items for the same construct should fit. is also used as a fit statistic (Joreskog. The variance explained by the largest (RMSEA)—point estimate eigenvalue is larger than 40%.30 reasonable fit (Browne and Cudeck.099) ‘‘Delivery Practice’’.4%) Information quality 0. 2 criterion of larger than 0. The results of the measurement scales 1969).30.72 largest eigenvalue (variance explained): 0.

05 and * indicate significance at p > 0. and supply chain dynamism. Supply chain practice. while a value larger chi-square is 1.0 (Carmines and McIver. which implies a et al. .46) model is over fitted (Joreskog. H.765 (10. The normed indicators to the related latent variables are significant at Fig. 2 Scale name Effect indicator Path coefficient estimate (t value) Supply chain practice Plan 0.60) Supply chain dynamism New products account for a high fraction of total revenue (IV1) 0.05. # please see Table 2 for the survey questions related to the variables IV1. information sharing. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 1359 Table 5 Estimations of measurement model parameters in Fig.610 (9.063.e.40) Information sharing Information sharing support technology 0. function by the degree of freedom.729 (10. it is concluded the data. From these fit statistics.18) Delivery practice 0. 10). than 3. the path coefficients of all the desirable cut-off value of 0.734 (13. Please see Table 5 for the path estimates li (i = 1. and IV3.08.614 (9. 1981) to 5.C.50.84) The innovation rate of operating processes is high (IV3) 0. 1977) indicates that a model does not adequately fit good model fit.26.576 (7. The good structural equation model needs to have a good RMSEA of the model is 0. W. ..61) JIT production 0. .13) Information quality 0..455 (5.23) Products and services are innovated frequently (IV2) 0. Benton Jr. which is smaller than measurement model (i. 2. a structural model fit statistics are presented in Table 4. Zhou. ** indicates significance at p < 0.25) Customer information 0. .753 (14.0 (Wheaton The p-value of the close fit test is 0. The results of the In addition to a good fit of the structural model. IV2.544 (7.541 (7. 1969). which is within the desirable range.37) Manufacturer information 0. Both fit statistics adjust the sample discrepancy that the overall model has a good fit.

JIT production and delivery practices. It indicates mation sharing) as shown by the standardized coeffi. but not as much of 2. 2. This result sing capabilities needed.1360 H.C. but not at the 5% significance level. Benton Jr. Findings related to Hypothesis 2 (Hypothesis 3). Findings related to Hypothesis 1 matched determines the quality of outcomes for the firm’’ (Galbraith. and a significant t-statistic influence on supply chain practice.77 results chain practice (H1) Supply chain dynamism ! information 0. 2. This study shows that higher provides empirical evidence for the enabling effect of supply chain dynamism leads to a higher level of information sharing on supply chain practice.14 Regression analysis is used to test the influence of sharing (H2) information sharing and supply chain practice on Supply chain dynamism ! supply chain 0.e. 2 Paths in the structural model Point t-Value 6. practices. Findings related to Hypothesis 3 transparency may be enhanced and forecast errors may be reduced. i.05).3. This the degree of information sharing is critical. and information sharing in supply chains. It (1973). The match corroborates the findings in previous literature and between the degree of supply chain dynamism and industry anecdotes (Supply Chain Council. which is significant empirical finding suggests that effective exactly what the information processing theory pre- information sharing enhances effective supply chain dicts. The results of the study suggest that Hypothesis 1 is information processing theory in the context of supply strongly supported (i.e.251 for g1 in Fig.77 in Table 6. dynamism to supply chain practice. As a result. Therefore.251 2. the acceptance of Hypothesis 2 suggests that firms need to have some mechanisms to extends the information processing theory to the supply collect supply chain dynamics information and use the information to guide effective supply chain practice. such as supply chain planning. We hypothesized that supply chain dynamism has significant positive influence on supply chain practice 5.05 level and the t-values are larger information processing theory is that ‘‘the degree to than 2. W. which information-processing requirements and infor- mation-processing capabilities are appropriately 5. and a t-statistic of 1. as on information sharing.2.186 for g2 in Fig. 2. The basic proposition of the are significant at 0. level. The result of Hypothesis 2 empirically supports the effective information sharing mediates the impact of information processing theory proposed by Galbraith supply chain dynamism on supply chain practice. this research adds the generality of the 1). The coefficient of the path Hypothesis 2 is supported at the 5% significance from supply chain dynamism to information sharing is level. The original theory was We hypothesized that effective information sharing proposed in the context of a firm instead of a supply enhances effective supply chain practice (Hypothesis chain. information sharing estimate and delivery performance: regression model and Information sharing ! supply 0. Summary of statistical tests for the hypotheses in Fig.05 level). 2002). Supply chain practice. Furthermore. all path coefficients chain environment.937 23.186 1.1. 1973). supply chain 5. The results of the study show that 0. Meanwhile. The results of the study show that supply chain dynamism does have positive influence on We hypothesized that supply chain dynamism has supply chain practice. As shown in Table 5. but not as much as on information significant positive influence on information sharing sharing as shown by the standardized coefficient of (Hypothesis 2).e. Hypothesis 2 is strongly supported (i.90 in Table 6. supply chain Hypothesis 3 is supported at the 10% significance dynamism has significant positive influence on infor. effective information sharing chains (i. Effective the standardized coefficient of 0. Table 6 One mechanism is effective information sharing.937 for b1 in Fig. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 0.14 in Table 6. the information-processing requirement is enhances effective supply chain practice) as shown by determined by the supply chain dynamism). that supply chain dynamism does have positive cient of 0.e. Zhou. and information sharing provides the information proces- a significant t-statistic of 23.90 delivery performance.0. The reason to use regression practice (H3) method is that it allows us to test the influence of . supply chain dynamism has significant larger than the coefficient of the path from supply chain positive influence on information sharing ( p < 0.

429** 0. H4a. H. manufacturer information. DP: delivery practice. The coefficient is categories: (1) <$5 million. and (8) customer information has a significant negative impact >$5 billion. H4c and H5a neously entered as independent variables.284 No ** Indicates significance at p < 0. which is fairly high information sharing variables are tested separately. are supported. it is more difficult for the supply chain practice variables (supply chain planning. possible explanation is that when the customer shares Therefore.10 levels. A firm size is 1.341** 0.135 0.079* Yes Information quality H5a 0. ISST: information sharing support technology.08 0. The three requirement changes. compared to other studies such as Boyer et al.137 0.343** 0. delivery performance. and H5d are not statistic for the overall regression model is 0. manufacturer to meet the delivery requirement.388 No JIT production H4b 0. 50 million.663** 1 JIT 0. which is not significant at 0.026. Table 8 Correlations of the information sharing and supply chain practice variables IQ CI MI ISST SCP JIT DP IQ 1 CI 0.289** 0. There- JIT production. information sharing.362** 1 IQ: information quality. which is significant at the 10% level. Dependent variable: delivery performance. not significant at the 10% level.436** 0. (2004). The F statistics of the ANOVA test about on delivery performance at the 5% significance level.373** 0. and delivery practice) and four fore.26 0. adverse delivery performance.271** 1 MI 0.05). each of practice have a significant impact on delivery perfor- the three supply chain practice variables and four mance. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 1361 Table 7 Supply chain practice. . SCP: supply chain planning.175 for this regression model. (3) $20– 0. We variable are shown in Table 7.371** 0. Therefore. (6) $500 million–$1 billion. the remaining four independent variables are information sharing support technology) are simulta. increases in sharing customer information lead to information sharing variables (information quality.359** 0. the a control variable. we first ran an ANOVA test on The coefficient and t-value for each independent delivery performance according to firm size. MI: manufacturer information. The R2 value is 0.87 0. R2 is 0. customer’s delivery requirement might change more For the regression model.24 0. (5) $100–500 million. (2) $5–20 million.386 No Customer information H5c 0. As a result of the more frequent delivery variable is entered as the dependent variable.87 0. The F.215.811 No Delivery practice H4c 0.332** 0.382** 0. (7) $1–5 billion.05 and * indicate significance at 0.398** 0. JIT: JIT production.288** 0. H5b. the firm size is not entered into regression as information with the manufacturer more frequently.14 0.78 0.458** 0.480** 1 DP 0.036** Yes Information sharing support technology H5b 0. The results show that measured the firm size by sales revenue.215 1. (1997) Considering the possible influence of firm size on and Droge et al. i.143 1.283** 0. The coefficient of delivery practice is 0.05 < p < 0.245 2.175.032 0.05. The information quality has significant positive influence on respondents were asked to choose one of the eight delivery performance ( p < 0. Benton Jr. which supported.C. and Table 7.10. Zhou.292 2. H4b.366.026** No Manufacturer information H5d 0. Surprisingly.245. information sharing and supply chain practice on indicates that information sharing and supply chain delivery performance at a more detail level. ** Indicates significance at p < 0. (4) $50–100 million.365** 0. W.477** 1 ISST 0.481** 1 SCP 0. CI: customer information. H5c.e. As can be seen in customer information. the delivery performance often. and delivery performance (regression results) Variable name Hypothesis Standardized t-Value p value Hypothesis coefficient supported? Supply chain planning H4a 0.

JIT information. Benton Jr. the level of sharing customer information is low. the results of the hierarchical regression Table 10 shown in Table 9 confirm that (1) the delivery practice Customer information.044 1. As expected. The higher score of delivery practice production. In order to confirm the impact of those information increases.238 4 0.05 level. Considering the potential multicollinearity issue of explore the relationship among delivery performance. The value in the cell is the mean of the delivery performance factor score in each category.e. The number in the parenthesis is the number of Since the customer information variable has a companies in each category.886* 4. The delivery performance is preferred.032 Manufacturer information 0.041 1. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 Table 9 Hierarchical regression for delivery performance Step Variables B R2 DR 2 F F change 1 0.162 2 0.432** 5.391 3.037 0. and customer information. delivery practice. The results presented in Table 8 show that the categorize customer information and delivery practice independent variables are highly correlated. customer information is entered. By doing so. a into two categories according to their factor scores as hierarchical regression analysis to confirm the results in shown in Table 10. B is the standardized coefficient of the variable.05 level. when there is a need to implement a high level of effective there are five independent variables in the second step).078 0.238 is the mean of negative impact on delivery performance and the delivery performance when customer information is low and delivery delivery practice has a positive impact.045 (34)a 0. values shown for F change are for each step. implemented.C. manufacturer information. the changes in information. Third. and (3) the customer Low 0.662* Delivery practice 0. We was run. the less decreases. W. For example.101** Information quality 0. the four insignificant information reflects more frequent sharing of customer variables in Table 7 (supply chain planning. the when the level of sharing customer information is high. information quality each combination is calculated. effective delivery practice can the additional variable. Finally. The mean delivery performance score for delivery practice is entered. When the level of sharing customer R2 and F statistics in each step can only be attributed to information is high. (2) information quality customer information variable has significant positive influence on delivery High 0.216 is the coefficient for the supply chain planning effective delivery practice does not improve delivery variable when the first four variables were entered into performance as much as when the level of sharing the regression in the first step. However.175 0. This finding suggests that practice variable was entered into the regression.128** Customer information 0.053 2. coefficient for delivery practice was 0. Second. the seven independent variables. For example.238 (28) 0. p < 0.1362 H.143 Information sharing support technology 0. effective delivery practice miti- significant independent variables are first entered into gates the effect of frequent sharing of customer the hierarchical regression. A higher value of is entered. When Table 9 are the coefficients from each step.10. After the delivery customer information is high.106 (35) information variable has significant negative influence a on delivery performance at the 0.216 JIT production 0. The higher score of customer Table 7 was conducted.797 0. Zhou. The results in Table results of the hierarchical regression are shown in 10 show that as the frequency of sharing customer Table 9.05. we further practice is high.238 3 0. . the delivery performance significant independent variables in Table 7. 0.238 (i.292 * ** p < 0. and delivery performance variable has significant positive influence on delivery Delivery practice/ High Low performance at the 0. and information reflects a higher level of effective delivery practice sharing support technology) are entered.10 level.797 Supply chain planning 0. 0. The standardized coefficients in improve the delivery performance significantly. Thus.123 0.316 (28) performance at the 0. a correlation analysis delivery practice. First.

Fisher (1997) categorizes supply chains into tion has a significant negative impact on delivery efficient supply chains and responsive supply chains. order to achieve superior delivery performance. effective information sharing when the level of firms tend to emphasize on flexibility and buffering information sharing is high. This corroborates several extant dardization. Benton Jr. this uncertainty reduc- significant negative influence. Without stan- are not significant. H. In responsive supply chains. Zhou. delivery practice have significant positive influence on When coupled with the standardization inherent in delivery performance. this study of supply chain dynamism. increases. 5c. Third. Managerial implications the effective supply chain practices that Toyota and Honda have are giving them more competitive This study offers practitioners several managerial advantage than their major US competitors in today’s insights about the role of information sharing and more dynamic world. this study suggests that firms do not have to First. enhances effective supply chain have more competitive advantage than the US auto- practice in order to utilize the information shared and makers such as General Motor and Ford these days maintain a high level of performance. products are standardized and ship between information sharing and supply chain firms tend to deploy more effective supply chain practice. information quality and uncertainty in external and internal environments. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 1363 supply chain practice in order to leverage the effective both simultaneously.C. managers manufacturing technology investment does not have should seek to achieve supply chain performance impact on firm performance.1. because the processes themselves are too and Flynn (2001) found that the difference in advanced uncertain to control effectively. Schroeder valuable. however. 4b. The both effective supply chain practice and effective finding that information quality has a significant information sharing. executives often regression analysis shows that only delivery practices choose to implement either effective information (not the supply chain planning or JIT production) have sharing or effective supply chain practice because significant positive influence on delivery performance. A higher level of responsive supply chains. leading to a higher level of the Japanese automakers such as Toyota and Honda information sharing. 4c. The To improve supply chain performance. However. In performance. W. effective supply chain practices and information excel in all dimensions of supply chain processes in sharing play different roles in managing supply chains. practices increases as the level of information sharing The counterintuitive result that customer informa. 5a. supply chain practices in supply chain management. Supply chain planning and JIT uncertainties. this study shows that suggests that effective supply chain practices that effective supply chain practice becomes more important standardize the processes have greater value in when supply chain dynamism is high. while customer information has a effective supply chain practice. Dell is a good example of using positive influence on delivery performance in this study information technology to get information from its confirms the results in Schroeder and Flynn (2001). The information quality improvement by exploiting opportunities to implement and the type of information shared are important. limited resources usually prevent firms from pursuing This suggests that firms need to be clear about the . The standardization 6. The findings in this study suggest that 7. The remaining variables tion allows performance improvement. Looking at the auto industry. standardizes the supply chain processes and exploits the efficiency from the standardization. production do not have a significant direct impact on Second. Together with the results rather than standardization. Clearly. Findings related to Hypotheses 4a. uncertainty reduction is less studies such as Schroeder and Flynn (2001). only It uses effective supply chain practices to standardize delivery practice has a significant positive influence on the supply chain processes and reduce process delivery performance. and 5d (the influence of information sharing better leverage the information shared among supply and supply chain practice on delivery performance) chain partners. The result shown in Table 10 suggests that practices because effective supply chain practices tend effective supply chain practice is critical for leveraging to standardize processes. the importance of effective supply chain delivery performance. Information sharing is a means to capture the supply chain dynamics and thus reduce As shown in Tables 7 and 9. Effective supply chain practice information sharing. when the needs for product variety and information sharing increase. supply chain dynamism. led to further exploration of the relation. of supply chain processes tends to help companies 5b. customers and share the information with its suppliers. Among the three groups of supply chain practice. efficient supply chains.

E. Information sharing and supply chain coordination.. . Applying JIT principles to continuous process manufacturing supply chains. achieve superior performance. Krajewski. mation sharing. W.. 1998... Prentice Hall.. G. 1973.. Information sharing in a supply chain. Joreskog. B.. K. S.S. Manufacturing Strategy: Text and Cases. G. Testing Structural Equation Models. Benton Jr. Kapuscinski. K. In: Bohrn.. V. R. Ahmad.S. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Manage- steht. 2000.. R. 2000. Liker. the more information systems: an empirical study of on-time performance important the effective supply chain practice is to in U... Tang. 2001. research: improving measures of operations strategy and advanced Kerlinger. 1984. P. R. M. Beverly Hills. Unlocking the Hodge. Irvine.. Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of dynamism has significant positive influence on infor. In: Bollen.G.1364 H. but not as much as Harvard Business Review 75 (2). Temporary Advantage. Aviv.. Carmines. Upper Saddle River. Kalsbeek. Lee. Davis. 247–260. Chen. J. significant influence on delivery performance. The performance impact of interorganizational higher the level of information sharing.. Journal of Operations Management 18 (3). Saving IT’s soul: human centered information management. P. 331–347. The results of this study show the following basic tenet Daft. Nichols.. 601–634. R. Upper Saddle River. Organizational Theory: A Strategic Approach. D. European Journal of Opera. 1997. 1969.. Tayur. Conclusions Cook. Pagell. 1997.. Supply Chain Management: Strategy Planning and Operation.. C. Online system to streamline Ford’s delivery process. Prentice Hall. Zhou. Droge. However. K. Bourland. K. Graduate School of Business. Lengel. Addison- Wesley. (5) the Forster. Flynn.. two-level supply chain. R. S. 239–253. Galbraith. 183–202. S. 1993. C. 2001. Multivariate Management 10 (1). J. Doctoral dissertation. H. Hill. SAGE Publications.. 361–374. 1326–1333. 2004. Prentice Hall. B. Journal of Operations Management effective information sharing significantly enhances 22 (6). 1325–1360. (2) supply chain Fine. Hair.. E. Production and Inventory Management Journal 37 (1). S. Psychometrika 34 (2). Black.. Whang. Ward. Manufacturer–supplier relationship in a JIT the supply chain practices related to those critical environment. NJ. Leong. Stephen. K. Columbia Univer. Wei. Lee. Jayaram. A general approach to confirmatory maximum Boyer. (3) supply chain dynamism has positive Fisher. the roles of effective information determinants of strategic group membership and organizational sharing and effective supply chain practice are different performance. 1996. Padmanabham. What is the right supply chain for your product? influence on supply chain practice. 12–17. NJ. Organizational information requirement about the role of information sharing and supply chain media richness and structural design. Academy of Manage- sharing and effective supply chain practice have ment Journal 38 (5). 2000. Meindl. R. Irwin. S. and Winston. So. 1999. F. S.. 1994. (Eds..F.. Whang. Prentice Hall. 1995. P.. R. Y. P.. manufacturing technology. Cudeck. Porter’s (1980) generic strategies as performance.. R. E. Management Science 32 (5). Academy of Management Journal 27 (3). performance. Mefford.. Management Science 45 (1).... R. (4) effective information JIT and TQM: practices and performance. L. 1998. 16–24. J.. S. Richard D. Reading. U. Decision Sciences 32 (4). Schroeder. Vickery.. Relationship between on information sharing.. Value of information of capacitated supply chains. 467–488. R. Wiley.. Perseus Books. McIver. information sharing and effective supply chain practice Davenport.. Sage Publications..G. 93–102.. New York... P. Tatham. Exploiting timely demand information to reduce inventories. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 performance measures they want to excel and invest on Chen. 81–93. Introduction to Supply Chain Management.. Holt. J.. Foundations of Behavioral Research.). J. W. Production and Inventory Management Journal 38 (1). The value of information sharing in a International Journal of Production Economics 89 (3). CA. Krajewski. University of California.. Rogowski. 2001. Lean production and the Internet. Management Science 46 (5). 1997... 2000. Designing Complex Organizations.A.. 1992.C. 2002.. Sloan Management Review 38 (3). Rine- hart. Anderson. NJ. chain superiority. performance measures.. practice in supply chain management: both effective 554–571. interchanges on delivery performance. Pyke.. IL.. L. Sloan Management Review 42 (1). W.. Upper Saddle River... 1–3. are necessary to achieve improvement in supply chain Dess. The effects on internal This research offers the following findings: (1) versus external integration practices on time-based performance and overall firm performance. M. Chopra. Social Measurement: Current ment 1 (1). C. R. Journal of Operations Management 15 (4). S. Analyzing models with unob- served variables: analysis of covariance structures.. The impact of electronic data Gurin. 16–30. 8. 119–131. under alternative supply chain dynamism. 58–62.. Handfield. New York. Chen.. Boyer. The value of production schedule Browne. New York. Long. 1997. The bullwhip effect in fit. Management Science 47 (10). tional Research 92 (2). Brunn. (Eds. 1981. H. R.. CA. effective supply chain practice. 2000. References Gavirneni. Alternative ways of assessing model integration in supply chains.N. 1986. Japanese automakers. Harvard Business Review 72 (2). Working paper. MA. 1996. 2000. MA. 626–643.. Yu.. T. R.S. R. K..)... F. L. J. 2004. 557–573. Blue Ridge. Sakakibara. 1996. 1994. Y. Production and Operations Frontline Solutions 1 (4).... J.. T. W. Borgatta. 1999. 105–116. Lee. 2001. Measurement issues in empirical likelihood factor analysis. Nonsampling Error in Surveys. potential of advanced manufacturing technologies. 1986. P. 79–93. Newbury Park. Lessler... Anthony. Issues. NJ. S.. Schroeder. M. H.. Gales. The effect of collaborative forecasting on supply chain Data Analysis. suppliers and supply- sity. NY. supply chains. air cargo. J.. K.

D. Assessing (1). The Machine that Changed the Systems Research 5 (2). Pillai. J. E... MI. 2000. H. Spring. R.C. CA. E-business and supply chain processes.. 1999. Quek. Academy Management Petersen. MacDuffie. 1983. Information Systems Research 9 (4).. nology Management 23 (1/2/3). P.. Inc. supply networks and assemblers. D.. Fisher. Shaw. Muthen.. 221–235.. R. Jossey-Bass. Information System Research 8 (3). William. Rawson Associates. Information Womack. World. M. Zhou. 1977. W. Nadler.. Segev... K. a review and empirical study. channel relationship in retailing. . Michigan State University. Empowering customers: portals. Unpublished dissertation. 271–278. 613–624. A case study of user evaluation of Model Version 5. H. 1979. A re-specification and extension of the DeLone and manufacturing performance: evidence from the international McLean Model of IS success. third link. An analysis of material Thousand Oaks.. Competing on capabilities: the response: evidence from the information technology industry. Product variety and Seddon. Chain or shackles: understanding through managing the information flow: capturing ‘moments what drives supply-chain performance. What Supply Chain Management Practices International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 12 Relate to Superior Performance? DRK Research Team.. 3–21. Managing the demand chain Ramdas. 2000. P. information characteristics for systems improvement. Supply Chain Operations Reference Neumann. New York. T. 2002.. 1978. Alwin. 40 (1). Clockspeed and informational Stalk. Jones.. R. Evans. 115. Robey. 2001. 73–86. R.. M. Shuman. International Journal of Tech- Accounting Horizons 12 (1)... D. McGraw-Hill. K. Benton Jr. Summers.. Yang. 1998. C. Strategy-making and environment: the expectation. J.. Flynn. Friesen. D. Management Science 42 240–253. Strategic Management Journal 4 (3). Sum. Perceived benefits of ABCM implementation. M.. Supply Chain Council. G. 54–65. In: Heise. The effect of EDI on market tive. J. Mendelson. S.. Psychometric Theory. S.. B. Total quality management as competitive advantage: (2). Roos. 1994. 35–48. 1997. McGowan. Sethuraman. J.. The effect of information quality on supply chain of Review 3 (3). Production and Inventory Management Journal Schroeder.. grating concept in organizational design. 1995. 1994. L. Information and Management 33 Powell. Sage Publications.. (3)... Information Supply Chain Council. New York. A. 1997. High Performance Manufacturing... John Wiley & Sons. K. Strategic Management Journal 16 Wheaton. M. Journal of Operations Management 13 (1).. K. McCormack. 31–50. 1996.. Sweeting. L.. and Management 2. requirements planning benefits using alternating conditional Miller. Mentzer. Harvard Business Review 70 (2). B. D. Information processing as an inte- Nunnally.3).. Vokurka. MA. 415–433. 1998. 16–20. R. 15–27. 1990. Ang. 1992. automotive assembly plant study.. D. 1995. new rules of corporate strategy. Spekman.. P... reliability and stability in panel models. 113–128. 1999. information systems planning: an empirical study. Supply Chain Management.0. D. / Journal of Operations Management 25 (2007) 1348–1365 1365 Lummus. (Ed.. 75–119. Tushman. 350–369.. So- Premkumar. G. G.. Organizational characteristics and ciological Methodology. D. Vijayasarathy.. J... San Francisco. 2000. K. 2001. Boston. performance: an inter-organizational information system perspec. 2002.). 1998. (2.. R.. Information-based manufacturing and the web. R. of information’. Interfaces 30 (4). New York.