See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265857067

Research synthesis in collaborative planning forecast and replenishment

Article  in  Industrial Management & Data Systems · June 2014

DOI: 10.1108/IMDS-03-2014-0085

CITATIONS READS

34 605

3 authors, including:

Antonio Marcio Tavares Thomé Luiz Felipe Scavarda

Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro
57 PUBLICATIONS   1,329 CITATIONS    105 PUBLICATIONS   1,801 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Supply chain risk analysis View project

Sustainable Supply Chain Dynamics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonio Marcio Tavares Thomé on 02 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Industrial Management & Data Systems
Research synthesis in collaborative planning forecast and replenishment
Antonio Márcio Tavares Thomé Roberto Luis Hollmann L.F.R.R. Scavarda do Carmo
Article information:
To cite this document:
Antonio Márcio Tavares Thomé Roberto Luis Hollmann L.F.R.R. Scavarda do Carmo , (2014),"Research
synthesis in collaborative planning forecast and replenishment", Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 114 Iss 6 pp. 949 - 965
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-03-2014-0085
Downloaded on: 02 December 2014, At: 10:53 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 79 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Antônio M.T. Thomé, Rui Soucasaux Sousa, Luiz F.R.R.S. do Carmo, (2014),"Complexity as contingency
in sales and operations planning", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 114 Iss 5 pp. 678-695
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-10-2013-0448
Gene Fliedner, (2003),"CPFR: an emerging supply chain tool", Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 103 Iss 1 pp. 14-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570310456850
Teresa M. McCarthy, Susan L. Golicic, (2002),"Implementing collaborative forecasting to improve supply
chain performance", International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 32 Iss
6 pp. 431-454 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030210437960

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 418888 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-5577.htm

Collaborative
Research synthesis in planning
collaborative planning forecast forecast and
replenishment
and replenishment
Antonio Marcio Tavares Thomé 949
Industrial Engineering Department,
Received 13 March 2014
Pontifı́cia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Revised 21 April 2014
Brazil and BEMFAM, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and Accepted 22 April 2014
Roberto Luis Hollmann and
Luiz Felipe Roris Rodriguez Scavarda do Carmo
Industrial Engineering Department,
Pontifı́cia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this research synthesis is to gather and integrate findings on Collaborative
Planning Forecast and Replenishment (CPFR) as a business process and as a management practice;
and to assemble quantitative evidence of its impact on supply chain (SC) performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The researchers independently conducted a systematic review
of 629 abstracts and 47 full-text papers. Original keywords were applied to four key electronic
databases for operations management and information systems. Rigorous and verifiable selection
criteria governed inter-coders reliability, review of steps and exclusion of papers. Resource and
dependency-based view of the firm, contingency research and maturity models informed the analysis.
Findings – There is not a single “blueprint” for CPFR. Competing models emphasize the need
for “trust and confidence” and reliable data systems. The type of products, scope, spatial
diversity and number of partners in the network are important contextual variables. Firm
resources that are unique and advantages from multiple and reciprocal dependencies are powerful
levers. There is no consensus on maturity model and on required investment in data and
communication systems.
Practical implications – Practical implications are implementation related: cost-benefit analysis
and simulations should precede full-scale collaboration. There is a consensus on starting CPFR small
and expanding gradually.
Originality/value – This synthesis applies a rigorous review method and attempts to assemble
the dispersed literature in one study, utilizing explanatory operations management and information
systems theories.
Keywords Collaboration, Operations management, Supply chain, Trust,
Information communication technology
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Collaborative Planning Forecast and Replenishment (CPFR) is a cohesive bundle of
business processes whereby supply chain (SC) trading partners share information,
synchronized forecasts, risks, costs and benefits with the intent of improving overall
SC performance through joint planning and decision making. Accordingly, CPFR Industrial Management & Data
enhances customer demand visibility and matches supply and demand with a Systems
Vol. 114 No. 6, 2014
pp. 949-965
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The authors gratefully acknowledge MCT/CNPq (Research Project No. 307996/2011-5), CAPES/ 0263-5577
DFG (BRAGECRIM Research Project No. 010/09) and CAPES/DAAD (PROBRAL). DOI 10.1108/IMDS-03-2014-0085
 IMDS synchronized flow of goods from the production and delivery of raw materials to the
114,6 production and delivery of the final product to the end consumer. According to
Voluntary Inter-industry Commerce Standard (VICS)’s (2004) model, CPFR framework
encompasses different business processes subdivided into specific steps or tasks
(strategy and planning, demand and supply management, execution and analysis).
From a contingency view, CPFR takes different forms, according to context (Sousa and
950 Voss, 2008; Danese, 2011).
The concept emerged as an inter-industry standard designed to move beyond the
shortcomings of other Supply Chain Collaboration (SCC) initiatives, such as
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI), Efficient Consumer Response Movement (ECR),
Vendor Managed Inventories (VMI) and Continuous Replenishment (CR) (Stank
et al., 1999; Barratt and Oliveira, 2001; Seifert, 2003). CPFR captures the advantages
of such initiatives while adding the collaborative mechanism to facilitate
information exchange in a multi-tiered SC (Cassivi, 2006). CPFR takes a more
comprehensive approach with respect to the planning of promotions, sales and
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

orders forecast; synchronization of plans between trading partners; the making of

joint decisions and the management of exceptions (Danese, 2011). CPFR increases
responsiveness to changing demand patterns and provides a better coordination
along the SC (Barratt and Oliveira, 2001). Additionally, CPFR is an exception-driven
process while the other SCC initiatives are more data driven and exceptions are not
part of the process (Burnette, 2010). Through exception management, trading
partners can collaboratively review sales and order forecasts (Du et al., 2009,
Burnette, 2010), and they can do so on a large scale (Du et al., 2009). It was an effort
of Wal-Mart and Warner-Lambert in the mid 1990s for the Listerine line of products
(Sherman, 1998). Since then, a sustained attention has been given to CPFR. In 1998,
the Voluntary Inter-industry Commerce Standard (VICS) committee published the
first guideline for implementation, reviewed in 2004 and 2010 (VICS, 1998, 2004,
2010). By 2010, the VICS committee reported that over 300 large companies had
implemented it (Lapide, 2010; Yao et al., 2013).
There are several CPFR models in the literature, with varying configurations and
no systematic review available to date. Despite the growing number of publications
in CPFR, efforts to synthesize the state of the art are still limited. As an attempt to fill
this gap, this paper provides a research synthesis aiming at assembling the dispersed
literature on the subject. The purpose of this review is twofold: to gather and integrate
findings on CPFR as a business process and as a management practice; and
to assemble quantitative evidences of its impact on SC performance. First, the
methodology used in the research synthesis is described. Next, main findings and
results are analysed and discussed. Finally, the main conclusions and suggestions for
future research are presented.

2. Methodology
A six-step process was used to select and retrieve papers: computerized database
selection, identification of key words for search, criteria for exclusion of studies,
manual review of selected abstracts, full-text review and review of selected references
from full-text articles (Thomé et al., 2012).
The databases selected were EMERALD, EBSCO, SCIENCEDIRECT and WILEY. In
accordance with recommendations for initial research synthesis (Cooper, 2010),
keywords selected were sufficiently broad to avoid artificially limiting results and still
provided limitations to avoid undesirable results. The search keywords were
 Collaborative Planning Forecasting and Replenishment and CPFR, with no limitations Collaborative
regarding publication dates. planning
Papers were excluded due to threats to validity for systematic reviews (Cooper,
2010). Criteria for the exclusion of papers were related to the relevance for the subject forecast and
of the literature search, such as poorly defined constructs of CPFR, CPFR being used replenishment
just as an example and not as a research topic and papers treating CPFR elements in
isolation of each other (e.g. inventory management, demand forecast). An additional 951
criterion for exclusion was related to the quality of original research, as papers based
on author’s opinion and anecdotic evidences of results only, papers from trade and
industry magazines not consubstantiate with empirical evidences, and papers
presenting causal relationship not based on clearly defined empirical evidences from
explicit mathematical modelling, survey research or case studies.
The search based on the keywords returned 629 papers. The full bibliography list
is available upon request. Duplicate papers and those not corresponding to the above
criteria were excluded, resulting in 53 papers selected for full-text review. After
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

full-text reading, six papers were excluded. Thus, 47 papers were reviewed and
cross-examined by three researchers. The review process was interactive and resulted
in high level of agreement, with a Cohen’s k in the range of 0.87-0.99 (95 per cent CI)
(Cohen, 1960).

3. Results and discussions

The results are presented in three broad categories: study identification, literature
search synthesis framework and study descriptors.

3.1 Study identification

The 47 articles included in the analysis are listed in Table I together with the number of
citations, source and methodology.
As depicted in Table I, just one author published more than two studies on the
subject. Publications on CPFR are also recent, with the first ones appearing in the late
1990s. The second column presents the number of citations of each article from Google
Scholar, after the required cleaning to avoid duplicate entries (Thomé et al, 2012).
In all, 52 per cent of citations concentrate on seven papers published in four leading
Journals: IJPDLM, SCMIJ, IJLM and IMDS. The third column depicts the source
of the publications, mostly concentrated in Business Forecasting and Operations
Management (OM) journals. The last column shows the methodology used in the
studies. Single and multiple case studies and simulations prevail, followed by
conceptual models of SC collaboration. Five industry reports, five survey research and
one literature review are also related in Table I.

3.2 A synthesis framework

The framework depicted in Figure 1 is an aide to assemble and organize the review.
It is based on an original framework proposed by Thomé et al. (2012), expanded with
information from explanatory theories of resource-based view (RBV) and resource
dependent theory (RDT) (Ramanathan and Gunasekaran, 2014), maturity models
(Larsen et al., 2003) and contingency research (Danese, 2011) applied to CPFR.
The structure of the framework embraces all the constitutive elements required to
describe individual CPFR elements, their relationships and impact upon performance.
The adapted framework adds the dimension of SCC to the original Thomé et al. (2012)’s
firm-centred framework. It also adds the vertical functional role of CPFR in bridging
 IMDS Reference No. of citations Source Methodology
114,6
Sherman (1998) 55 JMTP Conceptual model
Stank et al. (1999) 145 SCMIJ Survey
Barratt and Oliveira (2001) 327 IJPDLM Survey
Holmström et al. (2002) 124 SCMIJ Conceptual model
McCarthy and Golicic (2002) 155 IJPDLM Case study, multiple
952 Esper and Williams (2003)
Fliedner (2003)
116
167
TJ
IMDS
Conceptual model
Conceptual model
Larsen et al. (2003) 218 IJPDLM Survey
Attaran (2004) 20 IM Industry report
Danese et al. (2004) 64 JPSM Case study, multiple
Caridi et al. (2005) 54 IJPR Simulation
Ireland (2005) 7 JBF Industry report
Simatupang and Sridharan (2005) 137 IJLM Conceptual model
Caridi et al. (2006) 20 JEIM Simulation
Cassivi (2006) 89 SCMIJ Survey
Danese (2006a) 3 SCFIJ Conceptual model
Danese (2006b) 46 IJPR Case study, multiple
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

Thron et al. (2006) 18 IJPDLM Simulation

Attaran and Attaran (2007) 78 BPMJ Conceptual model
Chang et al. (2007) 24 SCMIJ Simulation
Chen et al. (2007) 32 I&M Simulation
Danese (2007) 70 IJOPM Case study, multiple
Småros (2007) 56 JOM Case study, single
Thron et al. (2007) 17 IJLM Simulation
Chang and Wang (2008) 14 IJAMT Case study, single
D’Aubeterre et al. (2008) 19 JAIS Case study, single
Derrouiche et al. (2008) 30 IJCIM Conceptual model
Ghosh and Fedorowicz (2008) 46 BPMJ Case study, single
Poler et al. (2008) 33 JMTM Simulation
Sari (2008a) 21 IMDS Simulation
Sari (2008b) 65 IJPE Simulation
Büyüközkan et al. (2009) 5 WASET Simulation
Du et al. (2009) 19 SCMIJ Case study, multiple
Baumann (2010) 3 JBF Conceptual model
Burnette (2010) 1 JBF Industry report
Choi and Sethi (2010) 45 IJPE Literature review
Hvolby and Trienekens (2010) 23 CI Conceptual model
Lapide (2010) 1 JBF Industry report
Shu et al. (2010) 0 IJITDM Conceptual model
Smith et al. (2010) 6 JBF Industry report
Yuan et al. (2010) 7 RCIM Case study, single
Danese (2011) 15 IJPR Case study, multiple
Büyüközkan and Vardaloğlu (2012) 9 ESA Simulation
Audy et al. (2012) 19 ITOR Case study, multiple
Yao et al. (2013) 0 JOM Case study, single
Ramanathan (2014) 1 ESA Simulation
Ramanathan and Gunasekaran (2014) 9 IJPE Survey

Notes: BPMJ, Business Process Management Journal; CI, Computers in Industry; ESA, Expert Systems with
Applications; I&M, Information & Management; IJAMT, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology;
IJCIM, International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing; IJITDM, International Journal of Information
Technology & Decision Making; IJLM, International Journal of Logistics Management; IJOPM, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management; IJPDLM, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management; IJPE, International Journal of Production Economics; IJPR, International Journal of Production Research;
IM, Industrial Management; IMDS, Industrial Management & Data Systems; JAIS, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems; JBF, Journal of Business Forecasting; JEIM, Journal of Enterprise Information Management;
JMTM, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management; JMTP, Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice; JOM,
Table I. Journal of Operations Management; JPSM, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management; RCIM, Robotics and
Publications, number Computer-Integrated Manufacturing; SCFIJ, Supply Chain Forum: an International Journal; SCMIJ, Supply Chain
of citations, source Management: An International Journal; TJ, Transportation Journal; WASET, World Academy of Science, Engineering
and methodology & Technology. No. of citations obtained in 11 January 2014
 Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

BUSINESS AND CORPORATE STRATEGIC PLANS FROM SC

MEMBERS

CONTEXT
STRUCTURE AND PROCESSESS
Region/ Country
Meetings and Organization Information and OUTCOMES
Industry Type
INPUTS Collaboration Communications
Product-Characteristic • Organizational Technology Collaborative:
Information on: • Participants readiness
Product aggregation
• Information Systems • Plan
• Demand
Manufacturing • Relationships • Teams • Forecast
• Source • Others ICT
Statergy • Replenishment
• Delivery • Steps/Agenda
• Level of
Hierarchical planning • Inventory collaboration • Moders and Simulation
• Production
Planning horizon • Finance • Regularity
RESULTS
Goals
Metrics • Market-related
No. of SC partners
(CPFR Process, Market-related, Operational and Financial) • Operational
Market • Financial
dynamics

SUPPLY CHAIN OPERATIONS

Source: Adapted from Thomé et al., 2012

replenishment
planning

Literature search
synthesis framework
Figure 1.
forecast and

953
Collaborative
 IMDS business and corporate strategic plans of individual firms with joint SC operations.
114,6 CPFR results feedback to inputs. Important contextual variables emanated from the
contingency theory were added, such as number of SC partners, product-characteristics
and SC goals (Danese, 2011). This model is consistent with Simatupang and Sridharan’s
(2004) conceptual model, showing an outcomes cell revised from the original framework
that now comprise shared SC processes, with a feedback loop to actual performance.
954 Changes from the original framework had better portray the specific results expected
from CPFR. It equally contemplates the evolutionary approach embedded in CPFR
maturity models (Larsen et al., 2003) with the inclusion of the level of collaboration
in the meetings and collaborations cell, which was absent from Thomé et al.’s (2012)
original framework. For the RBVand RDT of the firm, companies engage in CPFR
processes with inimitable and unique resources to gain competitive advantages
(Ramanathan and Gunasekaranf, 2014). SC shared strategies, the definition of the
level of collaboration, use of resources/inputs, as well as resources and information
sharing are essential aspects of RBV and RDB theories integrated into this revised
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

framework.

3.3 Study descriptors

The following sub-sections present a review of research and key findings from the
framework.
3.3.1 Context. There are reports of CPFR implementation in different contexts.
Collaboration varies in scope and configuration according to contextual variables, among
which market dynamics (demand uncertainty/unpredictability), goals (responsiveness vs
efficiency), product diversity (same or different products) and number of partners (spatial
complexity) seems to be the most relevant (Danese, 2011). Countries of implementation
vary, with most studies conducted in Europe and USA, but Canada, India, Mexico,
Philippines, Taiwan and the Middle East are represented as well. Industries covered were
food, apparel, general merchandize retail, transportation, healthcare, automotive,
mechanical equipment, agriculture, pharmaceutical, computers and packaging. Some
authors argue that CPFR methodology is applicable to any industry (Fliedner, 2003;
Ireland, 2005), while others contempt that its applicability is highly dependent on context
(Danese, 2011). Product characteristics are also viewed as enablers in CPFR, such as:
highly differentiated or branded products (Larsen et al., 2003; Attaran, 2004; Attaran
and Attaran, 2007; Danese, 2007); products with short life cycles (Chen et al., 2007;
Sari, 2008b; Yuan et al., 2010); high elasticity of demand related to product promotions
(Danese, 2011); innovative products (Fliedner, 2003); high-volume/high-value products
(Stank et al., 1999; Ghosh and Fedorowicz, 2008).
Regarding product aggregation, CPFR implementation is reported for single or
as many as 100 plus stock keeping units (SKUs) (D’Aubeterre et al., 2008) and not
at the aggregate level of families of products; the number of SKUs is quoted as an
impediment for a successful implementation (Fliedner, 2003). In most successful pilots,
only few products were included (Chang and Wang, 2008).
CPFR planning horizon is also variable. Småros (2007) provide a typical planning
horizon for CPFR, in a single case study from the European grocery sector. It varies
from one to four months for planning; two weeks to one month for forecasting and one
day to one week for replenishment, differing for retailers and for suppliers due to
different planning horizons and product aggregation levels.
CPFR can be equally effective under different manufacturing strategies: make-to-
stock (Chang and Wang, 2008); make-to-order and make-to-stock (Danese et al., 2004);
 make-to-order, make-to-stock and assemble-to-order (Danese, 2007, 2011); however, Collaborative
generalization to buy-to-order or engineering-to-order is not warranted (Danese, 2007). planning
3.3.2 Inputs. The study descriptors of inputs are presented in the Appendix. Most
inputs to the CPFR process are related to demand factors, with a larger concentration forecast and
on aspects pertaining to sales, marketing and forecasts. Levels and policies prevail replenishment
among operational inputs related to inventory. Source/delivery variables are less
frequent in the CPFR literature, although some authors added transportation to order 955
fulfilment as a necessary formal step (Esper and Williams, 2003). Financial data are
absent in most cases, appearing as generic financial data and flows (Caridi et al., 2006)
or gross margin (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005).
3.3.3 Structure and processes. Meetings and collaboration, organization and
information and communications technology (ICT) are discussed in this section.

3.4 Meetings and collaboration

Participants collaborating during meetings inside the firm and among firms vary
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

according to the level of maturity of the CPFR process and the SC configuration
(Larsen et al., 2003; Danese, 2011). Maturity models are inspired from Capability
Maturity Model proposed by the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon
University (Paulk et al., 1993). From the least to the most advanced stage, maturity
models consist of multiple evolutionary and successive stages in the advancement of
business processes. According to Larsen et al. (2003), CPFR maturity model can be
subdivided into basic, developed and advanced. In basic CPFR only few partners and
processes are involved (e.g. exchange of stock level data for order planning) and it is
driven by the need to lower transactional costs. In developed CPFR, there is increased
integration in several areas driven by the desire to make delivery faster and more
precise, enhancing service level and customers responsiveness. Under advanced CPFR,
planning and decision making are synchronized including production planning,
promotions, marketing and new products launching, in a relationship that is RBV and
aiming at long-term mutual learning. Companies enter basic CPFR-like agreements
due to its low transactional costs, move to a network perspective under developed
CPFR and into a mutually beneficial long-term RBV exchange under advanced CPFR.
Some authors advocate that CPFR collaboration should start with transactional
information sharing and evolve to more mature models gradually (Barratt and
Oliveira, 2001; ECR Europe, 2001; Larsen et al., 2003; Seifert, 2003; Danese, 2007).
Participant companies can be downstream or upstream dyad, one-to-many or
many-to-one networks (e.g. a supplier-manufacturer-retailer network) (Danese, 2007).
For Büyükozkän et al. (2009) and Büyükozkän and Vardaloğlu (2012) collaboration
should start with a small number of strategic customers and suppliers. For Danese
et al. (2004); Danese (2006b), the depth of the collaboration defines the type of “liaison
devices”, ranging from liaison agents to task forces to “integrating managers” with
formal authority. Several authors emphasize the need for cross-functional coordination
among: retailers, sales persons, regional managers (Chang and Wang, 2008);
purchasing, manufacturing, logistics, marketing and R&D (Büyükozkän et al., 2009;
Büyükozkän and Vardaloğlu, 2012); merchandizing, purchasing and distribution
at the retailer and sales, planning/forecast and logistics personnel at the supplier
(Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005); sales, marketing, product/brand management,
demand planning (Baumann, 2010). Several authors also quote the importance of top
management support (Attaran and Attaran, 2007; Chen et al., 2007; Smith et al., 2010;
Büyükozkän and Vardaloğlu, 2012; Ramanathan, 2014). In VICS’s (2010) issued
 IMDS guidelines for linking CPFR to Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP), emphasizing
114,6 the role of ICT process (Baumann, 2010; Smith et al., 2010).
The relationships in CPFR guidelines are governed by a front-end agreement on
supplying and ordering, with shared risks and profits (VICS, 2010; ECR Europe, 2001).
In addition to commit resources (Büyükozkän et al., 2009), several authors emphasize
the need to reduce gaming and to develop trust and confidence among partners (e.g.
956 Choi and Sethi, 2010; Yuan et al., 2010; Buyukozkan and Vardaloğlu, 2012). Trust is
viewed by most as a long-term endeavour (e.g. Attaran and Attaran, 2007; Büyükozkän
et al., 2009; Büyükozkän and Vardaloğlu, 2012).
Meeting regularity varies from one network to another, as for example: joint
business plans every semester in Network B and every year in Network C (Danese
et al., 2004); yearly promotional plan reviewed every three months in Network H and
yearly joint promotional plan reviewed within a fixed schedule every week – sales
forecasts on Fridays, exceptions management on Mondays, order forecasts on
Tuesdays and order forecasts exception management on Wednesdays in Network
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

I (Danese, 2011). For Smith et al. (2010), CPFR meetings regularity should parallel
internal S&OP meetings.

3.5 Organization
Organizational readiness (adequate technological capacity, educated employees,
financial sufficiency and willingness and organizational culture to collaborate with
trading partners) is a key success factor (Larsen et al., 2003; Büyükozkän et al., 2009;
Du et al., 2009; Burnette, 2010; Büyükozkän and Vardaloğlu, 2012). Lack of internal
integration (Småros, 2007), of collaborative forecasting training (Attaran and Attaran,
2007; Chen et al., 2007) and of a flexible organizational structure (Attaran and
Attaran, 2007) are quoted as organizational impediments.
There is no consensus about the required steps and the agenda for CPFR. VICS
(2004) reviewed the 1998 model and changed it from a linear presentation with nine
steps to a cyclic model with four collaborative processes, subdivided in two steps each:
strategy and planning (collaboration arrangement, joint business plan); demand and
supply management (sales forecasting, order planning/forecasting); execution (order
generation, order fulfilment); and analysis (exception management, performance
assessment). Fliedner (2003) proposes a five-step agenda: creation of a front-end
agreement; joint business planning; development of demand forecast; sharing forecast;
and inventory replenishment.
The majority of CPFR structure and processes are based on VICS model (Barratt
and Oliveira, 2001; Danese 2006b, Smith et al., 2010). However, the VICS framework
met with criticisms based on rigidity of steps, costs and complexity (ECR Europe, 2001;
McCarthy and Golicic, 2002; Larsen et al., 2003; Småros, 2007; Du et al., 2009;
Danese, 2011). Tenants of maturity models argued that VICS framework are seldom
implemented as such and steps should be viewed as a modular approach to SC
collaboration rather than a “slavish step-by-step” blueprint (ECR Europe, 2001; Larsen
et al., 2003; Seifert, 2003). McCarthy and Golicic (2002) criticize VICS model for being
too detailed and comprehensive and advocate for practices that require less investment
in human or technological resources. Du et al. (2009) consider the VICS’s model too
complicated to implement and propose a new model for agricultural products.
Simatupang and Sridharan (2005) propose an augmented CPFR, explicitly adding
incentive alignment to the model. Chang et al. (2007) propose an augmented CPFR
model including an application service provider. Chang and Wang (2008) apply
 Six Sigma methodology to CPFR. VICS (2010), Baumann (2010) and Smith et al. (2010) Collaborative
integrate CPFR and S&OP into what they call Integrated Business Planning. planning
3.6 Information and communication technology forecast and
Appropriate ICT is deemed necessary in all steps of the process. ECR Europe (2002) replenishment
emphasize that simple technologies can be used such as fax, spreadsheets of sales,
e-mails on orders and forecast, as well as more complex ICT tools as EDI, web portals, 957
synchronized joint forecasting and simulation. Costs increase with increased levels
of ICT sophistication. Caridi et al. (2005, 2006) propose two CPFR models with
autonomous agents with different levels of “intelligence” and compare with traditional
CPFR model. They find that CPFR models with intelligent agents have better results
than the traditional CPFR. Thron et al. (2006) and Ramanathan (2014) argue that
simulation analysis can be conducted prior to implementation, avoiding the pitfalls
and costs of unsuccessful CPFR projects.
3.6.1 Metrics, outcomes and results. Metrics and results of CPFR are presented in the
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

Appendix and commented in this section.

3.7 Outcomes
From a paradigmatic standing point, the outcomes from CPFR are collaborative plans
that synchronize forecasts, based on which the production and replenishment
processes take place (Larsen et al., 2003), as SC partners’ joint decisions (Barratt and
Oliveira, 2001) on sales, promotions, production, purchasing and product development
(Larsen et al., 2003; Attaran, 2004; Attaran and Attaran, 2007; Danese, 2007;
Sari, 2008b; Yao et al., 2013; Ramanathan and Gunasekaran, 2014). A single demand
projection is created, generating a unique and mutually agreed forecast (Larsen et al.,
2003; Ireland, 2005; Danese, 2006b, 2007; Chang et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2007;
Yao et al., 2013; Ramanathan, 2014). Based on this forecast, production and delivery
in response to market demand are synchronized; and collaborative inventory
replenishment is developed (Sherman, 1998; Larsen et al., 2003; Danese, 2007; Yao et al.,
2013). These outcomes are the means to achieve results and are based on inputs and
metrics enumerated in the Appendix.

3.8 Metrics and results

Metrics and results are mainly measured by market-related variables, such as sales,
service levels and time-to-market. Quotations of results related to the goal of SC
responsiveness (144 quotes) slightly outnumber quotations of results reported for
efficiency (67 for finance and 70 for operations). The fact that financial indicators are
absent from metrics and less represented as a result of the process in the Appendix is
not a surprise, due to its under representation among the inputs to CPFR.
Three studies submitted CPFR processes to formal test of hypothesis related to its
results. Stank et al. (1999) test operational results. The authors analyse a sample of 98
USA manufacturing and retailing firms, finding univariate positive associations
between high levels of implementation of CPFR and: operational changes; enhanced
information capabilities. However, the authors find a “very weak” association between
CPFR and the effectiveness of operational results. Yao et al. (2013) submit CPFR to test
operational results as well. They used a transactional database of nine products of a
phone company and a major retailer in the USA, concluding that CPFR learning curves
and the sequencing of product launching impact upon forecast errors and inventory
levels. Ramanathan and Gunasekaran (2014) apply structural equation modelling and
 IMDS confirmatory factor analysis to test operational and market-related results in a sample
114,6 of 150 companies (wholesalers, distributors, retailers and private customers) belonging
to the network of a large textile industry in India. The authors find a positive impact of
collaborative planning and collaborative execution on the success of collaboration and
on future collaboration in the SC.

958 4. Conclusion
The research synthesis in CPFR allowed the review and classification of 629 abstracts
and 47 full papers. Despite the growing volume of publications in the subject, the field
is still recent and evolving, with a large majority of conceptual papers, case study
research and simulations that are exploratory and aiming at understanding CPFR
mechanisms and impact upon SC performance. No systematic statistical inference and
test of hypothesis were found but in two survey-based studies and one transactional
database research, meeting with mixed evidences of CPFR effects on SC performance.
The research synthesis framework evidenced the relevance of contextual variables, the
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

on-going debate about the appropriate structure and processes of CPFR in light of
contingency research and maturity models and the paucity of empirical research
showing CPFR results.
Regarding structure and processes, proponents of maturity models criticize the
VICS’ models, arguing that at different development stages CPFR configurations
would differ (Larsen et al., 2003). The maturity model is a valid explanation to the fact
that different CPFR configurations might exist but one of its drawbacks is that it falls
short in explaining the influence of the environment and context. In addition, it might
mislead to the expectation that with time all networks converge to the advanced stage
of CPFR (Danese, 2011). RBV and RDT theories might explain why companies prefer
to limit collaboration even when their relationships are mature and the context is
favourable to full collaboration. RDT supports the dependency of SC members; in
particular, SC partners seeking high performance will tend to depend on each other
and to collaborate for long-term results (Ramanathan and Gunasekaran, 2014).
The theoretical models of SC collaboration open important venues for practitioners
and researchers.
Contextual variables from the synthesis framework deserve additional research and
should constitute the next step in improving our knowledge about CPFR configurations.
Maturity models for CPFR can assist in classifying collaboration under different SC
configurations. Danese’s exploratory, theory-building contingency hypothesis could be
validated with different industries and countries, as well as with larger samples (Danese
et al., 2004; Danese, 2006b, 2007, 2011). Three suggestions are made to improve upon
contingency research in CPFR: to identify and expand upon existing contextual variables
and contingency models; to validate and verify the generalization of existing models; and
to apply survey research techniques for statistical validity and representativeness.
Other important research areas emerge from the limitations of maturity models and of
contingency theory, as well. While the first can help explaining how SC collaboration
evolves, the later inform under which conditions it might happen. However, none of them
deals with the fact that companies may voluntarily choose not to collaborate, even when
their relationships are mature and the context is favourable. RBV and RDT come handy
under such circumstances (Ramanathan and Gunasekaran, 2014). Other theories should
also be explored and applied to the understanding of SC collaboration. Examples are the
external/institutional limitations emanated from governments, corporate policies, trade
unions, etc., as informed by institutional theory (Sousa and Voss, 2008; Danese, 2011).
 The synthesis framework can assist practitioners to make use of very detailed Collaborative
implementation guidelines for CPFR (VICS, 1998, 2004, 2010; ECR Europe, 2001). planning
However, critical reviews of implementation steps are also of immediate use. Maturity
models can be used as a checklist for implementation. CPFR maturity model and forecast and
contingency research demonstrates that under certain circumstances, basic replenishment
collaboration might fit the needs of SC partners at a lower cost. Furthermore, the
investment costs for the collaboration, in particular for ICT and organizational changes 959
should be carefully outweighed against the expected benefits (Stank et al., 1999;
Danese, 2011). Another important finding from CPFR research of relevance to
management lies in the distinction between ICT and organizational changes. It is
cautioned that misled and expensive investments in ICT would not result in the
absence of the required organizational changes related to a culture of collaboration,
trust and teamwork within the firm and between firms in the SC (Danese, 2006b, 2007,
2011; VICS, 2010; Baumann, 2010; Smith et al., 2010). The contingency approach to
CPFR demonstrates that there is not such a general rule as a CPFR model with specific
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

and rigid steps that would fit all companies, sectors and countries, regardless of
context and environments.

References
Attaran, M. (2004), “Nurturing the supply chain”, Industrial Management, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 16-20.
Attaran, M. and Attaran, S. (2007), “Collaborative supply chain management: the most promising
practice for building efficient and sustainable supply chains”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 390-404.
Audy, J.-F., Lehoux, N., D’Amours, S. and Rönnqvist, M. (2012), “A framework for an efficient
implementation of logistics collaborations”, International Transactions in Operational
Research, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 633-657.
Barratt, M. and Oliveira, A. (2001), “Exploring the experiences of collaborative planning
initiatives”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31,
No. 4, pp. 266-289.
Baumann, F. (2010), “The shelf-connected supply chain: strategically linking CPFR with &OP
at the executive level”, Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 21-28.
Burnette, R. (2010), “CPFR: fact, fiction, or fantasy?”, Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 32-35.
Büyüközkan, G., Feyzioğlu, O. and Vardaloğlu, Z. (2009), “Analyzing CPFR supporting factors
with fuzzy cognitive map approach”, World Academy of Science, Vol. 31 pp. 412-417.
Büyüközkan, G. and Vardaloğlu, Z. (2012), “Analyzing of CPFR success factors using fuzzy
cognitive maps in retail industry”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 12,
pp. 10438-10455.
Caridi, M., Cigolini, R. and De Marco, D. (2005), “Improving supply-chain collaboration by linking
intelligent agents to CPFR”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 20,
pp. 4191-4218.
Caridi, M., Cigolini, R. and De Marco, D. (2006), “Linking autonomous agents to CPFR to
improve SCM”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 465-482.
Cassivi, L. (2006), “Collaboration planning in a supply chain”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 249-258.
Chang, K.K. and Wang, F.K. (2008), “Applying six sigma methodology to collaborative
forecasting”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 39
Nos 9-10, pp. 1033-1044.
 IMDS Chang, T.-H., Fu, H.-P., Lee, W.-I., Lin, Y. and Hsueh, H.-C. (2007), “A study of an augmented CPFR
model for the 3C retail industry”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
114,6 Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 200-209.
Chen, M.-C., Yang, T. and Li, H.-C. (2007), “Evaluating the supply chain performance of
IT-based inter-enterprise collaboration”, Information & Management, Vol. 44 No. 6,
pp. 524-534.
960 Choi, T.-M. and Sethi, S. (2010), “Innovative quick response programs: a review”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 127 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Cohen, J. (1960), “A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales”, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 37-46.
Cooper, H. (2010), Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach, 4th ed.,
Applied Social Research Methods Series, 2 Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
D’Aubeterre, F., Singh, R. and Iyer, L. (2008), “A semantic approach to secure collaborative
inter-organizational e-business processes (SSCIOBP)”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 9 Nos 3-4, pp. 231-266.
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

Danese, P. (2006a), “How contextual factors shape CPFR collaborations: a theoretical

framework”, Supply Chain Forum, an International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 16-26.
Danese, P. (2006b), “Collaboration forms, information and communication technologies, and
coordination mechanisms in CPFR”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44
No. 6, pp. 3207-3226.
Danese, P. (2007), “Designing CPFR collaborations: insights from seven case studies”,
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 181-204.
Danese, P. (2011), “Towards a contingency theory of collaborative planning initiatives
in supply networks”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 49 No. 4,
pp. 1081-1103.
Danese, P., Romano, P. and Vinelli, A. (2004), “Managing business processes across supply
networks: the role of coordination mechanisms”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply
Management, Vol. 10 Nos 4-5, pp. 165-177.
Derrouiche, R., Neubert, G. and Bouras, A. (2008), “Supply chain management: a framework to
characterize the collaborative strategies”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 426-439.
Du, X.F., Leung, S.C.H., Zhang, J.L. and Lai, K.K. (2009), “Procurement of agricultural products
using the CPFR approach”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 253-258.
ECR, Europe (2001), A Guide to CPFR Implementation, ECR Europe facilitated by Accenture,
Brussels.
ECR, Europe (2002), European CPFR Insights, ECR European facilitated by Accenture, Brussels.
Esper, T.L. and Williams, L.R. (2003), “The value of collaborative transportation management
(CTM): its relationship to CPFR and information technology”, Transportation Journal,
Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 55-65.
Fliedner, G. (2003), “CPFR: an emerging supply chain tool”, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 14-21.
Ghosh, A. and Fedorowicz, J. (2008), “The role of trust in supply chain governance”, Business
Process Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 453-470.
Holmström, J., Främling, K., Kaipia, R. and Saranen, J. (2002), “Collaborative planning forecasting
and replenishment: new solutions needed for mass collaboration”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 136-145.
 Hvolby, H.-H. and Trienekens, J.H. (2010), “Challenges in business systems integration”, Collaborative
Computers in Industry, Vol. 61 No. 9, pp. 808-812.
planning
Ireland, R. (2005), “ABC of collaborative planning forecasting and replenishment”, The Journal of
Business Forecasting, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 3-10. forecast and
Lapide, L. (2010), “A history of CPFR”, Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29 No. 4, replenishment
pp. 29-31.
Larsen, T.S., Thernøe, C. and Andresen, C. (2003), “Supply chain collaboration: theoretical 961
perspectives and empirical evidence”, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 531-549.
McCarthy, T.M. and Golicic, S.L. (2002), “Implementing collaborative forecasting to improve
supply chain performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 431-454.
Paulk, M.C., Weber, C.V. and Chrissis, M.B. (1993), The Capability Maturity Model for Software,
Version 1.1, S.l ed. Software, Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University,
Pittsburgh, PA.
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

Poler, R., Hernandez, J.E., Mula, J. and Lario, F.C. (2008), “Collaborative forecasting in networked
manufacturing enterprises”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 19
No. 4, pp. 514-528.
Ramanathan, U. (2014), “Performance of supply chain collaboration – a simulation study”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 210-220.
Ramanathan, U. and Gunasekaran, A. (2014), “Supply chain collaboration: impact of success
in long-term partnerships”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147,
(Part B), pp. 252-259.
Sari, K. (2008a), “Inventory inaccuracy and performance of collaborative supply chain practices”,
Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 108 No. 4, pp. 495-509.
Sari, K. (2008b), “On the benefits of CPFR and VMI: a comparative simulation study”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 575-586.
Seifert, D. (2003), Collaborative Planning Forecasting and Replenishment: How to Create a Supply
Chain Advantage, AMACOM, Saranac Lake, NY.
Sherman, R.J. (1998), “Collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR): realizing
the promise of efficient consumer response through collaborative technology”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 6-9.
Shu, T., Chen, S., Xie, C., Wang, S. and Lai, K.K. (2010), “AVE-CPFR working chains on the
basis of selection model of collaborative credit-granting guarantee approaches”,
International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 301-325.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2004), “Benchmarking supply chain collaboration: an
empirical study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 484-503.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2005), “An integrative framework for supply chain
collaboration”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 257-274.
Småros, J. (2007), “Forecasting collaboration in the European grocery sector: observations
from a case study”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 702-716.
Smith, L., Andraski, J.C. and Fawcett, S.E. (2010), “Integrated business planning: a
roadmap to linking S&OP and CPFR”, Journal of Business Forecasting, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 4-13.
Sousa, R.S. and Voss, C.A. (2008), “Contingency research in operations management practices”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 697-713.
 IMDS Stank, T.P., Daugherty, P.J. and Autry, C.W. (1999), “Collaborative planning: supporting automatic
replenishment programs”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 4
114,6 No. 2, pp. 75-85.
Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Fernandez, N.S. and Scavarda, A.J. (2012), “Sales and operations
planning: a research synthesis”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 138
No. 1, pp. 1-13.
962 Thron, T., Nagy, G. and Wassan, N. (2006), “The impact of various levels of collaborative
engagement on global and individual supply chain performance”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 596-620.
Thron, T., Nagy, G. and Wassan, N. (2007), “Evaluating alternative supply chain structures
for perishable products”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 364-384.
Voluntary Inter-industry Commerce Standard (VICS) (1998), “CPFR Guidelines”, available at:
www.cpfr.org (accessed 1 February 2005).
VICS (2004), “CPFR an overview”, available at: www.gs1us.org (accessed 29 January 2013).
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

VICS (2010), “Linking CPFR and S&OP: a roadmap to Integrated Business Planning”, available at:
www.gs1us.org (accessed 29 January 2013).
Yao, Y., Kohli, R., Sherer, S.A. and Cederlund, J. (2013), “Learning curves in collaborative
planning, forecasting, and replenishment (CPFR) information systems: an empirical
analysis form a mobile phone manufacturer”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 31
No. 6, pp. 285-297.
Yuan, X., Shen, L. and Ashayeri, J. (2010), “Dynamic simulation assessment of collaboration
strategies to manage demand gap in high-tech product diffusion”, Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 647-657.
 Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

Inputs
Demand Inventory Source/delivery Finance
References Sales Forecast Impact Plans Marketing Policy Levels Production Plans Service level Plans Shipments Lead time Transportation Information Margin Appendix

Sherman (1998)
Stank et al. (1999) X X X
Barratt and Oliveira (2001) X X X
Holmström et al. (2002) X X X
McCarthy and Golicic (2002)
Esper and Williams (2003)
Fliedner (2003) X X X
Larsen et al. (2003) X X X X X X X
Attaran (2004)
Danese et al. (2004) X X X X X
Caridi et al. (2005) X X X X
Ireland (2005)
Simatupang and Sridharan (2005) X X X X X X X X X
Caridi et al. (2006) X X X X X X
Cassivi (2006)
Danese (2006a)
Danese (2006b) X X X X X X X X X X
Thron et al. (2006) X X X X X
Attaran and Attaran (2007) X X X X X X
Chang et al. (2007) X X X X X X X
Chen et al. (2007) X X X X
Danese (2007) X X X X X
Småros (2007) X X X X
Thron et al. (2007) X X X X X X
Chang and Wang (2008) X X X X
D’Aubeterre et al. (2008) X X X X X X X X X X
Derrouiche et al. (2008)
Ghosh and Fedorowicz (2008) X X X X X X
Poler et al. (2008) X X
Sari (2008a) X X X X
Sari (2008b) X X X X
Büyüközkan et al. (2009) X X X X X
Du et al. (2009) X X X X X X X X
Baumann (2010) X X X
Burnette (2010)
Choi and Sethi (2010) X X X
Hvolby and Trienekens (2010)
Lapide (2010)
Shu et al. (2010) X X X X X
Smith et al. (2010)
Yuan et al. (2010) X
Danese (2011) X X X X X X X
Büyüközkan and Vardaloğlu (2012) X X X
Audy et al. (2012) X X X X X X X
Yao et al. (2013) X X X X
Ramanathan (2014)
Ramanathan and Gunasekaran (2014) X X X X
replenishment
planning

of CPFR
classified by inputs,
Selected papers
forecast and

963

Table AI.
Collaborative

metrics and results

 Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

964
114,6
IMDS

Table AI.
Metrics Results
Market-related Operational Financial Market-related Operational
References Finance Order Services Material Time to Demand Order Service Material Material
Profitability Costs Forecast Sales fulfilment level Inventory flow Production Revenues Profitability Costs market Forecast Sales uncertainty Fulfilment level Inventory management flow Production

Sherman (1998) X X X X X
Stank et al. (1999) X X X X X X X X X X X
Barratt and Oliveira (2001) X X X X X X
Holmström et al. (2002) X X X X X
McCarthy and Golicic (2002) X
Esper and Williams (2003) X X X X X X
Fliedner (2003) X X X X X X X X X X
Larsen et al. (2003) X X X X
Attaran (2004) X X X X X X X X X
Danese et al. (2004)
Caridi et al. (2005) X X X X X
Ireland (2005) X X X X X
Simatupang and Sridharan (2005) X X X X X X X X X X X X
Caridi et al. (2006) X X X X X X
Cassivi (2006) X X X
Danese (2006a)
Danese (2006b) X X X X
Thron et al. (2006) X X X X X X X X X
Attaran and Attaran (2007) X X X X X X X X X X X
Chang et al. (2007) X X X X X X X
Chen et al. (2007) X X X X X X X X X X X
Danese (2007) X X X X X X X
Småros (2007) X X X X
Thron et al. (2007) X X X X
Chang and Wang (2008) X X X X X
D’Aubeterre et al. (2008) X X
Derrouiche et al. (2008)
Ghosh and Fedorowicz (2008) X X X X
Poler et al. (2008) X X X
Sari (2008a) X
Sari (2008b) X X X
Büyüközkan et al. (2009) X
Du et al. (2009) X X X X X X X X X X X X
Baumann (2010)
Burnette (2010) X X X X X
Choi and Sethi (2010)
Hvolby and Trienekens (2010) X
Lapide (2010) X X X X
Shu et al. (2010) X X
Smith et al. (2010) X X X X X X X X
Yuan et al. (2010) X X X X X X
Danese (2011)
Büyüközkan and Vardaloğlu (2012) X X X X
Audy et al. (2012)
Yao et al. (2013) X X X
Ramanathan (2014)
Ramanathan and Gunasekaran X X X X X
(2014)

Note: Features included in article are marked with an X

 About the authors Collaborative
Dr Antonio Marcio Tavares Thomé obtained his Doctoral and Master Degrees in Industrial
Engineering Department at PUC-Rio (Pontifı́cia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro).
planning
He graduated at the Political Sciences Institute of Bordeaux, France and obtained a Master forecast and
Degree in Demography at Sorbonne-Nouvelle, University of Paris I. His interests in the field replenishment
of engineering and organizational sciences are sales and operations planning, SC management,
inventory control and operations research. He is the Head of the Evaluation and Statistics 965
Department at BEMFAM – Family Welfare in Brazil. Currently he collaborates with the Catholic
University of Portugal (Porto) as Research Affiliate. He was a Postdoctoral Fellow and Visiting
Researcher at the University of Münster (Germany) and was formerly with Westinghouse
Electric Corporation, The Population Council and Cambridge Consulting Corporation. He has
published in international journals as Population Studies, Population et Société, Studies in Family
Planning, Industrial Management and Data Systems, International Journal of Production
Economics, International Journal of Production and Productivity Management and International
Journal of Production Research. Dr Antonio Marcio Tavares Thomé is the corresponding author
Downloaded by PUC RJ At 10:53 02 December 2014 (PT)

and can be contacted at: mthome@bemfam.org.br

Roberto Luis Hollmann is an Engineer at Petrobras. He obtained his undergraduate degree at
UNIVATES and his Master Degree in Industrial Engineering at PUC-Rio. His research interests
include operations management, mainly S&OP and CPFR.
Dr Luiz Felipe Roris Rodriguez Scavarda do Carmo is an Associate Professor of the Industrial
Engineering Department of PUC-Rio (Pontifı́cia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro).
He obtained his undergraduate, Master, and Doctoral Degrees in Industrial Engineering at
PUC-Rio. During 2000/2002 he joined the German Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing
Engineering and Automation and in 2009 he was a Visiting Research Professor at the Vienna
University of Technology. His research interests include supply chain flexibility, supply chain
risk management, product variety management and S&OP. Currently his is a researcher with
grant by the Brazilian National Research and Development Centre (CNPq). He has published
in journals as International Journal of Operations & Production Management, International
Journal of Production Economics, International Journal of Production Research, and Interfaces
and Bioresource Technology.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats