Previous research on measuring information sharing

Based on literature on information sharing different variables to measure the level and success of information sharing can be identified. According Li and Lin (2006); Marinagi, Trivellas, and Reklitis (2015); Prajogo and Olhager (2012); Zhou and Bentonjr (2007) one of the success factors of information sharing is information quality. Information quality is achieved when the information exchanged between supply chain partners meets the needs of these organizations.200 In the Information Quality Guidelines provided by the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO (2014) information quality is defined as “(…) an encompassing term comprising objectivity, utility and integrity”201_{. Each of these aspects of quality addresses some of the} possible measurement variables. Objectivity involves two elements: presentation and substance. This means that the content of the information, but also the presentation of the information should be clear, accurate, complete, and unbiased. Utility refers to the usefulness of information, and integrity means the security of information.202 Not in every study in which information quality is measured these variables are adopted. Li and Lin (2006) measure quality of information by means of timeliness, accuracy, completeness, adequateness, and reliability. Furthermore they used another construct to measure information sharing using the following variables: “(…) we inform trading partners in advance of changing needs”; “(…) our trading partners share proprietary information with us”; and “(…) our trading partners share business knowledge of core business processes with us”.203 _{Other construct measures are proposed by} Zhou and Bentonjr (2007) who study the integration between information sharing and supply chain practice in supply chain management. They used nine different measurement variables: accuracy; availability; timeliness; internal connectivity; external connectivity; completeness; relevance; accessibility; and frequently updated information.204

Prajogo and Olhager (2012) mention that next to the quality of information sharing the quantity and frequency of information sharing are of relevant importance as well. According to their research, frequent and intense communication is required for firms to share strategic information

200 _{See Zhou and Bentonjr (2007), p. 1350-1351.} 201 _{USPTO (2014)}

202 _{See Marinagi et al. (2015), p. 474-475.} 203 _{Li and Lin (2006), p. 1654.}

34

in addition to transactional information.205 With the purpose of assuring measurement construct validity they used measurements used in the research of Chen and Paulraj (2004) who in their research analysed and refined different reliable and valid measurements that can be used in different contexts to test theory within the area of supply chain management. Those regarding frequency are: “(…) exchange of information takes place frequently, informally and/or in a timely manner”; and “(…) we have frequent face-to-face planning/communication”.206 _In addition the research of Villena, Revilla, and Choi (2011) on the dark side of buyer-supplier relationships touches upon information sharing as well. Both structural and relational social capital theory are taken into account in this paper. Structural social capital addresses the patterns and connections between parties. So, it is about the structure of ties and interactions via which information is shared. The relational social capital theory focusses on the personal relationships between parties that are the result of a history of interactions, like information sharing.207 In their research they suggest the value of social capital might begin to decay whereas risks and costs eventually increase while the rate of benefits stagnates.208 In line with this, they propose that the quantity of information shared is too large which makes it hard for organizations to process it, and select the most important information. To measure the quantity of information sharing they measured the extent to which both parties: frequently communicate with each other; frequently communicate at different levels; frequently communicate between different functions; have a close personal interaction between the parties; have a personal friendship between the parties; have common project reviews; and use internal linking systems.209

Lastly, Zhou and Bentonjr (2007) and Prajogo and Olhager (2012) mentioned information sharing technology is one of the relevant constructs as well.210 Carr and Kaynak (2007) refer to this as communication methods and mention these technologies enable information sharing.211 Information sharing technologies can, as mentioned before, be divided into traditional methods like face-to-face meetings, e-mail contact, and through conversations over the phone, or in more advanced methods like enterprise resource planning (ERP) or electronic data interchange

205 _{See Li and Lin (2006), p. 1654; and Prajogo and Olhager (2012), p. 516.} 206 _{Chen and Paulraj (2004), p. 414.}

207 _{See Villena et al. (2011), p. 562-563.} 208 _{See Villena et al. (2011), p. 562.} 209 _{See Villena et al. (2011), p. 573.}

210 _{See Zhou and Bentonjr (2007), p. 1351; as well as Prajogo and Olhager (2012), p. 516.} 211 _{See Carr and Kaynak (2007), p. 349.}

35

(EDI).212 According to Wognum, Fisscher, and Weenink (2002) technologies cannot replace face-to-face communication, rather, they provide additional opportunities for sharing information.213 Carr and Kaynak (2007) found that while advanced communication methods can be helpful, they are not critical with respect to influencing information sharing between firms, where traditional communication methods do significantly influence information sharing between firms according to their study.214 Even though this study did not show significance of advanced communication methods it might be that due to later developments of the industries as well as technologies these have a significant impact on information sharing nowadays. Therefore these technologies are included as variables in studying information sharing as well.

4

Hypotheses and initial analysis

4.1 Initial analysis of the gap between literature and the procedures at the case