This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe
A swift response framework for measuring the strategic ﬁt for a horizontal collaborative initiative
Kobe NaesensÃ, Ludo Gelders, Liliane Pintelon
Centre for Industrial Management, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Available online 27 April 2007
Abstract Companies operate globally and face increasing competition. Collaboration between companies could be a critical factor to remain competitive. Extensive academic research addressed the collaboration inside a supply chain (vertical collaboration). Despite persuasive research, a literature survey indicates some major theoretical shortcomings, as presented in this paper. A major theoretical and practical shortcoming is the lack of a strategic decision support framework for the implementation of horizontal collaboration (collaboration between different supply chains). An appropriate collaborationfeasibility test is needed here. Two companies strategically ready to work together should ﬁrst test if no insurmountable practices inhibit the collaboration. If such practices are present, initiating a collaborative strategy will be probably a waste of time and effort. This paper starts with determining the key elements inﬂuencing feasibility based on a literature study and in-depth interviews in different companies. The Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model is used. These quantitative elements are hierarchically classiﬁed and are combined in a feasibility-test model. At the same time, lowerlevel hierarchical qualitative elements such as company characteristics are aggregated using the analytic hierarchy process as a method of multi-criteria decision-making and are integrated in the model in order to evaluate the different collaboration-types. The model is validated by means of several case studies of which one is presented in this paper. r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: SCM; Collaborative supply network; Strategic ﬁt; AHP; Case study
1. Introduction Companies are continuously searching for competitive advantage. This is necessary due to shorter product life cycles, shrinking proﬁt margins, increased delivery requirements and increased global competition. To maintain a competitive advantage, working together or collaborating could be a critical success factor. Collaboration may take several
E-mail address: Kobe.Naesens@cib.kuleuven.be (K. Naesens).
forms such as informal meetings or formal teams with members of different companies. In general, two types of collaboration can be distinguished, namely vertical and horizontal collaboration. The former can be deﬁned as collaboration between parties performing complementary activities or services while the latter indicates the collaboration between parties performing the same type of activities and/or services (Naesens et al., 2004b; Cruijssen et al., 2005). Traditionally, collaboration was limited to partners inside the supply chain, which was considered
0925-5273/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2007.04.004
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561 551
as an isolated system (vertical collaboration). Collaboration with companies of another supply chain (horizontal collaboration) is not yet widespread. Most horizontal collaboration can be found between companies of two non-competitive supply chains but collaboration can also exist between two directly competitive ﬁrms. A supply network is considered to be a non-serial structure and thus a structure consisting of vertical and horizontal collaboration (Naesens et al., 2004a). 2. Research focus Extensive academic research addressed the collaboration inside the supply chain or vertical collaboration. Almost all scholarly business journals (e.g. Operations & Production Management, Management Science, International Journal of Production Economics) published optimization models concerning this type of collaboration. Despite extensive academic research mentioning the importance of horizontal collaboration, studies (Naesens et al., 2004a; Cruijssen et al., 2005) showed the reluctance of companies to implement a supply network. A strategic decision support framework for implementing horizontal collaboration is not yet available. In this research, we focus on developing a decision support framework for the implementation of a speciﬁc type of horizontal collaboration, namely resource pooling in inventory management. The framework is depicted in Fig. 1. In the ﬁrst step, the objective of the collaboration should be identiﬁed. When focusing on pooling warehouses, the main reason to collaborate is mostly to diminish
STEP 1: objective of collaboration STEP 2: framework Level 1 : strategic fit • As is / To be (best practice) • Required improvements ? • Insurmountable practices ? Level 2 : strategic / tactical decisions • Identifying preferred partner(s) and defining goals • Pooling items, % of total stock, etc. • Agreements on sharing costs / benefits Level 3 : Implementing / maintaining • Building and maintaining trust
Fig. 1. Decision support framework for horizontal collaboration.
the handling and overhead costs. In the second step, the decision maker should walk through the different ‘levels’ of the framework. The framework developed consists of three levels. The ﬁrst level examines the strategic ﬁt between companies. The ‘‘as is/to be’’ situation and potential compatibilities as well as possible insurmountable practices are examined. In this level the potential partners are identiﬁed. Until here, no clear picture on the impact of the collaboration on costs and beneﬁts is available. The second level therefore identiﬁes the costs and beneﬁts for each partner. The decision maker can then decide whether pursuing the collaborative initiative is wise and if so, who should be the preferred partner(s). The third level considers implementing and sustaining the collaboration. Psychological elements such as trust are also considered. This (third) level is described in Naesens et al. (2006). This level presents some milestones necessary to enhance trust between the partners (including contractual agreements and the like). This paper addresses the ﬁrst level, the strategic ﬁt. The objective of the potential collaboration has been identiﬁed but a swift strategic ﬁt test should be performed in order to identify the potential partners. The concept of ﬁt received considerable attention. Studies (Chandler, 1962; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Thompson, 1967; Radder and Louw, 1998) deﬁned this concept as the ﬁt between the organizational structure, strategy, and/or the wider environment (external ﬁt) and the ﬁt among groups or units within the organization (internal ﬁt). Furthermore, Smith and Reece (1999) refer to Skinner (1969) who described, already in 1969, the need for companies to have the proper external ﬁt when developing and implementing a manufacturing strategy. The focus of this research is on the match between two companies, having their own operations and environment, with regard to horizontal collaboration (resource pooling in inventories). It takes time and resources to establish, maintain and develop business relationships between ﬁrms (Anderson et al., 2001). Therefore, checking the compatibility of the two companies in advance is very important. The deliverable of this part of the research is a practical tool for checking the strategic ﬁt between two companies willing to initiate resource pooling in inventory management. Decision makers of both companies should separately check, based on characteristics of both companies, if they do ﬁt or not.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
552 K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561
3. Methodology This study is based on a literature study and indepth case studies in eight companies located in Belgium. The companies have different strategies, products and environments. Each of the ﬁrst six (A–F) companies mentioned in Table 1 already had a collaborative partnership on inventory pooling with a company in the same sector. Most partnerships were successful except case study C because of a lack of strategic ﬁt. Furthermore, company G and H were added to the study to check if the tool developed is also usable in the so-called ‘soft-sector’ when the collaborative initiative is not focused on inventory pooling. All observations and interviews were performed by one of the authors together with a master’s student of the Faculty of Psychology of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. The persons interviewed were supply chain managers or board members and were selected because they were in charge of implementing or sustaining the collaborative initiative. The study started with a list of 300 different elements, based on literature study, conference papers and informal contacts with practitioners. A more in-depth literature study revealed that this list could be drastically reduced based on criteria as relevance, overlap, measurability, and the like. Eventually 58 performance elements were retained. The case studies conﬁrmed that these elements covered all relevant issues for the horizontal collaboration concerning resource pooling in inventory management.
Table 1 Case study companies Company A B C D E F G H Sector Transportation Transportation Telecom FMCG Chemical Beverages Knowledge institution Service provider for Prevention and security Categorization Belgium-France International National Multinational Multinational Multinational International National Size
During the interviews, both a questionnaire with a Likert-scale and open-questions have been used. The questionnaire has been structured around the three phases mentioned by Gray (1989): i.e. problem setting, direction setting and implementation. An extra phase was added incorporating general questions related to the partnership that were not speciﬁc for a phase mentioned by Gray (1989). It is not the purpose of this paper to provide statistical evidence on the selection of the criteria but rather to prove the practical relevance of the tool. Validation of the tool has been performed by different case studies of which one is described at the end of this paper. Furthermore, for each of the performance attributes, metrics have been determined based on the Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) model (Supply Chain Council, 2005). The performance attributes have been hierarchically classiﬁed to determine if collaboration is possible. Three different alternatives have been checked: no collaboration, informal collaboration or partnership. To achieve this, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been used because of the hierarchical nature of the problem and the independency of each of the identiﬁed performance attributes. 3.1. Principles of AHP When applying AHP, a hierarchical decision scheme is constructed by decomposing the decision problem into its decision elements. The importance or preferability of the decision elements are compared in a pair-wise manner with regard to
Person interviewed Sales manager Staff member Purchasing & contracting ofﬁcer Customer business development manager Procurement & logistics manager Senior ofﬁcer training & development Head information division personnel department Prevention advisor for psychological aspects
Collaboration Resource (truck) pooling Resource (truck) pooling R&D pooling Resource (warehouse) pooling Production pooling Training & development pooling Collaboration personnel department Collaboration psychological aspects
Small Medium Large Large Large Large Large Large
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561 553
the element preceding them in the hierarchy. Furthermore, numerical techniques are used to derive quantitative values from verbal comparisons (Kurttila et al., 2000). The advantages of AHP include its ability to make both qualitative and quantitative decision attributes commensurable, and its ﬂexibility with regard to the setting of the objective (Kangas, 1992). Because, the model described in this paper contains both qualitative and quantitative elements that may be assumed to be independent of each other, this method is appropriate. As mentioned, the decision maker evaluates all alternatives two by two. AHP uses simple pair-wise comparisons to determine weights and ratings so that the decision maker can concentrate on just two elements at a time. Pair-wise comparisons are quantiﬁed by using a scale aij. Such an element of the comparison matrix is a one-to-one mapping between the set of discrete linguistic choices, and a discrete set of numbers, which represent the importance, or weight, of the previous linguistic choices. The scale proposed by Saaty (1980) and used in this study is illustrated in Table 2. The quantiﬁed judgment on pairs of criteria Ci to Cj are represented by an n-by-n matrix (Saaty, 1980): A ¼ ðaij Þ with i; j ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . . ; n. To obtain the weight of each alternative, Saaty applied the expression Aw ¼ nw where w is an eigenvector of A with eigenvalue n. Notice that because of the reciprocity of the decision, aij ¼ 1/aji.
4. Applying AHP The above-described AHP method has been used to evaluate the strategic ﬁt between two companies willing to collaborate in the setting of resource pooling in inventory management. An example of this kind of pooling is found, e.g., when two companies with different stock keeping units share one warehouse lowering the handling costs. The swift-scan tool is not intended to perform an in-depth analysis (including determining the allocation of the costs and beneﬁts per partner). The tool however should help management in coping with the question if, based on a ﬁrst rough analysis, collaboration with the potential partner is feasible and/or desirable. The strategic ﬁt test is initiated when the objective for the collaborative initiative is formulated and possible partners identiﬁed. Some typical examples of objectives are: lowering costs, offering better service (lead-time reduction) and geographical coverage. An appropriate objective will highly inﬂuence the overall level of collaboration and will therefore affect the next steps of the analysis. 4.1. AHP step 1: the hierarchical structure In AHP, a problem is structured as a hierarchy. Therefore, the ﬁrst step is to break down the multicriteria problem into a hierarchical sequence with evaluation criteria and alternatives. In this study, ﬁve levels have been determined namely goal, criteria, subcriteria, elements and alternatives (see Fig. 2). The number of levels was limited in order to create an ‘easy’ to manage improvement analysis tool. (1) Goal: the goal of the tool is to test which alternative would be optimal based on the different characteristics of the potential partnering company, product or service, environment, etc. (2) Alternatives: three different types of collaboration are considered here, no collaboration, informal collaboration and partnership. The deﬁnition and delineation of the types of collaboration is discussed in Naesens et al. (2004a) in which a more extensive overview of partnerships has been developed. (3) Criteria: the goal is ﬁrst divided into four criteria. The four criteria resulting from this
Table 2 AHP-scale proposed by Saaty (1980) Intensity of importance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Deﬁnition
Equal Between equal and moderate Moderate Between moderate and strong Strong Between strong and very strong Very strong Between very strong and extreme Extreme Decimal judgements are allowed for ﬁne tuning.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
554 K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561
Fig. 2. Hierarchical structure for evaluating strategic ﬁt.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561 555
research are: company characteristics, competitive advantage, internal processes and external parameters. (4) Subcriteria: at this level, the criteria are subdivided into more speciﬁc elements. Company characteristics are divided into company structure, ﬁnancial strength, image and general company characteristics. Competitive advantage is subdivided into product/service and general competitive advantage. The internal processes criterion is subdivided into three more speciﬁc subcriteria namely the (rather) operational, tactical and strategic elements and external parameters is subdivided further into industry-speciﬁc elements and general external parameters. (5) Elements: each of the above subcriteria is furthermore subdivided into a limited number of elements per subcriterion. For example, company structure is subdivided into the scale of the company and the decision structure. Those elements were mentioned to be important during the case studies and also emerged from the literature study. All elements can be found in Fig. 2. Based on the results obtained from case study companies G and H, it became clear that only the operational elements (subcriterion internal processes) needed to be customized when considering another type of horizontal collaboration. The tool can thus be considered to be a generic tool for horizontal collaboration (with some minor customization when not focusing on resource pooling). Also for each of the elements a metric based on the SCOR model is determined. The SCOR model is a process reference model. Speciﬁcally, it links process elements, metrics, best practices and features associated with the execution of a supply chain in a unique format. The use of this process reference model allows companies to communicate using common terminology and standard descriptions of the process elements. It helps to understand the overall supply chain management process and the best practices that yield the optimal overall performance (Huang et al., 2005). For example, reliability could be measured by ‘Perfect order fulﬁllment’, i.e., percentage of accuracy in order delivery time, amount and place. Note that the qualitative elements, e.g., environmental reputation, cannot be translated into a metric. The decision maker should therefore make judgments by using, for example, a Likert-scale.
4.2. AHP step 2: deﬁning the speciﬁc objective The overall objective of the collaboration has been determined, in this case a reduction of handling costs and warehousing overhead. A keen insight in the overall objective of the collaboration is necessary in order to be able to determine the case-depending operational internal parameters. In AHP-step 2, the objective of the collaboration should be more speciﬁcally stated. In this step, the overall objective of the ﬁrst step should be preferably quantiﬁed. For example, with the resource pooling initiative, the objective is to obtain a cost reduction of 10% concerning handling and overhead cost in warehousing. 4.3. AHP step 3: listing possible partnering companies In this research, a list of possible partnering companies is assumed to be available. This is acceptable because in a business context, a company willing to engage in collaboration mostly knows in advance the set of potential partnering companies. These companies will also perform a similar check. Examples of important parameters for possible partnering companies are: product rotation, critical volume and physical characteristics. The outcome of this step is a list with companies for which at ﬁrst sight a collaboration strategy could help to reach the previously mentioned objective. 4.4. AHP step 4: assigning weights When the objective has been set, the decision maker should give relative weights to the elements, subcriteria and criteria. This can be done by ﬁlling in the developed matrices by using a Likert-scale. Who is involved in this step depends on the structure and size of the company. Mostly, weights are given by top-management in SMEs and by a middle-management project team in larger companies. For user-friendliness, scores could be given in matrix format. Example (Table 3): in terms of achieving a higher general competitive advantage, what is the relative impact of each element? In terms of general competitive advantage, market share is moderately more important than customer loyalty (3) and strongly more important than vertical integration (5) and technological know-how (5).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
556 K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561
Customer loyalty is ‘between moderately and strongly’ more important than vertical integration (4) and moderately more important than technological know-how (3). Finally, vertical integration has equal importance as technological know-how (1) when describing general competitive advantage. The same methodology is used to gather the relative weights for the other elements, subcriteria and criteria. The weights are independent of the partners considered and should therefore not be reassigned when evaluating other partners. As such, the method is a quick scan tool for multiple potential partners (Table 3). 4.5. AHP step 5: evaluating the alternatives Once the weights are given, the decision maker should evaluate the performance of the potential partner on the different elements. Remember that the potential partner will perform the same strategic ﬁt in the ﬁrst company. For each element, every possible combination of two alternatives is judged. The score (performance) of the potential partnering company is given for each element and the decision maker should judge based on this score if no collaboration, informal collaboration or a partnership is more appropriate. Example (Table 4): based on the quality of the products of the partnering company, the decision maker strongly prefers informal collaboration above no collaboration (1/5); moderately prefers a partnership above no collaboration (1/3) and
moderately prefers informal collaboration above a partnership (3). The performances of the elements are mostly easy to answer by middle or top management of the company and are therefore not time or money consuming. This is of course a main requirement for a ﬁrst quick strategic ﬁt scan (Table 4). By calculating the weight for each element relative to the strategic ﬁt (thus taking into account the weights given to the elements, subcriteria and criteria), the decision maker can determine the most important elements and thus limit the amount of information to be gathered or measured. In this way, the decision maker can even fasten up the strategic ﬁt check. Although reducing the number of elements will inherently cause a less punctual check. As mentioned, the partnering company will perform the same strategic ﬁt check. Furthermore, the decision makers have to decide if the test results are shared with the partnering company or not. Sharing the information on weaknesses and strengths of the potential partnering company can be a motivation for improvement and thus enhance the initial conditions for future partnerships. 4.6. AHP step 6: selecting the appropriate alternative In the ﬁnal step, the most appropriate alternative is selected by means of a linear additive function, in which the relative priorities for an alternative are multiplied by the importance of the element, subcriterion and criterion (Table 5).
Table 3 Example of pair-wise comparison of elements in terms of general competitive advantage General competitive advantage Market share Customer loyalty Vertical integration Technological know-how Market share Customer loyalty 3 Vertical integration 5 4 Technological know-how 5 3 1
Table 4 Pair-wise comparison of alternatives Quality of products No collaboration Informal collaboration Partnership No collaboration Informal collaboration 1/5 Partnership 1/3 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561 Table 5 Selection of alternative Name No collaboration Informal collaboration Partnership Normals 0.28 0.31 0.41 Table 6 Selection of alternatives—case study Name No collaboration Informal collaboration Partnership Normals 0.09 0.27 0.64 557
In this example, a partnership is preferred above informal collaboration or no collaboration (0.41 versus 0.31 and 0.28). From this table, the decision maker can estimate if the possible partnering company does strategically ﬁt or not. Notice that this method does not give the decision maker a ‘black or white’ solution. The decision maker gets an indication how well the potential partnering company ﬁts! Furthermore, it is possible to track down why a certain alternative is preferred above another. It is therefore possible to ﬁnd the required improvements and determine if there are insurmountable practices making the partnership a ﬁnishing story. 4.7. AHP step 7: check consistency The consistency ratio of the judgments should be checked. Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the maximum eigenvalue lmax from Aw ¼ lmax w where ¯ ¯ w is the normalized eigenvector of A and A the ¯ matrix. Notice that lmaxXn with n the number of elements. The closer lmax is to n, the more consistent will be the judgments provided. Here, n is the number of elements and A the matrix. The Consistency Index can be calculated as follows: CI ¼ lmax À n . nÀ1
The consistency ratio (CR) is obtained by dividing the CI value by the corresponding Random Consistency Index evaluated by Saaty through the generation of a random matrix with different dimensions (n) (Saaty, 1980). A CRp0.1 is considered acceptable. 5. Case study The above-described model has been tested by several case studies of which one is described in this paper.
The strategic ﬁt has been tested in a chemical company located in the Antwerp region, Belgium. The company belongs to a multinational group and employs about 850 full-time equivalents. The person interviewed was the Supply Chain Manager responsible for the on-going collaborative initiative. The goal of this initiative is to diminish the total logistics cost by economies of scale and scope. Table 6 presents the overall result of the strategic ﬁt test. Notice that a partnership is strongly preferred above informal collaboration and no collaboration. In order to evaluate the different elements, these are ranked according to their weight. Subgroup A gathers the 10% most important elements, subgroup B the 10–30% next most important elements, subgroup C the following 40–70% elements and ﬁnally subgroup D the remaining 40%. Appendix 1 gives an overview of the outcome. Most focus will of course be given to subgroups A and B when evaluating the strategic ﬁt. As can be seen in Fig. 3 and Appendix 1, all elements of subgroup A except customer orientation are pointing to a partnership. One can thus conclude that those parameters will not endanger a potential collaborative initiative. However, for the element ‘customer orientation’, which is a major element, a partnership is not preferred above informal collaboration or no collaboration. Improving this element can lead thus to an overall improved partnership (and lead to a long-term strategic advantage). When analyzing subgroup B (see Fig. 4 and Appendix 1), one notices that for most of the elements a partnership is preferred. For one element, business performance, informal collaboration is preferred. This is thus a potential threat for the partnership and should be improved. Furthermore, for four elements no preferability is identiﬁed. By improving as well those parameters, the overall partnership could be improved.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
558 K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561
Subgroup A 1 Decision taking structure
9 8 7 6
Partnership Informal collaboration No collaboration
6 General culture
5 4 3 2
2 Environmental reputation
3 Outsourcing strategies
3 Customer orientation
3 Geographical issues
Fig. 3. Analysis subgroup A.
Subgroup B 17 Shareholders expectations
7 Partner / competitor
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Partnership Informal collaboration No collaboration
17 Ease exit from market
8 ICT integration
16 Business performance
10 Defensive / offensive
15 Decision taking speed
10 Top management involvement
14 Previous partnerships 13 Time-horizon
12 General reputation
Fig. 4. Analysis subgroup B.
The elements of subgroups C and D are analyzed in a similar way but due to their relative limited importance, details are not provided in this paper.
6. Conclusions and contributions This research focuses on the strategic ﬁt between two companies planning to initiate resource pooling
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561 559
in inventories. In real-life, strategic ﬁt is mostly measured based on maximum 10 parameters. This reduces its accuracy tremendously and causes a lot of unsuccessful partnerships because of a lack of strategic ﬁt. In order to remediate this, this study develops a tool taking into account a broader set of key elements when measuring the strategic ﬁt. The practical tool is based on a literature study and indepth interviews. In a ﬁrst step, 58 key elements in evaluating the strategic ﬁt are considered. The identiﬁcation of those elements is one of the major strengths of this research because the decision maker is now able to check the strategic ﬁt based on 58 well-known or easy to measure parameters. AHP was used to group them into subcriteria and criteria. In a next step, the alternatives have been scored for every element and weights for each of the elements, subcriteria and criteria have been determined. Finally, this results in ranking the alternatives (no collaboration, informal collaboration or partnership) based on the strategic ﬁt. Each of the partnering companies should perform this strategic
ﬁt test and it is up to the decision makers if the information about the strengths and weaknesses of the partnering companies is shared or not. Furthermore, this tool can be used to classify best ﬁtting companies out of a large list of candidate companies. A last beneﬁt is the use of the tool as an evaluation tool once the partnership has been implemented and as such it helps to pinpoint areas for constant improvement during the partnership. The tool developed adds value to the ﬁrst phase of setting up horizontal collaboration. It ensures that going ahead with a partnership is only undertaken while conﬁdent that there is a strategic ﬁt with the intended partners. This avoids wasting time and money trying to set up partnerships with unsuitable partners. It is recommended to involve a multidisciplinary team in carrying out the strategic ﬁt study in order to avoid any subjective bias from individual decision makers. 7. APPENDIX 1 Table A1
Table A1 Ranking Elements Value Partnership Informal collaboration 2.13 0.75 1.00 3.08 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.67 1.67 1.00 2.60 0.75 1.67 2.13 1.25 3.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 No collaboration 0.21 0.63 1.00 0.14 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.27 0.25 1.00 0.17 0.63 0.25 0.19 0.38 0.38 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 C Subgroup
1 2 3 3 3 6 7 8 8 10 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 19 20 20 22 22 22 22
Decision taking structure Environmental reputation Customer orientation Geographical issues Outsourcing strategies General culture Partner/competitor Communication ICT integration Defensive/offensive Top management involvement General reputation Time-horizon Previous partnerships Decision taking speed Business performance Ease exit from market Shareholders expectations Lead-time Complementary Demand variability Total inventory cost #SKU’s Inventory turnover Service level
111.11 80.00 33.33 33.33 33.33 29.44 26.30 16.20 16.20 14.81 14.81 8.89 8.87 8.65 7.72 4.39 4.20 4.20 2.61 2.48 2.48 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44
5.00 3.00 1.00 7.50 4.50 4.50 1.00 4.00 4.50 1.00 6.00 3.00 4.50 6.00 3.00 1.17 1.00 1.00 1.50 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00
ARTICLE IN PRESS
560 Table A1 (continued ) Ranking Elements Value Partnership Informal collaboration 1.67 1.00 2.13 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.25 3.50 1.00 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 1.00 2.60 2.13 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.50 1.25 1.00 2.60 1.00 1.00 1.00 No collaboration 0.25 1.00 0.19 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.38 0.29 1.00 0.42 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 1.00 0.16 0.21 0.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.29 0.42 1.00 0.17 1.00 1.00 1.00 D Subgroup K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561
26 27 27 29 29 31 31 31 31 35 36 37 37 39 39 39 42 43 44 45 45 45 48 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 55 57 58
Reliability Level Scope Investments Collaborative planning Market share Customer loyalty Vertical integration Technological know-how Scale Growth potential Supplementary Competitive pressure Flexibility Control Size of products Financial stability Proﬁt potential Quality of services Productivity Capacity utilization Quality product/service Entry barriers Technological change Price elasticity Capital required/available General business risk Capital intensity Resource utilization Quality of products Product life cycles Juridische grenzen Inﬂation rate
2.38 2.37 2.37 2.01 2.01 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.96 1.74 1.50 1.20 1.20 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.69 0.69 0.59 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.27 0.26 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.02
4.50 1.00 6.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.67 1.00 2.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.00 6.50 5.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 2.50 1.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Anderson, H., Havila, V., Salmi, A., 2001. Can you buy a business relationship? On the importance of customer and supplier relationships in acquisitions. Industrial Marketing Management 30, 575–586. Chandler, A.D., 1962. Strategy and Structure. MIT Press, Cambridge. Cruijssen, F., Cools, M., Dullaert, W., 2005. Horizontal cooperation in logistics: opportunities and impediments. Transportation Research E43, 129–142. Gray, B., 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Huang, S.A., Sheoran, S.K., Keskar, H., 2005. Computer assisted supply chain conﬁguration based on supply chain operations reference (SCOR) model. Computers & Industrial Engineering 48, 377–394. Kangas, J., 1992. Multiple use of planning of forest resources by using the analytic hierarchy process. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 7, 259–268.
Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., Kangas, J., Kajanus, M., 2000. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its application to a forestcertiﬁcation case. Forest Policy and Economics 1, 41–52. Lawrence, P.R., Lorsch, J., 1967. Organization and Environment. Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston. Naesens, K., Gelders, L., Pintelon, L., Vannieuwenhuyse, B., 2004a. Collaborative supply chain networks, a state-of-the-art literature study. In: Proceedings of 13th International Working Seminar on Production Economics, vol. 1. Igls, Austria. pp. 321–337. Naesens, K., Gelders, L., Pintelon, L., Vannieuwenhuyse, B., 2004b. Collaborative supply networks. A state-of-the-art literature study. In: Biannual Beta Conference, Eindhoven, September 28–30, 2004, available online /www.tue.nl/betaS. Naesens, K., Pintelon, L., Taillieu, T., 2006. Implementing and maintaining trust in horizontal partnerships. Working Paper Series—Centre for Industrial Management, KULeuven, Belgium.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K. Naesens et al. / Int. J. Production Economics 121 (2009) 550–561 Radder, L., Louw, L., 1998. The SPACE matrix: a tool for calibrating competition. Long Range Planning 31 (4), 549–559. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGrawHill, New York. Skinner, W., 1969. Manufacturing-missing link in corporate strategy. Harvard Business Review 47 (3), 136–145. 561 Smith, T.M., Reece, J.S., 1999. The relationship of strategy, ﬁt, productivity and business performance in a services setting. Journal of Operations Management 17, 145–161. Supply Chain Council, 2005. Supply-Chain Operations Reference Model Version 7.0. Supply Chain Council, Inc. Thompson, J.D., 1967. Organizations in action. McGraw-Hill, New York.