6. DISCUSSION
6.5 Conclusion
Despite burgeoning literature on IIS, the guiding principles that are essential to an understanding of this process are still evolving. Several researchers have expounded the benefits of IIS to the overall supply network. Yet the “emergent, dynamic and unpredictable” nature of supply networks (Choi et al. 2001) presents challenges for organizations and oftentimes the purported benefits do not materialize.
Many managers are unsure on how best to leverage their resources so that they can capitalize on the information sharing opportunities that are available. Our research study, in addition to its theoretical contributions, moved towards filling this gap by suggesting that structural factors, such as the design of the supply network, play a significant role in facilitating IIS. Additionally the role of the coordination structure and its influence on the type of IIS in a SN were investigated. We also added some clarity on how IIS can impact performance by identifying some uncertainty conditions that can determine whether or not performance benefits accrue to the supply network. From our exploration emerged a clearer picture of some of the dynamics associated with a supply network. An understanding of these issues can help propel organizations and guide managers on how best to navigate the complex and fast moving environment within which they operate.
Transaction cost economics and social network theories provided the theoretical lens for our study. Cross-sectional data collected from manufacturing industries validated our assertions that the structure of the supply network plays a part in the type of information shared and corroborated other research findings, that IIS can improve performance.
APPENDIX A –Typology of IIS (Samaddar et al. 2004)
New Typology of IIS
To reduce uncertainty or the ill effects of uncertainty, firms need to interact frequently, which requires sharing of information. While the degree of interaction, which can be interpreted as frequency of sharing, is important, the quality or richness of information shared is also important (Daft et al. 1986). Even though the scope of the information does not mean richness of the information, most of operational information is less rich than strategic information as mentioned. Therefore, by knowing the scope of information, it is possible to guess the richness of information. Scale-based IIS types focus only on quantity of information shared, not quality of information shared. In contrast, scope-based IIS types focus only on quality of information, which misses the frequency of interaction. Clearly, the uni-dimensional IIS typology is not an effective way of classifying various forms of IIS. As a result, we propose a new typology of IIS by using two dimensions: frequency and scope. We represent the decision of ‘what to share’ by the scope of the information (operational vs. strategic), and the decision of ‘how to share’ by the frequency of information sharing (low vs. high). Both dimensions are needed to gain a more comprehensive understanding of IIS strategies than what is afforded by the literature. This two- dimensional framework is presented in the table below.
Type
Frequency Operational Strategic
Low
Type I
Lower information cost Low concern about security and proprietary information
Type 3
Low information cost High concern about security and proprietary information
High
Type 2
High information cost Low concern about security and proprietary information
Type 4
Higher information cost High concern about security and proprietary information
Table A -1. Typology of IIS
In this framework, Type 1 (Type 2) IIS has a capability of sharing operational information with low (high) frequency. Similarly, Type 3 (Type 4) has a capability of sharing strategic information with low (high) frequency. Note that operational (Type 1 and 2) IIS deals with mostly quantitative and simple data and information. On the contrary, strategic (Type 3 and 4) IIS deals with mostly qualitative information and knowledge. In this typology strategic
frequency sharing. That is, for example, it is possible to do Type 1 IIS using Type 2 IIS. However, having Type 2 IIS in the place of Type 1 IIS will create higher cost (for example, information cost) than the case of having appropriate type of IIS (i.e., Type 1). In this paper, we define information costs as the combined costs associated with acquiring information, processing the acquired information, and building and maintaining system(s) that facilitate information sharing. To facilitate information flow, supply network can implement various information system such as direct connect, outsourcing or third party provider of information system (Premkumar 2000); Each of these options has pros and cons. As cost-effective information system is one of the key drivers of supply network management (Lee et al. 2000b), identifying appropriate types of IIS is important task when the organization design and manage the supply network. By knowing what type of information sharing is required, the organizations can build appropriate information system.
Low frequency/operational IIS (Type 1)
Type 1 IIS involves the occasional sharing of information. Tasks that impact transacting parties are normally well-structured with standardized procedures for handling activities so that information only needs to be shared when there are exceptions, which occurs seldom. Under these circumstances, coordination costs, which are associated with managing interdependent activities, are low as there is very little need for operational information to be shared regularly to facilitate task completion. Decision rights are often decentralized for the well-structured task or process, and frequent information sharing is not required in those situations (Anand et al. 1997). There are also few exceptions in the process or task, and therefore entities can rely primarily on local knowledge and information to make decisions. As a result, Type 1 IIS is often employed in decentralized decision structures, where information costs are low (Anand et al. 1997).
With Type 1 IIS there is often no need for advanced IT to transmit information owing to the low frequency of information sharing and the nature of information. As a consequence there is more flexibility with the communication media that can be utilized. In situations where simple technology, such as FAX and e-mail can be used, implementation costs are expected to be low.
Owing to the short-term nature of operational decisions and the ease with which actions taken can be reversed (Hitt et al. 1999), firms are not that concerned with information leakage to potential competitors. Therefore security and proprietary concerns with respect to the
information shared tend to be low.
High frequency/operational IIS (Type 2)
In Type 2 IIS, information is shared on a recurrent basis to facilitate activities such as production planning, or delivery scheduling. Although these tasks are well-structured and are not complex, they are sensitive to many disturbances (or uncertainties) both those internal and external to the supply network. The use of automated systems is prevalent in these situations in order to handle the flow of information in a timely manner and with a high degree of accuracy. For instance, at Chrysler where frequent and accurate communication was required between the assembly plants and suppliers, the implementation of EDI allowed suppliers to obtain real time information on the precise requirements of the assembly plants and, in turn, to provide the plants
Even with frequent information sharing in this type of IIS, much of the information sharing can be handled using automated systems, because the information shared tends to be well-structured and quantitative. Therefore, human intervention can often be avoided. This allows transacting agents to switch their focus from regulating operational exchanges to concentrating on other cooperative activities with their partners (Bensaou 1997).
The information costs associated with Type 2 IIS will be higher than for Type 1 owing to the potential need for automated systems in the former. In the absence of an automated system more human resources have to be used for Type 2 to regulate high frequency exchanges, which increases the information costs due to high processing cost. In addition, unlike Type 1 IIS, high frequency information sharing is often found where decision rights are centralized and this also leads to high information cost (Anand et al. 1997). Security and proprietary concern are also low owing to the nature of the information shared.
Low frequency/strategic IIS (Type 3)
Type 3 IIS is used to assist various strategic decisions in cases where information sharing is needed infrequently, which often means that information shared requires less interaction. However, due to its nature, which is often qualitative and non-standardized, strategic information is not as suitable for automation as operational information. Also, common language between transacting parties about the information shared is required to interpret such information and use it uniformly towards decision making [reference]. Such language is needed to share and integrate aspects of knowledge [and information] that is not common between individuals (Grant 1996). Without common knowledge, parties have no choice but to share information frequently in order to alleviate misunderstanding. Thus, a necessary condition for Type 3 IIS is a common language between source and recipient. Note, however, that it is possible to have frequent information sharing (i.e., Type 4 IIS) even with the presence of common knowledge between firms. For example, if high interaction is required for a certain task (such as innovative new product development), then even with the presence of common language parties will share information more frequently. Where parties are in the same industry and have a long history of relationship they are more prone to have this common language.
Similar to Type 1, Type 3 IIS is more suitable where decision rights are decentralized because the frequency of information sharing is low (Anand et al. 1997). Thus information costs are low. In general, sharing strategic information is more difficult than operational information because it requires a richer communication media (Daft et al. 1986). Therefore information costs are higher for Type 3 than for Type 1 and Type 2.
Strategic decisions usually make a significant contribution to the overall success of the organization and can have far reaching implications. Owing to the long-term nature of such decisions and the difficulty to reverse any action taken, firms need to institute protective measures to safeguard their information from potential competitors. As a result, these types of information have a higher concern about security and proprietary issues compared to operational information. Even with commonalities, fear of information leakage will make parties share strategic information infrequently(Seidmann et al. 1998).
High frequency/strategic IIS (Type 4)
Type 4 IIS involves recurrent information flow between parties. This occurs in
collaborative endeavors where timely information is critical to the completion of the activity. In addition, frequent information exchange is often required in order to obtain accurate
interpretation (due to the lack of common language or to the novel technologies used) of strategic information and to ensure effective coordination with all the relevant parties.
For example, consumer demand is often forecasted jointly by manufacturers and retailers such as Wal-mart and Target using collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment
(CPFAR) initiatives (Kiely 1998). The key characteristics of CPFAR are the sharing of real-time inventory data by retailers with manufacturers allowing forecasts to be developed in a timely manner and continuous replenishment of retailer inventory by manufacturers. Even though forecasting customer demand can be considered simple, each firm may have different formulas, safety stock requirement, etc. (i.e., lack of common languages) This forces the firms to have more interaction, thus frequent recurrent information exchange, to ensure correct understanding of strategic information (e.g., forecasting formulas or safety stock requirement) provided.
In many of these collaborative ventures, IT often plays a critical role (Premkumar 2000), since the information in Type 4, unlike Types 1 and 2, is often complex and requires rich
communication media such as face-to-face meeting or video conferencing (Roberts 2000). Potential drawbacks could exist at many levels, such as high security and proprietary concern and poor standard of communication. Of all four types of IIS, Type 4 IIS has the highest information costs due to the combination of high frequency and the nature of the information, which requires common language for interpretation (Choudhury et al. 1997)
APPENDIX B – SURVEY
B1. Introduction to Survey
You are invited to participate in our survey on Information Sharing between firms in supply networks. In this survey, you will be asked to pick one top tier supplier (e.g. S1) and one top tier customer (e.g. C1), as shown below, who are external to your firm and with whom your firm transacts directly.
The supplier and customer selected must be part of the same supply network. Thus an item (e.g.
product/part/subassembly) bought from supplier S1 must be used to produce an item sold to customer C1.
Section 1 of this questionnaire focuses on the relationship between your firm and one supplier (the link between S1 and your firm). Section 2 focuses on the relationship between your firm and one customer (the link between your firm and C1).
In section 3 we focus on the supply network as shown below:
Here we are interested in all the immediate suppliers and customers that your firm transacts with for the item referenced in sections 1 and 2.
It will take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete the questionnaire.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There are no foreseeable risks associated with this project. However, if you feel uncomfortable answering any questions, you can withdraw from the survey at any point. Please answer all questions as completely as possible in order to facilitate a comprehensive analysis of the data. Feel free to consult with the relevant persons in your firm if you do not have all the information necessary to answer a question. Your survey responses will be strictly confidential and data from this research will be reported only in the aggregate. Your information will be coded and will remain confidential.
If you have questions at any time about the survey or the procedures, you may contact Marcia Daley at 404 217- 2889 or by email at [email protected].
Thank you very much for your time and support. Please start with the survey now by clicking on the Continue button below.
B.2. Qualifying question (Qualify)
On average, how much of your time do you spend on activities and decision-making issues related to your firm’s supply networks (suppliers, customers)?
1) 0-10% 2) 11-20% 3) 21-30% 4) 31-40% 5)41-50% 6) 51-60% 7) 61-70% 8) 71-80% 9) >80%
B3. MEASUREMENT ITEMS
SECTION 1 - YOUR SUPPLIER
Consider a supplier that provides your firm with an item (e.g. material/part/ subassembly) used to generate a significant portion of your firms revenue. Please respond to the following questions and statements in reference to this supplier.
Years Working with Supplier – (YRSWS)
How long has your firm been doing business with this supplier? (Check one) 1. Not Applicable
2. Less than 1 year 3. 1-3 years 4. 4-5 years 5. 6-10 years
6. More than 10 years Operational Information Sharing
(Seven-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree / Strongly Agree)
Your firm shares the following operational information with this supplier: 1. Production schedules. (SOIS1)
2. Advanced shipping notices. (SOIS2) 3. Order status. (SOIS3)
4. Inventory levels. (SOIS4)
Frequency of Operational Information Sharing – (SOISF)
In general, how frequently does your firm share operational information with this supplier? 1. Not Applicable
2. Never 3. Rarely
4. Most months within a year 5. 1-3 times/month
6. Weekly 7. Most days
Strategic Information Sharing
(Seven-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree / Strongly Agree)
Your firm shares the following strategic information with this supplier: 1. Target markets. (SSIS1)
2. Product development. (SSIS2) 3. Distribution strategies. (SSIS3)
5. Facility layout. (SSIS5) 6. Capacity planning. (SSIS6) 7. Sourcing plans. (SSIS7) 8. Research. (SSIS8)
Frequency of Strategic Information Sharing ( SSISF)
In general, how frequently does your firm share strategic information with this supplier? 1. Not Applicable
2. Never 3. Rarely
4. Most months within a year 5. 1-3 times/month
6. Weekly 7. Most days
Supplier Partner Information Visibility
(Seven-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree / Strongly Agree)
We are interested in determining if the information that this supplier shares with you is useful for assessing its operations. Please select the response that best describes the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements.
1. The information received from this supplier is generally accurate. (SPII1) 2. The information received from this supplier is generally timely. (SPII2)
3. Based on our past experience, the information received from this supplier is normally adequate to assess its operations. (SPII3)
Variability in Supplier Capability*
We are interested in determining this supplier’s ability to deliver on time and with acceptable quality. Please select the response that best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements
(Seven-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree / Strongly Agree)
1. This supplier has the resources (e.g. skill level of workforce, plant capacity, manpower) to deliver in a timely manner even if there are significant product/component changes. (SVPC1)
2. The quality of work received from this supplier will not deteriorate, even if there is significant product, or component changes. (SVPC2)
3. This supplier has the resources to deliver in a timely manner despite significant process changes. (SVPC3) 4. The quality of work received from this supplier will not deteriorate with significant process changes.
(SVPC4)
5. This supplier has the resources to deliver in a timely manner despite significant technology interface changes. (SVPC5)
6. The quality of work received from this supplier will not deteriorate despite significant technology interface changes. (SVPC6)
*Reverse coded - High values indicate low variability (low uncertainty) Supplier Performance
(Seven-point Likert scale: Greatly Below Average / Greatly Above Average) Please rate your supplier’s performance with respect to the following:
1. Delivery performance to commit date. (SDREL1) 2. Fill rate. (SDREL2)
3. Customer satisfaction with orders. (SDREL3) 4. Order fulfillment lead times. (SDRESP)
SECTION 2 - YOUR CUSTOMER
Consider now a top-tier customer who purchases a significant amount of an item (e.g. product/part/subassembly) from your firm. Note: This customer must be one for whom the item referenced in section 1 is required in order to fulfill its orders.
Please respond to the following questions and statements in reference to this customer. How long has your firm been doing business with this customer? (Check one) (YRSWC)
1. Less than 1 year 2. 1-3 years 3. 4-5 years 4. 6-10 years
5. More than 10 years
Location of the Customer in the Supply Network (CLOC)
Please select one of the following to describe the position of this customer in the supply network 1.Raw material Distributor
2.Intermediate product/part/subassembly Manufacturer 3.Intermediate product/part/subassembly Distributor 4.Final product Manufacturer
5.Wholesaler/Distributor
6.Retailer/Distributor to the public 7.Consumer
8.Other
Operational Information Sharing
(Seven-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree / Strongly Agree)
Your firm shares the following operational information with this customer: 1. Production schedules. (COIS1)
2. Advanced shipping notices. (COIS2) 3. Order status. (COIS3)
4. Inventory levels. (COIS4)
Frequency of Operational Information Sharing (COISF)
In general, how frequently does your firm share operational information with this customer? 1. Not Applicable
2. Never 3. Rarely
4. Most months within a year 5. 1-3 times/month
6. Weekly 7. Most days
Strategic Information Sharing
(Seven-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree / Strongly Agree) Your firm shares the following strategic information with this supplier:
1. Target markets. (CSIS1) 2. Product development. (CSIS2) 3. Distribution strategies. (CSIS3) 4. Promotional strategies. (CSIS4) 5. Facility layout. (CSIS5) 6. Capacity planning. (CSIS6) 7. Sourcing plans. (CSIS7)
Frequency of Strategic Information Sharing (CSISF)
In general, how frequently does your firm share strategic information with this customer? 1. Not Applicable
2. Never 3. Rarely
4. Most months within a year 5. 1-3 times/month
6. Weekly 7. Most days
Partner Information Visibility
(Seven-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree / Strongly Agree)
We are interested in determining if the information that this customer shares with you is useful in assessing its operations. Please select the response that best describes the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements.
1. The information received from this supplier is generally accurate. (CPII1) 2. The information received from this supplier is generally timely. (CPII2)
3. Based on our past experience, the information received from this supplier is normally adequate to assess its operations. (CPII3)
SECTION 3 - PRODUCT SUPPLY NETWORK
Focusing on the product supply network (see below) which includes all top tier suppliers and customers for the item (e.g. material/part/subassembly) referenced in sections 1 and 2 of this questionnaire, please provide the following information:
Please specify the number of top-tier suppliers that your firm transacts with for this item ___________ (NumTTS)
Please specify the number of top-tier customers that your firm transacts with (those for whom this item is required in