SCM- Coordinating in eBusiness Supply Chain

Coordinating for Flexibility in e-Business Supply ChainsSANJAY GOSATN, ARVIND MALHOTRA, AND OMAR A. EL SAWY is an Assistant Professor in the Decision and Information Technologies Depurtrnent at ihe Robert H. Smith School of Business. University of Maryland, College Park. He holds a Ph.D. fromthe University of Southern California, a PGDM from the Indian Institute of Management, and a B.E. from the University of Roorkee. His current research themes relate to the design and management of enterprise technologies, especially for achieving process integration and learning goals. He remains interested in examining phenomena that involve tensions among competing organizational outcomes. He was a member of the research team that worked with the RosettaNet Consortium in its incipient stage. SANJAY GOSAIN ARVIND MALHOTRA is an Assistant Professor of Information Technology Management at the University of North Carolina's Kenan-Flagler Business School. His areas of expertise include innovation, knowledge managemenl. virtual teams, interorganizational information sharing, and strategic use of information technologies. Dr. Malhotra has received research grants from the Society for Information Managers Advanced Practices Council. Dell. Carnegie-Bosch Institute, NSF. RosettaNet Consortium, UNC-Smatl Grams Program, and the Marketing Sciences Institule. His papers have heen published in leading academic journals such as MfS Quarterly, Manufacturing A Seirice Operations Management, and Communications of the ACM. He received the best paper awiu-d from MIS Quarterly, the top information science journal, in 2001. Two of his papers have earned the prestigious Stxiety for Information Managers Best Paper Award. He received his Ph.D. and M.S. at the University of Southern California and his B.E. at the University of Delhi, OMAR A. EL SAWY is a Professor of Information Systems at the Marshall School of Business. University of Southern California, where he also serves as Director of Research at the Center for Telecom Management, an industry-sponsored center that focuses on the networked digital industry. His interests include redesigning electronic value chains for e-business, partner relationship management, and knowledge management and vigilance in fast-response environments. Ei Sawy holds a Ph.D. from Stanford Business School, an MBA from the American University in Cairo, and a BSEE from Cairo University. Prior to joining USC in 1983, he worked as an engineer and manager for 12 years, first at NCR Coqx)! ation and then as a manager of computer services at Stanford University. He has lectured, consulted, and carried out research in four continents. El Sawy is the author of more than 70 papers, and his writings have appeared in both information systems and management journals. He is the author of the book Redesigning Enterprise Processes for e-Business. He serves on six journal editorial boards and is a five-time winner of SIM's Paper Awards Competition. The widespread use of information technology (IT) to create electronic linkages among supply chain partners with the objective of reducing transaction costs ABSTRACT: Journal (if Munagemeni l/ifnrmation Sy.srem.t /Whner 2004^5. Vol. 21. No. 3. pp. 7-45. 0 2()1).'5 ME. Shaipclnc. 0742-1222 / 2005 $9.50 + 0.00. 8 GOSAIN, MALHOTRA, AND EL SAWY may have unintended adverse effects on supply chain flexibility. Increasing business dynamics, changing customer preferences, and disruptive technological shifts pose the need for two kinds of flexibility that interenterprise information systems must address—the ability of interenterprise linkages to support changes in offering characteristics (offering flexibility) and the ability to alter linkages to partner with different supply chain players (partnering flexibility). This study explores how enterprises in supply chains may forge supply chain linkages that enable both types of flexibility jointly, and allow them to deal with ubiquitous change. Drawing on March and Simon's coordination theory, we propose two design principles: (1) advance structuring of interorganizational processes and information exchange that allows partnering organizations to be loosely coupled, and (2) IT-supported dynamic adjustment that allows enterprises to quickly sense change and adapt their supply chain linkages. This study reports on a survey of 41 supply chain relationships in the IT industry. For design principle, our empirical investigation of factors shows (I) that modular design of interconnected processes and structured data connectivity are associated with higher supply chain flexibility, and (2) that deep coordinationrelated knowledge is critical for supply chain flexibility. Also, sharing a broad range of information with partners is detrimental to supply chain flexibility, and organizations should instead tocus on improving the quality of information shared. For industry managers, the study provides clear insights for information infrastructure design. To manage their interdependencies, enterprises need lo encapsulate their interconnected processes in modular chunks, and support these with IT platforms for information exchange in structured lormats. Enterprises also need to nurture their execution capabilities by putting in place the information systems to prtK-ess information exchanged with partners, augmenting their understanding of factors such as how partner actions need to trigger adaptive responses. For researchers, the study initiates a new stream of theorizing that focuses on the role of the information infrastructure in tTianaging the tension between competing goals of offering flexibility and partnering Hexibility. coordination theory, information technology infrastructure, interorganizational systems, supply chain llcxibility. KFY WORDS AND PHRASES: There's a lot of talk in the electronics-industry supply chain about integrating systems, collaborating with partners, and standardizing processes and document-exchange formats. But despite all that is being said—or perhaps precisely because so much is being said—few companies really know how to proceed. They have invested in software that is expected to link internal systems with customer and supplier platforms. And many are joining the RosettaNet Consortium, which is defining standards for communicating over the Internet. But the big question still remains: How can companies replicate and manage the electronic relationships they have established with one or a few partners across a supply chain composed in many cases of hundreds or thousands of entities? [9J COORDINATING FOR FLEXIBlLrTY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 9 ENTERPRtSES HAVE INCREASINGLY COME TO RECOGNIZE that their performance depends, to a large extent, on their role in supply chain ecologies and the competitiveness of the supply chains they participate in [ 19,21.39]. Earlier reseaich on Information technology (IT) in supply chains has been more focused on using IT to create stronger honds between enterprises to improve information fiows and derive transactional efficiencies—leading to "electronic integration" [35. 85]. The lock-in from highly partner-specific or offering-specific IT infrastructure investments has not been given due attention, but in a dynamic and highly competitive landscape this may severely constrain supply chain performance and the scalahility of supply chain integration. In electronic data interchange (EDI) implementations, for instance, it has been found that increased transaction specificity, switching costs, and uncertainty may create the possibility of opportunistic behavior and reduce partnering options [15). Prominent manufacturers have been known to actually use EDI as a way of inhibiting their suppliers' relationships with others by imposing a system that is both proprietary and difficult to implement [79]. Increasing business dynamics, changing customer preferences, and disruptive technological shifts, on the other hand, have created a greater need for flexibility. Smallerscale environmental change may only create the need to change process parameters for existing supply chain relationships. Ixit where severe discontinuities are "competencedestroying" [76] for the enterpri.se's partners, structural change in the supply chain may be needed. Dynamic strategies, where frequent "partnering" is an essential feature of supply chain organizing, can also help organizations maintain their competitiveness by continually orchestrating new sources for vaJue cremion [69]. In recent times, severe supply chain disruptions have created a new appreciation for supply chain llexibility. After the events of September 11,2001. supply chains of large manufacturers struggled to cope with production changes at their partners. Ford Motor Company, for example, had to close five plants in North America due to parts shortages 146]. The role of the IT infrastructure in responding to and shaping business options with agility is recognized as critical [38. 61 ]. In a stable environment, an enterprise may have chosen to forge highly specific and efficient process linkages and information exchange mechanisms with select partners, but in the dynamic environment of the electronic economy, enterprises need to develop more robust and reconfigurable linkages that can deal with changes in the business environment 120]. We are now at an interesting crossroads where IT applications for interenterprise information exchange can take advantage of a new breed of interaction capabilities derived from flexible markup formats and ubiquitous and low-cost connectivity. There has also been a proliferation of technology platforms, using lighter-weight protocols for creating electronic bonds, such as e-marketplaces (e.g.. E-Steel) or hubs (e.g.. Covisint). as well as tools for interenterprise integration (e.g., Webmethods) [7]. Further, there are a number of industry and IT vendor-driven efforts to standardize business processes and data exchanges between enterprises, which are expected to yield network externality benefits in easing partnering across enterprises and in dealing with change in the context of existing piu-tncrships [55]. Interoperability frameworks for vertical markets (such as the Information and Content Exchange and RosettaNet specifications [60]) and for to GOSAIN, MALHOTRA, AND EL SAWY horizontal markets (such as Microsoft BizTalk) have been developed and have had a limited deployment [37]. Although earlier research has examined strategic contingencies and typologie.s of interorganizational information systems (IS) [11], we still lack understanding of the capabilities of an interorganizational infrastructure ihat will enable flexible supply chains and theory to guide its development [80]. Also, research on the details of structuring interorganizationai relations and infrastructure has not been given due attention [71]. In this study, we ftKus on providing insights for designing information infrastructure and relevant information processing capabilities that would support supply chains' progress on the road to flexibility. We expect that st)me of the required technology and organizing practices may not yet be fully in place, even for the most progressive enterprises, so we may not see the anticipated flexibility effects—but we should be able to better understand the relevant factors and how they play out in constrained settings. In the strategic alliances literature, two general types of flexibility have been specified—modification and exit [83]. Modification flexibility refers to the ability of partners to adjust their behaviors or the terms of the alliance agreement in response to changes in the environment or needs of their partners. Exit flexibility refers to the easeof exit from an alliance that no longer satisfies the partner or meets the partner's needs. We adapt this typology for supply chain coordination. The IT infrastructure supporting interenterprise linkages needs to similarly provide flexibility on two dimensions—the ability to support a change in oHering eharaeteristies in conjunction with existing partners and the ability to partner with new supply chain players. We approach the goal of designing flexible linkages between supply chain enterprises from a dynamic coordination perspective—-we seek information processing antecedents that allow organizational entities to quickly ctwrdinate in the face of change. Advance structuring and dynamic adjustment-based information processing pathways have been proposed to enable better information prtK-essing outcomes for organizations [451. The fonner refers to things you do up-front to reduce the information processing needed to cope with change. The latter refers to increased information processing capabilities that allow for "on-tbe-fly" adaptation. We investigate specific factors that would advance offering flexibility and partnering flexibility through these pathways: Research question: How can enterprises in .supply chains use "advance structuring" and "dynamic adjustment" approaches to achieve both offering flexibility and partnering flexibility? Theoretical Development Supply Chain Flexibility THE OUTCOME OE INTEREST IN THIS STUDY is supply chain flexibility. Supply chain flexibility refers to the extent to which supply chain linkages are able to adapt to changing business conditions rather than being forced into committed adaptation to a Supply chain processes are derived from integration of enterprise processes. Both offering flexibility and partnering flexibility are to be evaluated from the perspective of a focal firm embedded in a supply chain relationship. This is particularly relevant in the electronic economy. A supply chain manager at a large personal computer manufacturer expressed concerns about their ability to quickly change product offerings: We are mainly a design and procurement organization. For example. consider a wholesale distributor. In the IT industry. Given the long lead time (typically four to six weeks) to source components. integrated and resold by B. 1149J. Partneringjh'xibility: Partnering flexibility refers to the ease of changing supply chain partners. we are concerned that we have substantially less volume flexibility compared to the scenario of having a different. the inability of existing supply chain linkages to handle change was mentioned as a key obstacle. Piirtnering flexibility refers to the ability of A to work with a new VAR. p. while taking on new roles such as channel assembly and system integration.COORDtNATING FOR FLEXlBtLtTY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAtNS 11 given environment. Offetitig flexibility: Offering flexibility refers to the ability of a supply chain linkage to support changes in product or service offerings produced in conjunction with current partners. may add ten new vendors a month to renew its product line. with whom we operate on a just-in-time (JIT) supply line basis. thus making ofTering flexibility very important. we run the risk of lost sales . Offering flexibility refers to the ahility of the A-B linkage to support a change in their joint offering—products sourced hy A. and a typical wholesale distributor may chum over its complete stock-keeping units (SKU) in a period of two years. but occurs instead at the nexus of relationships between a variety of parties that contribute to the production function" [65. Ie. Changing supply chain partners is fairly typical in the IT indu. as an alternative to B. A (focal enterprise). for instance. with both A and B responsible for promotional activities. Supply chain flexibility is composed of two types: 1. change is rapid. C. in response to changes in the business environment. in response to changes in the business environment. 2. so flexibility may be derived from both internal enterprise flexibility and flexibility of the connections. In this study. We have greatly reduced our inventory and are closely integrated with <Japanese Company>.stry—a typical wholesale distributor. Achieving Offering Flexibility In our interviews with supply chain managers in the IT industry. Major components for our notebooks are sourced from <Jitpanese Company>. as "the locus of production is no longer within the boundaries of a single firm. iuid a value-added reseller (VAR). However. we focus only on the flexibility of the linkages—how well the competencies of multiple organizations may be combined in temporary alignments in response to customer needs.ss-integrated supplier. B. . A partnering change is a more serious disruption than a volume spike or a feature change. resulting in higb switching costs and transaction specificity. In EDI implementations. Offering flexibility Is based on the ability of collaborating enterprises to quickly change priKess structures or alter the structure of information sharing for modifying thecharacteristicsof a product or service offering. Whereas IS improve the efficiency of coordination between buyers and suppliers [441. open EDI systems increase market coordination by reducing asset specificity and by making additional partners availab[e [58]. . the problem has been physical changes. Partnering flexibility represents the ease of changing supply chain partners in response to changes in the business environment. how can our company get up to speed to using them? . . thereby undermining partnering flexibility [ 15[. Variabilily can also be amplified across complex supply chains. Our competitors are able to flex components. AND EL SAWY opportunity. and interface changes. We posit that improvement in an enterprise's information processing capabilities with reference to a supply chain relationship will allow its supply chain linkages to better support reconfiguration of offerings and paitnerships. as we might be out-of-stock for SKU A but still building SKU B.12 GOSAtN.st. it was observed that specific interenterprise IT characteristics may hinder the ability to quickly link up with new partners: We are in the continuous process of evaluating who can best meet our needs. but we are locked in and cannot react. In the pa. Flexibility in tenns of the ability to change partners quickly corresponds to a fundamentally different latent ability from offering flexibility. which can take as much as six months. Tf a new third-party logistics provider becomes available.62]. managerial innovations—sucb as modular product designs. "quick-connect" interfaces. Achieving Partnering Flexibility At a major router manufacturer. system changes. where suppliers at the back end of the chain swing left and right based on what an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) projects that it needs to build [74]. The current strategy for coordination with our partners relies on hardwired APIs (application interfaces). such as location. it has been found that adoption requires substantial investment and integration effort. MALHOTRA. and use of IT to support concurrent processes and real-time acquisition of market infonnation^significantly improve a firm's coordination flexibility 128. On the other hand. The need for this flexibility arises from the limited life cycle of existing offerings and variability in user demand. Two pathways are presented in the next section to achieve this goal. as it requires more work to assess the new partner and redesign partner-linked processes and systems. they break We need to move toward more abstract specifications that will enable us to handle changes much better. When anything changes. Information architecture designs have also been suggested to achieve flexibility [2]. Dynamic adjustment: Through IT-supported learning and adaptation. and customers. we propose that coordination outcomes. Advance structuring: By appropriately structuring interorganizational information flows and interconnected processes. these companies leverage the Internet to standardize technical hookups and speed up the organizing of interchanges for critical data for existing and new partners. we propose to examine information infrastructure antecedents that improve the dynamic coordination between interacting supply chain entities and that lead to flexibility. In their use of the advanced structuring pathway. These information infrastructure antecedents require attention to both technology and process design 114]. p. enterprises can reduce the effort involved in adjusting to changing business environment. enterprises can effectively and quickly reconfigure a set of interorganizational processes appropriate for a changed business environment. In their use of the dynamic adjustment pathway. producers. these companies continually evaluate their value propositions for their customers and the competencies of their partners. allowing for fiexihility goals to he attained. which excel in marshalling networks of suppliers. As an example. the supply chain processes need to be dynamically reconfigured so that different supply chain players remain in sync.COORDINATING FOR FLEXtBILlTY tN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS I^ Theoretical Frameworlc Past research on supply chain flexibility has examined antecedents related to the design and support of operational processes 139]. infrastructure companies. are exemplars of these strategies. can be achieved through (see Figure I): 1. Design principles based on separation of abstract requirements and concrete satisfiers and uncoupling of information and goods flow have been suggested to improve supply chain flexibility 113]. standing ready to make changes to their partner network and the associated valuecrealion processes. in the face of a disruption. Dynamic adjustment requires making changes '"on-the-fly" as necessitated by the business environment. Coordination may be based on preestablished schedules—coordination by plan—and coordination that involves transmission of new information—coordination by feedback. service providers. They are also archilecting business process "chunks" that can be deployed to implement interenteiprise processes from standardized parts. In an interenterprise setting. The extent of information sharing in their interconnected environment is so strong that a manager at Avnet. Companies such as Cisco and Dell. there's no need to have the others waste transaction costs to fly the Iremainingl inventory into my plant today. ! 00). This coordination typology has heen investigated in interpersonal coordination in organizational settings [77]. a parts distributor for Cisco suggests. You have to find out who is the constraint [and] immediately communicate that . Our theoretical development draws upon an overarching framework of March and Simon's coordination theory [45]. we ate Cisco" [75. "If supplier A is the constraint and can't get the supplies to me until tomorrow. "[f]or all practical purposes. 2. In this study. Loose coupling is a dialectical concept in orgaiiiza-^ tion theory that emphasizes the simultaneous existence of rationality and indeterminacy in a system [54]. semantics. and it also makes it easier for them to be disentangled and recombined into new configurations. At the same time. Loose coupling reduces interdependencies. Loose coupling between systems implies the existence of elements that are linked ("coupled") to preserve some degree of determinacy. The antecedents in the model are identified on tbe basis that they advance both tbe "looseness" and the "coupling" (Table I). Standardization of Process and Content Interfaces. MALHOTRA. Design Principle 1: Advance Structuring In this approach. This refers to explicit or implicit agreement on common specifications for information exchange formats. so they're not expending resources when you're not going to be able to produce your subassembly anyway" 122[. For example. Overall Framework Supply Chain FlexibilityPartnering Flexibility and Offering Flexibility Coordination Outcomes to the rest of your supply base so they're all running on the same schedule. The lack of standardization means that exchanges are idiosyncratic to each relationship. AND EL SAWY Advance StructuringBased Approach Dynamic Adjustment Based Approach Information Processing Antecedents Figure I. We now propose antecedents that allow for augmented information processing to effectively deal with change through each of the pathways. This is expected to result in both offering flexibility and partnering flexibility (Figure 2). allowing organizational components to more easily deal with change.000 SKUs that need to be changed over a year—because manuiacturcrs . and pragmatic aspects of documents that are to be exchanged for tbe specific process being coordinated. leading to some degree of independence ("looseness"). these elements are subject to spontaneous change. Standardization of process and content interfaces would require business partners to agree on the syntax. and processing tasks at the interfaces between interacting supply chain partners. data repositories. a distributor in the IT industry reports spending $17 per SKU manually updating information for the 100.14 GOSAIN. the primary theoretical basis for realization of flexibility outcomes is a planned structuring of information and process linkages yielding loose coupling among interacting cotnponents. . How "looseness" is helped Lowers specificity to reduce switching costs. Advance Structuring Approach use different reporting formats. On the other hand.COORDINATING FOR FLEXtBU. the use of standards such as UCCnet standards for product data in the grocery industry is expected to cut costs by as much as $40 billion by providing a common business language I38j. Coordination by Adjustment Approach How "coupling" is helped Standardization of interfaces Modular interconnected processes Structured data connectivity Provides common technical grammar. Characteristics of [nfurmation Infrastructure Standardization of Process & Content Interfaces Supply Chain Flexibility Modular InterConnected Processes Offering Flexibility X Partnering Flexibility Structured Data Connectivity Figure 2. Provides grammar for coding data exchange between enterprise applications. Makes processes seamlessly interlinked.lTY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 15 Table 1. making the . Structure reduces information processing costs. Standards play an important role in structuring relationships between companies— they help reduce the extent to which market exchanges are personalized and the scope for moral hazard. and opportunistic behavior 182]. Coordination theory suggests that standardization allows for management of interdependencies. Modular interfaces reduce dependencies. shirking. reducing the variety of asset and informational specifications. as innovation can be achieved without undue constraints from other parts of the system [27]. This will also allow the partners to evolve and reconfigure their internal processes and systems with relatively low synchronization requirements allowing for greater offering flexibility. This refers to the breaking up of complex processes into subprocesses (activities) that are performed by different organizations independently (such that subprocesses occur through overlapping phases. The effect of standardization on partnering flexibility is expected to be positive. In addition. bestowing greater flexibility for the system as a whole [65|. Therefore. Modular architectures create information structures that provide the "glue" that holds loosely coupled parts of a modular organizational design [631. we expect that moduliu" process organizations will enhance the level of partnering flexibility. given that standardization creates network effects I23|. increasing frequency of transactions. the distributor provides that manufacturer with a complete set of documentation that it needs to complete. making a wider set of users possible. agreements it needs to execute. and reducing market uncertainty (3]. This allows the manufacturer to go ahead and prepare for getting into the distribution pipeline. Therefore. as it helps in the establishment of a technical grammar that reduces the amount of information that needs to be exchanged between enterprises and enables social conventions to be established to facilitate coordination in the face of change [4]. modular partitioning eliminates the need for articulate and frequent interaction between parties and lowers the coordination costs [70]. we propose HI: An enterprise in a . MALHOTRA. for example. whenever a high-volume wholesale distributor is approached by a new manufacturer requesting the distributor to carry its product line. marketing. changes in partners can be accomplished easily. and so on. Modular organizational systems allow for their components to be disaggregated and recombined into new configurations. 50]. Therefore. fully simuhaneously) with clearly specified interlinked outputs (5]. or better still. Thus each player can work independently on the set of activities in its domain. Modularly organized systems have the property of encapsulation—the hiding of internal complexity from external processes—allowing self-contained tasks to be created that reduce the potential for harmful interaction.16 GOSAIN. The effect of standardization of interfaces on offering flexibility is also expected to be positive. as only interface linkages are affected. In the IT industry. and clearly specified responsibilities for promotions. . Modular Interconnected Processes.A modular system is composed of units or modules that are designed independently but still function as an integrated whole by partitioning information into visible design rules and hidden design parameters 15|. Modular structures also enable adaptation at the subsystem level.supply chain relationship will have higher levels of supply chain flexibility (both offeringflexibilityand partnering flexibility) with higher levels of standardization of its business process and information exchange interfaces. As long as process components adhere to a modular architecture. AND EL SAWY infrastructure more flexible and capable of supporting change [45. H3: An enterprise in a . ll is also expected lo better enable an enterprise in a supply chain relationship to continuously "morph" in changing environments [59|. It is clear that infonnation sharing and coordinationrelated knowledge are critical enablers. and relevant information processing constructs for each phase were identified. The network enables change information to he communicated with existing partners. there are a number of options for creating infonnation sharing linkages between supply chain partners. In contrast with the advance structuring pathway. the dynamic adjustment approach is expected to work better when resources have attributes (e. The primary theoretical basis is the learning-based sense-and-adapt paradigm |30] for dealing with change. enhancing offering flexibility. These can range from the exchange of structured or tagged documents over the Web. In the IT industry. Table 2 shows the different phases of the adaptation process in response to a supply chain event. leading to higher partnering flexibility.. processes in reaction to a generic supply chain event were broken down into three stages.ises. Augmented learning is expected to lead to the ability to quickly reconfigure processes in response lo change. Design Principle 2: Dynamic Adjustment The second set of postulated hypotheses is based on enterprise-level learning and adjustment of information processing based on prior knowledge and interaction with partners (Figure 3). for example. In the dynamic adjustment approach. Structured data connectivity allows for the coordination on performance of tasks by collaborating actors |261. Therefore. which enable change to be sensed and .g. Stnictured transaction sets. In order to understand capabilities that support the sensing of change and adaptation to change. Striictttred Data Connectivity.COORDtNATlNG FOR FLEXtBtLlTY IN E-BUSWESS SUPPLY CHAtNS 17 H2: An enterprise in a supply chain relationship wilt have higher levels of supply chain fiexibility (both offering flexibility and partnering flexibility) with higher levels of modularity of its interconnected proce. Structured connectivity' allows for information exchanges to be coded and provides a grammar for information to be expressed. allow for transmission ot coordination information with little ambiguity across industries.xibility) with higher levels of support for .structured data connectivity. Structured data connectivity also creates "electronic brokerage" effects 181] that facilitate switching as well as communication of change among supply chain partners.sttpply chain relationship wilt have higher levels ofstipplv chain flexibility (both offering fiexibility and partnering Jle. the coordinating entities leam to quickly adjust to diverse information structures across partners or over time. such as the EDI ASC X. all the way down to "screen scraping"—a technique that tries to extract enterprise data from its presentation on the Web.I2. Structured data connectivity refers to the ability to exchange structured transaction data and content with another enterprise in electronic form. tacitness or social complexity) that make them diftlcuh to shans or transfer without close integration [32]. Information sharing is tundamental to the learning required for deliberate change [42]. As an example. AND EL SAWY Characteristics of Information Infrastructure Quality of Information Sharing Supply Chain Flexibility Breadth of Information Sharing ^ j Offering Flexibility X Partnering Flexibility Deep Coordination-Related Knowledge Figure 3. about action fomiulation. Coordination by Dynamic Adjustment Approach appropriate actions to be initiated in response. and feedback related to the changej. Information sharing is needed to a[[ow an enterprise to sense the needs of the partners and communicate its own needs to the partners. "Information sharing is key to a dynamic supply chain like ours—we need to be able to track product as it moves through the chain and to extend this to channel partners and end customers. An ability to share information allows enterprises to sense the need for change in their current process configuration and develop mechanisms for dealing with change. the director of logistics strategic planning at a manufacturer suggested. MALHOTRA. Therefore. Better visibility also allows us to reconfigure our channel to end-customer needs—so that product may be drop-shipped or channel-assembled as appropriate. Breadth and Quality of Information Sharing with Supply Chain Partners." We identify two key dimensions of information sharing—the breadth and the quality of information shared. particularly in dynamic environments [47]. these are proposed as antecedents in the dynamic adjustment approach. about change. If we provide ASNs (advanced shipping notices) to our channel partners. and information that is high in quality 149]—rel- . they can be more efficient in receiving product.18 GOSAIN. It is proposed that in order to sense and rapidly respond to change. enterprises in supply chains need to share information in a broad range of areas (information about sensed events. process and content. evance. create a social network in which most firms are embedded. H4: An enterprise in a supply chain relationship will have higher levels of supply chain fle. Exchange information with partner. Make the requisite change. Therefore.COORDlNATtNG FOR FLEXIBIUTY tN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAtNS It Table 2. Enterprises that engage in broader and higher-quality information exchanges with current partners are likely to he better aware of new opponunities and more ready for potential partners. To the extent that enterprises are able to quickly adapt to change. Breadth of information is needed to be able to react to unanticipated change. as information awareness positions a business unit to be continually attuned to change 116]. The network-embeddedness perspective suggests that prior ties. Communicate changes to partner.xibility and partnering fiexibility) with a higher quality of information sharing with supply chain partners. Change in organizations is a process in which finding and acquiring external information. H5: An enterprise in a supply chain relationship will have higher levels of supply chainfie. they would be expected to be able to deal with changes required in the context of a given relationship leading to offering flexibility. and it becomes an important source of infonnation for them about the reliability and capabilities of their current and potential partners |29]. Knovi'ledge of partner competency. completeness. Organization memory of past episodes. greater shaiing of infonnation would also allow collective meanings and consensus on action to emerge faster with new partners. yielding partnering flexibility. Enabling Sense-and-Adapt Processes Phase Sense Enterprise learning and adaptation activity Sense need for change in offering/partners. whereas those without this information may not be able to sense and adapt to key industry events [43]. Recognize type of changes in process/content needed- Enablers Information sharing—sensing change. Adapt Design/plan for change. Information sharing—feedback. and value added. Information sharing—actions.xibility (both offering fle. timeliness. and combining it with internal information. Information sharing—about change.ubility(both offeringffexibilityami partttering fiexibility) with a brvader range of information sharing with supply chain partners. is critical. High-quality information— information that is highly time specific and specific to the knowledge needs of an enterprise—is expected to be more suitable for making inferences in an effective and efficient manner 112]. Further. Understanding of causal linkages. both direct and indirect. . What we need to emerge from this is not only an understanding of when people buy and how they buy. processes. and know-why. A software publisher. parties create a shared past and a projected future."To the extent that enterprises understand how to effectively coordinate with existing partners and quickly coordinate with appropriate partners in a given situation. had learned to discount reseller orders close to product release. processes. often when we buy and when we sell is out of. <Prominent Manufacturer> may make to forecast and not use our back-order queues. This construct is conceptualized as a metaconstruct consisting of three dimensions related to know-what. AND EL SAWY Deep Coordination-Related Knowledge. In conversations with product managers in the IT industry. Organization memory may be supported or augmented by IT through support for knowledge acquisition.20 GOSAIN. MALHOTRA. responding instantaneously in micro-interac- . search. and content that are needed for supply chain coordination and reconfiguration. Organization memory is important hecause intelligence is fundamentally a memory-based process and learning involves the dynamic modification of memory. know-how. Organizational memory of past change is particularly needed in the context of dynamic business environments. they will be able to improve olfering and partnering flexibility ouicomes. Knowledge of partner competencies. for instance. but also how product is stocked down the supply chain. 1. In order to effectively coordinate w ith existing and potential supply chain partners. an enterprise needs to be aware of the specific process competencies of other players and to understand what it would take to connect to them 140]. 2. maintenance. While we are highly integrated with the carriers. Partner knowledge bases that capture interpartner protocols and associated rules need to be in place to support agile interenierprisc partnering [72[. with the existence of memor>' allowing people to adjust responses to each other quickly in a remarkably subtle manner. as they tended to inflate actual demand. Organizations enrich their sense-making by combining it with interpretations from the past [781 i>fid can proactively capture and "memorize" interactions across touch points to differentiate offerings for customers [56]. retention. we found that over time they tended to pay special attention to exceptions and beginning/end of product life cycles episodes to develop a keen sense of what to expect in terms of product volumes. Past research on social coordination in the symbolic interactionism tradition has found that in a social relationship. and content: This dimension refers to the availability of a knowledge map of partner competencies. A planning and development executive at a wholesale distributor in the IT industry pointed to the need for knowledge about partner processes: "In this industry. Stored information from an organization's history can he brought to bear on present decisions.sync: a culture of incentives and deals is the heroin that you can't gel off. since the functional units in which expertise is created and shared are frequently dismantled as organizations move on to collaborating with new partners. There should not be any redundant activity in the channel. and retrieval functionality 173]. Organization memory of past change episodes: This dimension reflects the ability to evoke remembrance of past experiences that are relevant to understanding and dealing with a given change situation. At an individual level. and high SKU churns call for high levels of transaction efficiency. This could be an adaptation within an existing relationship or to new partners. a decision architecture that is based on a fundamental awareness of the specific knowledge needed for decision making along with appropriate location of decisionmaking authority prepares organizations for fast clock-speed. Frequent technology shifts and consumer demand changes pose the need to be able to quickly change product offerings. . Causal knowledge is deep knowledge about why something occurs. At an organizational level. which is often shared in the form of organizational stories and enables organizations to coordinate strategy for achieving goals or outcomes [84[. Understanding of causal linliages: This dimension captures the ability of an enterprise to take a desired supply chain outcome and then decide on the changes in it. that is developing specifications for common electronic business interfaces to improve information flow in the supply chain. RosettaNet is an IT industry consortium.se of the world and how they act [68]. organizational memory of change epi. established in 1998. Given these dimensions of deep coordination-related knowledge. RosetlaNet Partner Interface Processes (PlPs) specify the "dialog" in terms of data exchange and processing steps that take place between partners in a business process across the supply chain. An understanding of causal linkages between a change in process or information flow and the effect it has on a supply chain outcome enables an enteiprise to quickly adapt to changing circumstances. Research IVIetiiodology Research Context it is particularly intense and rapid in the IT industry [17].ses and content for new partners. deeply held images of how the world works—mental models—constrain how people make sen. information flows. infomiation-rich environments [47]. The presence of a memory of past supply chain episodes would. there is a high level of variance in the reported flexibility of supply chains in the industry. and understanding of causal linkages).sodes. therefore.s.xibility) with deep coordination-related knowledge (knowledge of partner competencies and processes. deflationary pricing. and content that would be needed to achieve it.s processes. Rapid product obsolescence. while dynamic industry players and shifting industry structures pose the need to be able to make quick partnering changes. We base our study in the IT industry for this reason. we propose H6: An enterprise in a supply chain relationship will have higher le\'els of supply chain flexibility (both offering flexibility and partnering fle. 3. At the same time. This study uses the RosettaNet initiative as an opportunity to investigate key capabilities that need to be supported to pursue collaborative modes of value creation in WHHREAS CHANGB IS PERVASIVE IN MOST INDUSTRIES. aid in linking up effectively with current partners for offering changes and in making better partnering decisions and adjusting proce.COORDINATING FOR FLEXIBILITY IN E-BUStNESS SUPPLY CHAINS 21 tions [36]. Advance Structuring Approach The three antecedents in the advanced structuring model are operationalized to capture the "progressive" qualities of interorganizational coordination. e-mail. Web forms (HTTP transfers). literature. and so on. The data exchange may occur in real time (as in integrated business-to-business 1B2B1 applications) or in time-lagged batches (as in traditional EDI). The development of scales for new constructs followed a systematic process [661. It is operationalized through interaction indicators derived as a product of the indicators of these two dimensions. fax.. Partnering flexibility is operationalized as a single item measuring the ease of replacing the partner in the focal firm's supply chain relationship. Further. such as a text document. . The offering flexibility scale reflects the flexibility of the linkage—for a distributor (such as Ingram Micro) this refers to how well they are able to coordinate the rollout of new products or services for a manufacturer (e. we tested research models [61 operationalized as multiple-indicator structural equation (causal) models. The content validity of the items was assessed by pretesting the survey with three executives at a hardware manufacturer and two consultants with knowledge of the industry. On the basis of the conceptual model and the work on construct validity. Operationalization of Constructs The Appendix provides the scales used for operationalizing constructs in the study.Offering flexibility is measured through two items reflecting the ability of the relationship to handle changes in volume and to roll over product offerings.g. The information exchange and the sequence of activities at enterpri.se boundaries may be highly idiosyncratic for each partner. or it could be "marked-up" data. the data that is exchanged may be free-format data. which may not be amenable to machine processing. The indicators for different model constructs were coded on seven-point scales. MALHOTRA. The constructs were operatit)nalized with original scale items derived from the conceptual definition of the constructs. Hewlett Packard). This paper reports on a survey of supply chain relationships to validate the hypothesized models. The results reported here form part of a multiphase . Dependent Construct Supply chain flexibility is conceptualized as adialectic construct corresponding to the simultaneous existence of both partnering flexibility and offering flexibility. where the meta-data is specified either as part of the document itself or through a schema document. field interviews. XML document exchange.22 GOSAIN.study carried out in the RosettaNet context. and pretest results. traditional EDI transactions. Typically. enterprises in the supply chain may use a number of different means to exchange information related to their business transactions—through phone. or there may be some degree of standardization. AND EL SAWY the dynamic context of the IT industry. COORDtNATlNG FOR FLEXIBtLITY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 23 The processes at the interface may be structured through weII-demarcated spheres of activity or consist of very close and intense interaction. Standardization of process and amtent Interfaces is operationalized through three items rellecting the extent to which the process and content structure for the focal relationship is similar to that for other partners. and by identifying the data structure. and repositories in response to needs. and able to be performed simultaneously to a large extent. and feedback about tbe response. The initial research activities focused on understanding e-business coordinarion issues in tbe IT industry supply chains through qualitative data . They proactively seek information about the product and perform more of a consultant role rather than a tactical role^—helping the manufacturer also understand distributor competencies and familiarizing them with the channel. by providing data quickJy. as well as how these changes affect business outputs. Dynatnic Adjustment Approach The antecedents in the dynamic adjustment tnodel are operationalized to capture the capabilities of the organization to better respond to change with reference to a specific supply chain linkage. organizational processes. Data Collection This research study builds on the authors' two-year involvement with the RosettaNet Consortium in helping establish areas of foeus and metrics for success for its standards creation efforts. human resources. pnuesses. Knowledge of partner competencies. and process interfaces. timeliness. Information quality is assessed through four items capturing the relevancy. broadcasting of information about response to the change. information flows. information structures. and content 1% measured through three items reflecting the knowledge of the enterprise about its partner's competencies. These capabilities are derived from the underlying IT infrastructure. Modular interconnected processes is operationalized through three items based on the extent to which processes connected to the focal partner are clearly divided. precisely specified. and completeness of the information shared in the relationship. infomiation about the change itself. Structured data cotmectivity is oiXTaiionali/ed through indicators that reflect the characteristics of the connectivity infrastructure that are likely to positively affect enterprise information processing—^by providing data in a form that can be easily processed by applications. Understanding of causal linkages is measured through four items reflecting how well tbe enterprise understands bow to change processes. Organizational memory of past change episodes is measured through two items reflecting the ability to retain experiences about past supply chain events and to derive inferences from it. Some purchasers at distributors make special efforts to quickly forge deep relationships with new manufacturers that they start sourcing from. value added. Information breadth is measured through a formative scale capturing four areas of information sbai-ing—sensing of a change. and systems that support supply cbain linkages. 35 executives with a wide range of functional responsibilities pertaining to their supply chain activities—purchasing manager." Receiving a low initial response to the first mailing. He or she was asked to drill down within the company and find the executive responsible for day-today functioning of the partnership ("key informant"). distribution manager. and 4 retailers). executive from Ingram identified Compaq as a partner and executive at Compaq identified Ingram as a partner. The responses represent a focal enterprise's view of its relationship with a business partner (upstream or downstream) in the IT supply chain. supply chain manager. we focused on getting better coverage of the relationships and did not go for matched responses from both enterprises in a relationship.. A large proportion of the interviews were conducted in person at the enterprises' main campus through daylong meetings. The drawback of this unit of analysis . and so on—were interviewed. IT manager. Interviews lasting about 60 to 90 minutes were conducted with key executives in 16 enterprises in the IT industry supply chain (7 hardware manufacturers/ software publishers. For instance. Finally. For questions that would require a convergent view from multiple areas in the company. The main data collection (in the first quarter of 1999) was based on a survey of companies in the IT supply chain that are members of the RosettaNet managing board. structured data connectivity) were required lo be completed by the IT manager. and retailers—supporting players such as logistic providers and technology providers were not included) and were asked to check off all the enlerprises with which they had existing channel partnerships. The items for the constructs derived from existing literature were greatly sharpened through the insights gained al these interviews. Overall. the section that measured the performance of the supply chain relationship was completed directly by the "key informant. MALHOTRA. customer relationship manager. The "key informant" was asked to assign various sections of the survey to be completed by managers that were likely to provide accurate responses fora line of questioning. They were sent a table with all the RosettaNet enterprises listed (restricted to the three tiers—manufacturers. wholesale distributors (6).24 GOSAtN. these interviews were extremely helpful in the formulation of key constructs of this research. 4 wholesale distributors. 1 logistics service provider. Besides providing anecdotal evidence in which to ground our research. distributors. see Figure 4).. The RosettaNet champion at each company helped the "key informant" to coordinate these activities. This led us to identify 91 supply chain relationships (e. Telephone interviews were conducted with executives who were located internationally.' Board members representing manufacturers (12).g.g. We followed up with phone calls and e-mails to ensure that the appropriate manager had received the fonns and that there were no ambiguities about its purpose and manner of completion. the "key informant" was asked to hold a meeting to till in those questions. lT-related questions (e. AND EL SAWY collection. A customized survey for the paiinership was Express Mailed to the contact point at each company—the executive designated as RosettaNet champion. We finally obtained 41 completed responses. and resellers (4) were asked to identify business partner relationships and executives managing those relationships through an initial survey. we were able to customize the survey for tbe conditions of the industry. At the same lime. while there were several hundred major players in the manufacturer and retailer tiers). in terms of day-to-day transactions. This was further confirmed when we used relationship type as a control variable iuid it was not found to be significant. After the data collection. different tiers are well represented. This was done so as to get a complete coverageof the distributor tier in the supply chain. since the respondents were carefully selected by champions at each organization and were expected to be able to give a good representation of their organizational context. Our initial interviews suggested that. Typical Distribution-Side Supply Chain in IT Industry is obviously that we do not have a confirming view of relationship characteristics from the partner enterprise. by conducting this research as a sequence of studies that build on each other. We ensured that tbe enterprises in our sample were very comparable in terms of their size. Several checks and balances prevent this from being a severe limitation—the coinpanies in the sample are fairly similar in fmancial strength. A potential concern was that aparticuiar tier of tbe supply chain (manufacturer. each distributor provided us a perspective on either a manufacturer or a retailer. without sacrificing the generality of the constructs. distributors in the IT supply chain had signillcant influence (since there were only five major players al this tier. this approach does allow us to focus on tbe steps that a focal enterprise can take to improve its supply chain linkages. Hence we designed our data collection strategy to ensure tbat we received a perspective on each of the distributors in our sample (five in total) from either a manufacturer or a retailer.COORDINATING FOR FLEXtBILlTY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 25 Information Flow Partners Cash/Credit Flow Partners Product Flow Partners Manufacturers & Software Publishers Wholesale Distributors Resellers & System Integrators 1 End Figure 4. No sueh biases were evident from this analysis. and the relationship type is not found to have any significant effect. we picked the relationships that a particular enterprise would report on. As part of our data collection strategy. Also. rather than leaving it to the respondents to choose. the findings were validated and qualified based on feedback obtained from presen- . distributor. we did a preliminary analysis to see if the data on relationships that involved the distributors was different from that on relationships in other tiers (manufacturer-distributor and retailer-distributor eompared to manufaeturer-retailer). Moreover. The responses are likely to have a high fidelity. Tbens are a number of advantages of working in this context. or retailer) might have a greater political or market power influence. Finally. = 41). were identified and since the first factor did not account for a majority of the variance (25 percent). distributor. Since all the measures were collected using a single instrument. the possibility of common method variance was tested using Harmon's one-factor test. these assessments are irrelevant 134]. Tests of nonresponse bias indicated that there was no significant difference between the responding and the nonresponding enterprises in terms of size as a. The average period of the relationship was 113 months. the variance explained and the sign and significance of path coefficients can be used to assess nomological validity |34]. Tests were conducted to ensure reliability and validity of the model constructs. but lo difMEASUREMENT PROPERTIES AND HYPOTHESES . Bollen and Lennox |8] suggest that researchers need a census of indicators and not a sample of indicators to measure the construct. When the indicators are reflective (unobservable underlying constructs give rise to associated measures).ssessed through the revenues for the last full year of operation.7. a substantial amount of common method variance does not appear to be present [571. but enterprises perceived it to be difficult to make the required organizational changes to replace existing partners (Table 3). dev. Table 4 shows the results of the factor analysis with items loading on their specified constructs. in case of formative indicators.26 GOSAiN. enterprises may share knowledge or information in a broad variety of areas. This was the case because there were several indicators that define the overall construct and there could be no correlation between the indicators. but there is considerable variance in the duration of relationships (std. Il is suggested that researchers should be careful to employ strong theory and multiple measures. A principal components factor analysis on the survey items yielded 8 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. the goal of the research is explaining viuiance. For instance. The summary measures indicate that the relationships were perceived to be performing quick rollovers and volume changes on average. 24]. structured data connectivity and the breadth of information sharing are assessed through formative scales. or reseller). There was also no significant difference by the type of enterprise (manufacturer. The reliability estimates for all the reflective constructs are greater than 0. and measures are not well established [10. AND EL SAWY tations made lo the RosettaNet board and post hoc interviews conducted with industry experts. and exploratory factor analysis indicated that the constructs were unidimensional with a single eigenvalue greater than I. PLS is more appropriate than LISREL when sample sizes are small and models are complex. and hence there is no summary statistic to measure the overall fit of models. as opposed to a single factor.0. Although PLS does not attempt to minimize residual item covariance. Data Analysis were examined using the partial least squares (PLS) approach to such modeling. it is appropriate to look at reliability and convergent validity. which accounted for 82 percent of the total variance. In this study. MALHOTRA. Since several factors. Measurement and structural models were assessed using the PLS procedure. However. quality of information sharing.5. and it is through a linear com. Measurement and Sttiictural Results In line with the preliminary analysis. The results of the PLS procedure for testing the hypothesized relationships are shown in Table 5.27 3.bination that we are able to assess the overall nattire of sharing. and deep coordination-related knowledge are positively related to supply chain flexibility for an enterprise in a supply chain . Ouality of information excfiange (INFQUAL) 4.70 4.COORDINATING FOR lO-EXIBILITY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 27 Table 3.87 1.99 INFOUA LI—Relevancy INFQUAL2—Value added INFQUAL3—Timeliness INFQUAL4—Completeness Notes: All constructs are measured through seven-point scales.64 1.93 0. We confirm tbat modular interconnected processes.11 0. which meets Nunnalty [52] guidelines.42 4.02 1. structured data connectivity.08 — Construct Offering flexibility (OFLEX) Partnering flexibility (PFLEX) Supply chain flexibility (SCFLEX) Modular intereonnected processes (MOD) Structured data connectivity (CONN) Standardization of process and content interfaces (STD) Deep coordinationrelated knowledge (CKNOW) Breadth of information excfiange(lNFBRD) Indicators 0FLEX1—Rollover 0FLEX2—Volume PFLEX1—Partner change SCFLEX1 = 0FLEX1 X PFLEX1 SCFELX2 = 0FLEX2 x PFLEX1 MODI—Task division M0D2—Specified outputs MOD3—Concurrency C0NN1—Electronic C0NN2—Real time CO NN3—Structured STD1—Process STD2—Content STD 3—Conversion PKNOW—Three items CAUSAL—Four items ORGMEM-Two items Sensing—Three items Change—Three items Broadcasting—Three items Feedback—Three items Standard deviation 1.7. Sutnmary Measures Sample average 5.09 ferent extents.54 1.s also over 0.60 1.20 3.69 5. the PLS measurement results showed internal consistency for all constructs with composite reliabilities above 0. Tbe average variance extracted for tbe constructs wa.40 4. .p . T= 2 5 ^ o is c > u P o C W "jj _^ 0 'H— _ rs c < o u ^ddd ooocpoo d d d d d d o P -a > EO 3 Z 1I oSS^SiiS o '^^§ u i.' S 2 £ S u "O S -2 .2 UJ d d d d d d d dddd E U' ^ I E °. 5 UJ 1 i.28 I tZ! U3 OJ O> p •. Q O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o >. d d d odoo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o "P ir 19 3 .S -S I CMCOO'^OtDOJlfif-OOOJ'^tDCOU^'^OJ tj * •= otDodcicitDOciocidcicicicid a CL X . 5 S . Interpretation of Results and Implications are positively linked to its ability to coordinate competencies and combine knowledge across corporate boundaries [41 ].190* 0. ** is significant at 0. The importance of mtKJuhirity of processes was echoed in a post hoc interview with an XML-tool vendor: "Protocols like SOAP (simple object access protocol) allow us to have fme-grained or coarse-grained interaction across business apps. This is also in line with past research at an organizational level that found organizational partitioning enabled differentiated units to work in parallel on routine as well as change tasks and allowed for shifting of the efflciency/tlexibility frontier 111. discriminant validity may be assessed by looking at the average variance extracted—average variance shared between a construct and its measures. In the PLS methodology. PLS Structural Model Results Supply chain flexibility (fP) Modular interconnected processes Structured data connectivity Standardization of process and content interfaces Quality of information sharing Breadth of information sharing Deep coordination-related knowledge 0. as indicated below. The table provides clear evidence of discriminant validity. but there has been little researcb on bow this distinctive organizational capability may be explicitly nurtured. Discriminant validity is a key issue in causal models and represents the extent to which measures of a given construct differ from measures of other constructs in the same mode!.01. information breadth was negatively associated with supply chain fiexibility." AN ENTERPRISE'S GROWTH AND tNNOVATtVENESs .523*" 0.025 0. We find broad support for tbe positive etTect of bypothcsized infonnation infrastructure cbmacteristics on offering flexibility and partnering flexibility jointly.v.s significant at 0. Some elements are especially significant. This measure should be greater than tbe variance shiu-ed between the construct and other constructs in the model [25J.202" -0.COORDINATING FOR FLEXtBlLITY IN E-BUStNESS SUPPLY CHAINS 29 Table 5. Modular process design will ensure that interenterprise systems are less dependent on each other—hence less likely to break as software evolves. * is significant at Q.188* -0. relationship.294*** M)/f. Modular design of interconnected prtK-esses bas a positive effect on supply cbain flexibility.301 0.IO.05. since the diagonal elements are significantly higher than the off-diagonal elements. Tbe results of this study show that organizational components of a business ecosystem can be flexibly integrated througb an appropriate information infrastructure design. Surprisingly. The importance of modular organizing is now being given greater recognition in process design methodologies 133|. * * • i. Table 6 shows tbe correlation between model constructs in the lower off-diagonal elements of the matrix and the square roots ot tbe average variance extracted along tbe diagonal. o to ro xj tion si"taring infor mation sh.-r- p oi 1 — OJ CO Ci •'j O) in CO ^ CM ^ C do o tD d d (D CD CJ CJ) CM CO o C M 5 d d d d d d d in CO CO C o C M M . proce!ssand ardii:atio E c .E m o ual U .ID OJ OJ r.2 6 Si.T00 i n C O in o C in O 03 C p O dod 00 00 o O Tj- o C in O T- d Tt t^ d d o CO " t p 1.^ -= Q.30 00 OJ d d h.$" o CO c C o Z «) O flj *O "^ ra T : to 0) O . S i C O C5 i n E J C C o O O O LL LL O c (D V) O O .aring ro o U c ainfllexib ility 5Cted f jroces nnectr jred dat. Follow-up investigation at a large computer manufacturer also indicated an "information overload" problem. An important element in the second de. Partners of this manufacturer were finding that legacy systems had user intertace designs that made them difficult to use.sign principle model was found lo be the quality of information sharing. there is a greater level of transparency for internal data. This makes it very important to ensure quality of information that is shared. but industry managers may not be able to appreciate the complete range of standards that need to be in place. as well as difficulty of linking back-end systems to EDI have been some of the drawbacks that have led to integration with select partners rather than large-scale adoption 153J. . With pervasive electronic business. Rather than looking at EDI as an encompassing standard. Private-network (value-added network [VAN])-based EDI have especially been known for their lack of flexibility—chunky infrastructure investments. This has a positive effect on supply chain flexibility. Post hoc inter\ iews with industry experts suggested that interoperability between enterprise applications remains a '"holy grail. . but the difference was not statistically significant. these relationships did indeed have lower piirtnering flexibility. The observed lack of any significant effect of standardization of process and content interfaces on supply chain Hexibility was perplexing. rigidity and complexity of X12 formats. it may be more appropriate to recognize how it is adapted and adaptable at different levels. although information breadth was hypothesized to be positively associated with supply chain flexibility. A surprising result was that. we conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedure to check if relationships that reported using VAN-based EDI as the dominant medium of information exchange rated lower on partner flexibility. as it is exposed to customer and business partner scrutiny. A frequently expressed concern was that current systems did not provide usable plant inventory information—"It is hard to wade through . To further assess the u. This may be attributed to institutionalizing elements that lead to structural rigidities in enterprises. while the newer Web-based IS provided hierarchical site structures that required moving through many pages rather than using hot links tailored to typical user activities. on average. as manual filtering mechanisms may no longer be in place." One vendor suggested that "interoperability standards are much like the layers of an onion—lower-level standards enable higher level standards .sighttui comments on the illusion of EDI standards—"not one of our vendors sends a standard EDI on shipments" commented a major distributor. it was found to he negatively associated." An earlier study of EDi as a language [ 18J points to EDI use being constantly renegotiated by feedback.se of rigid connectivity options in our sample.COORDINATING FOR FLEXIBILITY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 31 Structured data connectivity was also confirmed to be positively associated with supply chain flexibility. Our interviews with industiy managers also drew in. The wider the scope of new information linkages to be established. the more difficult it would be to add partners or drop partners or to change roles of existing partners. it was found that. Connectivity linkages that are rigidly defined may prevent organizations from making changes in information processing to accommodate new partners. and to make the required organizational changes such as changing processes and systems and training people. . AND EL SAWY the mass to get to the exact information we need.32 GOSAIN. and episodic (""If this happened. On its own. Newer technologies such as Web services and XML-based-" data interchange may enable overcoming the inflexibility of conventional EDI. maintained. A superficial assessment that relies on the state of current knowing without an examination of deeper cause-and-effect structures and links to organization memory would not yield an adequate understanding of how well the enterprise would deal with change. The convergence of the three knowledge-related dimensions into one factor indicates a holistic approach to conceptualizing knowledge relevant for interenterprise coordination. since they would need to encompass numerous interlinked exchanges between enterprises for a given process context. Quality of information is extremely important in terms of accuracy. any standard interlace specifications would be very complex and difficult to implement. and used. and relevancy. integrated. IT solutions for interenterprise integration need to provide a kxise coupling between enterprises that allows for the dynamic and opportunistic natLu^ of business relationships. and thus not pose an excessive investment cost to rule out diverse partners. but to an extent that does not rule out changes in light of a dynamic business environment. Implications for Information InfrastRicture Design Based on this study. but it may adversely affect pailnering tlexibility. procedural ("If I do this. especially that of a disruptive nature. Process steps need to be clearly specified and demarcated. contextualized. IS designers need to build in mechanisms that monitor quality and also include checks and constraints to ensure it. Without this. Support for structured data connectivity is important to provide the flexibility for changing offerings. coverage. it may be better to prioritize investments tow. This shows that the state of an enterprise's knowledge relevant to its sensing and adaptation capabilities for coordination should be assessed by reference to underlying mechanisms by which knowledge is acquired. The results of the study point to the importance of structuring infonnation flows. and thus lowering the ability of organizations to effectively respond to change." increased breadth of inlormation may be exacerbating the information overload problem. Increased breadth of coordination information may have a detrimental effect by contributing to an information overload problem. how did it affect that?"). Further. An enteiprise's processes and information tlows must be designed in a manner that encapsulates complex processing within processes and minimizes the need to coordinate with other prtKesses. we provide the following recommendations for IS designers. retrieved. MALHOTRA. especially those in different enterprises. timeliness.u-d improving quality of information shared with business partners rather than sharing lower-quality information in a broad variety of areas. how does it affect that?"). the latter does not provide requisite coordination outcomes and reduces flexibility in partnering. The underlying constructs relate to the different facets of knowledge— factual ("Who is good at what?"). When supplemented by business standards. By embracing the new generation of e-business technologies. but apparently much more work is needed in this area. this study suggests that enterprises also need to use IT to create a deep understanding relevant to coordination that will allow them to be better prepared to deal with change. pushing for standardized content and process . content. This requires investment in building awareness of how competence can be procured from partners and blended with organizational expertise. and so on. Developers of business interfaces need to accommodate periods of uncertainty due to market changes. procedures for dispute resolution. and infomiation exchanges is important to deal with changes in the business environment. agreement on catalog standards would allow changes in product features made by a manufacturer to be automatically reflected in distributor catalogs with no need for an extensive update. These standards need to be not merely technical but should include support for business rules. E-business adoption has proceeded more slowly in the lower tiers of supply chains. technological changes. and allow for structured exchanges that will communicate and resolve these uncertainties (product or partner change notifications. While the role of IS in capturing and disseminating knowledge in interorgani/ational contexts has been recognized |67]. As an example.COO[U)INATING FOR FLEXIBILITY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 33 Standardization of process. The Web services framework has emerged as a cornerstone for B2B applications development. interviews with industry managers suggested the need to build institutions to coordinate tbe development of open standards. contracts. Web services would provide the technical platform for flexible applications tbat would easily evolve and deal witb inevitable change. for example). It further needs to be ensured that the developed standards be robust enough to serve business needs in changed conditions. Finally. Although the study did not confirm the effect of standardization of business interfaces on supply chain flexibility. It also requires a foundational level of knowledge to be able to seek out and evaluate partner skills. Agreement on the adoption of standards by business partners will allow them to handle changes in offerings and make new product introductions much faster. as they are able to revalidate and recontextualize surface knowledge. This programmatic framework enables loose coupling between application components that expose their functionality and call upon external business functions through well-specified interfaces—which may even be discovered on-thefly [311. although the empirical investigation was conducted in tbe context of tierone relationships among larger players in supply chains. the results have important implications for tier-two and tier-three players as well. The study also suggests the importance of building the knowledge required for coordination and for knowing when and how to draw on the competence of partners. and so on. Along with these specifications. The Web services framework provides a basis for realizing the vision that this study started out with. there is a need tor an overall architecture that will allow individual companies to be glued into a business ecosystem and enable interorganizational process to be executed in a flexible manner. and these enterprises often tend to be smaller and highly dependent on dominant players. process brokers." enterprises need to make sure tbat they maintain communication pathways to share rich information with their partners and understand how their partners' actions need to trigger their own adaptive responses. MALHOTRA. Intertnediarics sucb as information brokers. intermediary-based approaches that leverage the design principles proposed in this study need to be examined as well. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research for a stream of research on interenterprise coordination that will inform decision-making related to interenterprise IT infrastructure. and relational |511—could be included in integrated models. At "execution time. and nurturing a deep understanding of coordination with other partners—essentially "becoming the easiest to do business witb"— these enterprises can enhance their positioning in supply chain ecologies. These factors map into coherent actions that enterprises can take with respect to information infrastructure design and execution capabilities nurturing. THIS STUDY HAS PRESENTED SPECIFIC FACTORS . W E BELIEVE THAT THIS STUDY HAS SET UP THE BASIS Conclusion underlying two different pathways that enterprises can use to create flexible link^es in their supply chains. since a good infrastructure design feeds into good execution capabilities. and content repositories to improve coordination. The design actions empbasize on fitting two disparate enterprises together using structuring mechanisms to link up and manage interdependencies. Finally. In this study. At "design time. Execution capabilities emphasize quick sensing and adaptation that is a result of rich information exchange and sharing of knowledge. It points to the need to consider flexibility outcomes in addition to transaction efficiency. information flows. The findings need to be complemented by studies that include other interorgani/ational variables.34 GOSAtN. The proposed antecedents allow for effectively dealing with change in the context of an existing relationship as well as change that requites reconfiguration of supply chain structure. Further researcb could also look at interactions among components of tbe models." enterprises need to carefully structure their interconnected processes. Generalization of the results from this study must be made cautiously because of tbe limitations of a convenience sample and an inability to assess an overall tit. An extension of tbis research could be longitudinal studies ibat link changes in antecedents to changes in coordination outcomes. as flexibility outcomes are increasing in importance with greater turbulence in business environments. and knowledge aggregators perform important roles in facilitating interenterprise coordination 164]. AND ILL SAWY interfaces in their industry sectors. cognitive. we focused on the current level of the variables witbout reterence to tbe historical context. Dimensions of social capital—structural. These two mechanisms are not really exclusive. Oracle. 3. Inftinnaiion Economics and Policy. Computacenter. K. Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. GS A. BischolT. Chehade. FOR H. 195-216. B. and UPS. While the road to flexibility is long and arduous. 4 (1991).ire critical for supply chain relationships and investigated infrastructure design and execution capabilities antecedents that simultaneously yield both. 10.I. 8. 4.M 5 .my-esm. 2. 1(1999).W. A. N. ABB.EXIBILITY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 35 The quote at the beginning of the paper highlights the fact that integration of enterprise processes across complex supply chains continues to be a pressing business issue. Intel. do not require that documents be rigidly formatted. Managing in an age of modularity. The lack of use of back-order queues refers to manufacturer making product as per planned forecasts rather than using unfuifilled demand information (back-orders) available from the distributor lo make adjustments to production plans. 7. SAP. but there may be no agreement on what XML tags need to be exchanged or how they are processed—information typically conveyed through common schema definitions. 10. CA. Hewlett-Packard. XML-based protocols separate out the content of documents from the structtire of data (metadata) and. 4. 5 (1997). October 19.org) compri. 6. Baldwin... and Ckirk.rosettanet. Computer2(X)(). and Smith. P. Partial least squares for researchers: An over\'iew and presentation of recent advances using the PLS approach. Barclay.COORDINATINC. Ingrain Micro. Bollen. MIS Qiiarrerly.B. PC Order. 84-93. Tech Pacific.: In search of efticient flexibility. Adler.. 10. since content is "tagged. 2.S. 2000. 162-1K().: Goldoftas. 6. RosettaNet (www. Allen. Chin. The impact of infonnation technology on coordination: Evidence from the B-2 "Stealth" bomber. Cisco. FedEx. . CompUSA. 4. J.2(KK) (available al www. Netftsh Technologies. White Paper. R. B. H. 305-314. American Express. and Boynton. 61. 4 3 5 . Structured data connectivity is distinct from standardized interfaces. NOTES 1. Santa Clara. 2 (1991).R. 75. Psychological Bulletin. Localized technological change and the evolution of standards as economic institutions. 2 (1999). Argyres. Microage. Netscape. K. C. Antoneili. D. Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the insights shared by Fadi Chchade and executives at companies in ihe RosettaNet Consortium. P. \ (1997). our findings indicate promising directions that will yield the robust and scalable integration that supply chains need. and Levine." The tags can be extended and validated.sed 28 board members at the time of data collection: Microsoft. and Lennox. 110. 3. Paper presented at the International Conlerencc on Informa- .com/story/OEG20(K)1019S(K)26). IBM. The elfects of organizational differences and trust on the eflectiveness of selling partner relationships. 3-4 (1994). CHS.C. GE Information Services. REFERENCES 1. Compaq. 9. 5. Journal of Marketing.W. Deutsche Financial Services. Organiztition Science." Electmnics Supply & A/«nH/(((7»n.Y. 15. Viacore works to become supply-chain "dial tone. Har\>ard Business Review. Toshiba. This paper has conceptualized two kinds of flexibility outcomes that . Inter-enterprise integration: Creating partner intimacy.i^.'?-68. D.3-21. EDS. information architectun. Orgimization Science.S.. C. Insight. because the capability may exist for structured data to be exchanged as with XML documents. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system.. W. TechData.B. unlike conventional EDI. California Management Review. Binary trading relations and the limit of EDI standards: The pr(x. 44. 4 (1998).H. III. 14. Brisbane. 18. 19.line56. Decision Support Systems. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. 27. 1999. and Truex.A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning sixvi \nrio\M\on. 19 (November 1982). F. 431-446. Electronic integration: Designing informalion technology mediated exchange relations and networks..VI09. 82-111. 13. Information Systems Research.S. 70-83. Fornell. S. Clark. 24. J. Administrative Science Quarterly. Modular network design: Using informalion and communication technologies to allocate production tasks in a virtual organization. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management. Strategic Management Journal. W. 21. M. Dyer. 1-24.. 6 (2(K)l). 660-679. GuVdtlR. D. and Kumaraswamy. 3-4 (2000). 23. 30. 15.T. 7-29.S. Curry.. G. Admini. P. and Klcindnrfcr. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable vur'iahlcs and mcasuremeTM crwT. 42. Haeckel. Hagel. Farell. 1 (1981). Specialized suppliernetworks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. 33. Sloan School of Management. Choudhury. 535-556.asp.uh. and Wagenaar.M. Supply chain inlcnupted. 25. Vervest. 31. 34.L. 14..M. Cohen. Ericson. Journal of Marketing Research. 11. Choudhury. Los Angeles (December2(X)1) (available at www. 16. 35. and Kenney. 32. .L. IS. Decision Sciences.B. Strategic Management Journal.edu/ chia/icis20()0plstiilk. I (1997). Narasimhan. Cambridge. MALHOTRA. S. dissenation. and Levinthal. 1 (1997). M. J. and Stoddard.. D.coni/articlcs/default. 173-188. E. A. 17.H.stems. 440-452. and Larcker. StrategicMatmgemcnt Jountat. 16 (Summer 1995). 17. J. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizatioiiiil competitive advantage.H. E.D. V. MIS Quarterly. 3 (2000). ICT-enabled coordination of dynamic supply webs. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational sub-units. V.strative Science Quarterly. 44. 25-53.36 GOSAIN. Jourruil of Marketing Research. A..B. Merging technological and process innovation. An economic analysis of intemrganizational information technology. Linc56. 20. /9. and Saloncr. J. 1 (1985). D. I (Fall 1999). Academy of Management Journal. K. 29.rustean bed of standards. Christiaanse. J. 8-3(). and Sampler. Hulland. 2 (Fall 1996). Communication and cmirdination in the virtual office.W. Interorganizational business process redesign. information specificity and environmental scanning: An economic perspective. Dyer. Damsgaard. 4 (1999). 16.. and Kumar.Galunic.M. Yournext IT ^tvdicgy. 1229-1249. Eflective inter-firm collaboration: How firms minimize transaction costs and maximi/c transaction value. 35.. Academy of Management Review. Australia. Garud.R. I (1999).cba. 2000 {available at disc-nt. Adaptive Enterprise—Creating and leading Sense-and-Respond Organizations. Strategic choices in the development of inter-organizational information systems. 30. y-28. J. J. Dyer.'Article!D=32()7).andEisenhardt. J. 18. D.. H.. 4 (Spring 1998). Ph. Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. 9. Journal of Management Information Sy. 1073-1103. European Journal of Information Systems. M. Harvard Business Review (October 2001).stitute of Technology. Journal of Management Information System. 26. 268-285. 105-113. C . I (1990). Standardization. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Beating the clock: Corporate responses to rapid chajige in the PC industry. 194-204. J. RAND Journal of Economics. 1992. J. Use ol partial least squares (PLS) in strategic managemem research: A review of four recent studies. C . Hansen. Tenissen. Strategic Management Journal. W.. Massachusetts ln.F..J. 271-292. 30. 23. 39-50. H (September 1992). Hoogevfeegen. T. 12. and Singh.H.. 2 (1999). M. K. demons. Kambil. 28. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.4(1998). Fornell.. 4 (1996).H. Strategic Management Journal. 9.s. and Bookstein. Frit/. S. H. 21. 128-152.C. J.: and Rhee. 22. R..pdf). 20.293-317. compatibility and innovation. D. P. December 10-13. AlWanccs and neiwnk^..W. AND EL SAWY tion Systems.M. 13. R. I (1997). and Brown. LinthicLim. T.. NJ: Addison-Wesley.R. Organizations. 44. 6 (1987). 3 (2(K)0). 51. V. 38.. July 8. Nahapiet. 317-338. 52. Clark. Information Systems Research.. H.stne. 9. II. Strategic Management Journal..ftem. Social capital.5-159. 248-265.34-62.E.. 66-74.L. Mello.. and Hammond. A. R. 43.G. Macdonald. and the orgatiizational advantage. 44. and Organ. 50. 13.A. 2(K)I. Information Week (July 1.search. March. 48. ZDNet Update (October 29. J. 1978. 5 (1995). 79-82. H. NJ:Prenlicc Hall. Orton. Information Sy. 2d ed.. M. Rindova. 62. 439-459. One to One^BlB: Customer Development Strategies for the Bu. 2 (2000). 1958. 10. Re-engineering channel re-ordering processes to improve total supply chain performance. J. Strategic Management Journal. J.I4179. B2B Application Integration.. Mendeison. H. S. 2 (1998). intellectual capital. 16. S.search. J. Modularity. 242-266. 484-^97.W. and Weick. 3 (1997). Infonnation Swstems Manugement. D. 6 (1999). Production and Operations Management.H.ss Wnrttl.m-ms Re. Communications of the ACM.I. RosettaNet implementation framework. J. J. S. 59. Peppers. 2 i 1990). i.E. A.W. 46. Clockspeed and information response: Evidence from the information technology industry. 41. Podsakoff. 557-568. V. 1 (2000. Prosser.\s-to-BiisinessE-Commerce.T. 19. Psychometric Theon'. J. and Benjamin. 46.A. Strategic Management Journal. 105-114.html).rosettanet. Konicki. Koka. C. 49. 20.P. 45. CIO. M. 6 (2001). Academy of Management Review. and Couch.. 47. 1263-1280. 37-55. 11 attacks reveal supply-chain vulnerahiHties. The impact of EDI on interorganizational integration. R. R. . and Simon. Learning to change: An information perspective on learning in the organization. 17. 15. 2002)..H. Academy of Management Journal. B. Networks in transition: How industry events (re)shape interilrm relationships. J. New York: Currency Doubleday. P. Kobieius. and Lipparini. 13. Academy of Management Review. 6. Lorenzoni. Continuous "morphing": Competing through dynamic capabilities. MtK)re. D. New York: John Wiley & Sons. special issue (Winter 1996). and Pillai. 55. 4 (2000).. R. 2001.. 23. and Prescott. R. 30. 2001) (available at techupdate. 1996-January I. S. 42. Tlie once and future EDI.. R. 531-544. 40. 4 (1998). BizTalk—lniplementlng Bu. Kumar. 37. II.zdnet. RosettaNet. Information Sy.. 57. Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. International Journal of Production Economics. special issue (1995). Seli-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. 513-529. and Mahoney. 56. 3(1997).. A. K. Symbolic Interaction. J. Malone. Organization Science. flexibility. and Ghoshal. Journal of Management. Palmer. Research commentary: The organizing logic for an enterprise's IT activities in the digital era—A prognosis of practice and a call for rc. and Rogers.. 5 (1998). and Nickl. Mendeison. Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. 12 (Winter 1986). 60. and function. Miller. form. Sept. 52. 53. The nature of social pasts and their use as foundations for HiXuatcA iicXion. Management Science. 6 (December 15. K. A. The perfonnance impacts of quick response and strategic alignment in specialty retailing. M. D. G. T. 25-47.COORDtNATING FOR FLEXtBILITY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 37 36.G. Information Systems Research. 415-433.W. 1 (1992).E. 61. Strategic Management Journal.com/techupdate/stories/main/0. Sanchez. 63. CA.W.org).^ Reseanh. Upper Saddle River.. H. The leveraging of inler-llnn relalinnships as a distinctive organizational capabiliiy: A longitudinal study. The multiple dimensions of information quality. and Markus. A foundation for flexible automated electronic communication. 241-259. 1999 (available at www. Upper Saddle River. Nunnally. 1997). 54.. and Kotha.01. 12. Sanchez. Katovich. Sambamuithy. Yates.R. 39. 203-223.D. 63-76. 6. 15. Organizational architecture and success in the IT industry. and Zmud.is-to-Busine. Madhavan.2817153. Santa Ana. Shopping for savings. version 1. and knowledge management in product and organization design. 269-281.00 .Kine. 2 (1996). 58. S.C'.. Strategic flexibility in product competition. New York: McGraw-Hill... . 5-43. AND EL SAWY 64. 74. Electronic commerce: DetlnJtion. 2. and Steensma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. New York: Cuncncy Dtnibleday. 4. O. ^{ 1995){availableai www. 47-48. Intermediaries and cybermedlaries: A continuing role for mediating players in the electronic marketplace. R. M. 77. 78. 85. Information Week (July 2. L. S. Information Societw 13.). 75. 84. Facilitating interorganizalional learning with Jnformalion technology. 85-117.. 40.. M. 2 (Fall 2tKK)).W. 1999). D. vol. 4 (2001). pp. Academy oj Management Review..L. 19X0. 2002). C . 65. 549-567. 439-459. 2000. The trade-olf between efficiency and learning in interorgani/ationa! relationships for product development.A. Delenninants of cmirdlnation modes within organizations. Anwriccm Sociological Review.ascusc.org/jcmc/vOl I/issue3/sarkar. and Ktieniy. P.M. 68. C. 4 (1999). 1998. 1985. Get together. N. /. 1999. 31. and Anderson. Shapiro. 16. and Zwass. A..himl).seatvh in Organizational Behavior. and Venkatraman. 72. P. Strategic flexibility In informaiion technology alliances: The influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory.ing organi/aiional memory with information systems. and Varian. 40.R. H. M. 6. Management Science. 1149-! I(i8. Information rules. Ticoll. Sobrero. H. 81-113. 10. Leveraging tiie New Infrastructure: How Market Leaders Capitalize on Information.B. 322-338. G. I (1991). HE Tninsactions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Weiil. A. 81. Schwab. theory and context. and Ungson. van de Ven. and Nagi. 79. Sloan Managemenl Review. 1 (1997). I (1995). M. Organization Svieme. Market. R. Networks t)f collaboration or conflict? Electronic data interchange and power in the supply chain.. Information Sy. 19.A. M. Stein.A. M.: Delbecq. Senge. 44. R. Sarkar. In B. Sobrero. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 10 (1997). Song. Webster. Young-Ybarra. Acttiali/.38 GOSAIN. Otganization Studies. Scott. 45-58. J.H. 5 (1994). Academy ofMunagentftil Journal. 1-16. 2 (April 1976). D. 41. Williamson. Determinants of electronic integrmion in the insurance industry: An empirical test.P.. 29. and Lowy. C and WIersema. and Roberts. Butler. Managing codified knowledge.New York: Free Press. S.stenis Reseanh. Cummings.. Zaheer. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. M. E. Staw and L.T. Greenwich. P. and Steinfeld.. and Schradcr..E. 439-465. The Fifth Discipline—The An & Practice of the Learning Organization.. Journal of Strategic Information Systems. B. Zack. 67. Design and implementation of a virtual information system for agile manufacturing.. 31-42. and Broadbent. 82. A. J. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Management Science.. .^ and Hierarchies. 4 (July-August. M. Journal of Management Information Systems. 70. Administrative Science Quarterly. 17. 71. CT: JAI Press. 2 (1995).. Swanson. Tushman. V. 6 (20()l). 839-857. Tapsci)tt. E. D. 1990. 80. 3 (1986). 76. Organizational memory.B. Structuring inter-firm relationships: A meta-analytic approaeh. 4 (1998). Construct validity in organizational behavior. J. Schilling. 73. Re. MALHOTOA. 57-91. Digital Capital—^Harnessing the Power of Business Webs. The use of modular organizaiional forms: An industry-level analysis. 47. 69. 493-511. 58S-615. (eds. 66. Walsh. Wigand. 83.K. Extent to which the business processes interfaces with <Panner Organization> are similar to the process interfaces linked with other channel partners. in terms of data formats.COORDINATING FOR FLEXIBIUTY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 39 Appendix: Operationalization of Constructs Offering Flexibility (OFLEX) The following items are related to the operational characteristics of your relationship and intertace with <Partner Organization>: 1. Assess your company's ability to rapidly t^espond to ch:mge in demanded product volumes in conjunction with <Partner Organization> in comparison with industry norms. how easy would it be to replace <Partner Organization> with new partner. in terms of making the required organizational changes? Very difficult 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very easy 7 N/A Standardization of Process and Content Interfaces (STD) 1. Very low 1 2 3 4 5 6 Very high 7 N/A Partnering Flexibility (PFLEX) If an eligible new partner were to be available that you wanted to do business with. Very similar to other partners 1 2 Extremely specific to this partner 6 7 N/A 3 4 5 . Rollovers are difficult I 2 Quick mllovers 7 3 4 5 6 N/A 2. Extent to which the business processes interfaces with <Partner Organlzation> are sitnilar to the process interfaces linked with other channel partners. in terms of rules and procedures. Very similar to other partners 1 2 Extremely specific to this partner 5 6 7 3 4 N/A 2. Assess yotir company's ability to rapidly phase out old products and intmduce new ones in conjunction v/iih <Partner Organization> in comparison with industry norms. ) with <Partner Organization> needs to be converted/translated to be interpreted by your company. after sales support). sales reporting. inventory information. The activities performed by your company and <Partner Organization> are performed simultaneously to a large extent. The processes conducted in conjunction with <PiU'tner Or^anization> are divided into clearly undei^tood activities to be performed by you and <Partner Organization>. new product introduction.. etc. Strongly disagree 1 Somewhat agree 4 Strongly agree 7 2 3 5 6 N/A Structured Data Connectivity (CONN) Please respond to the following items related to your ability to exchange transaction and content data electronically with <Partner Organization> and potential partners. product availability. AND EL SAWY 3. 1. product information. 1. Strongly disagree 1 Somewhat agree 4 Strongly agree 7 2 3 5 6 N/A 2. Strongly disagree 1 Somewhat agree 4 Strongly agree 7 2 3 5 6 N/A 3. returns handling. order lulftllment.40 GOSAIN. The output requirements of <Partner Organization> from your company and your requirements from <Partner Organization> are precisely specifted and understoixl. Extent to which information exchanged (e. Does not need to be converted/ translated 1 2 Needs to be converted/translated extensively 6 7 N/A 3 4 5 Modular Interconnected Processes (MOD) Please answer the following questions in context of channel processes conducted by your company in cotijunction with <pLirtner Orgunization> (e.g.. MALHOTRA.g. The extent to which you can exchange data in electronic formats with <Partner Organization> and other similar partners. promotions planning. Mostly electronic 1 Mostly nonelectronic 6 7 N/A 2 3 4 5 . Ability to derive inferences from past events (stich as process exceptions. and Content (CKNOW . Very limited ability 1 Very effective ability 6 7 N/A 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of Partner Competencies. 1.COORDINATING FOR FLEXiBtLtTY IN E-BUSiNESS SUPPLY CHAINS 41 2. competencies. The extent to which you can exchange data in real titne with <Partner Organization> and other similar partners. I. Processes. effects of different cornpany responses). Very little knowledge 1 Very detailed knowledge 6 7 N/A 2 3 4 5 .PKNOW) Please rate the extent to which the following types of knowledge about <?artner Organization> are available within your organization to the appropriate people in an actionable form. infonnation systems. Knowledge of skills. about supply chain events. Very limited ability 1 Very effective ability 6 7 N/A 2 3 4 5 2. Ability to retain experiences through people's memory. The extent to which data exchange is structured (rather than free format exchange such as e-mail text). and value added by <Partner Organization>. and so on. Extensive real-time exchange 1 Mostly batched and delayed exchanges 6 7 N/A 2 3 4 5 3. organization routines. Data can be highly structured 1 2 No support for structured data 6 7 N/A 3 4 5 Organizational Memory of Past Change Episodes (CKNOW-ORGMEM) Please respond to the following items related your organization's ability to draw from past experience. patterns of demand shifts. Knowledge of how to coordinate with partners. How well does your company understand how information flows and content changes made in conjunction with <Partner Organization> affect output product and service performance? Very little understanding of causal linkages I 2 Some amount of understanding. no clear agreement 3 4 5 Higb-level understanding based on detailed business models 6 7 N/A 2. Very little knowledge 1 Very detailed knowledge 6 7 N/A 2 3 4 5 3. Knowledge of formats required to exchange informatioti with <Partner Organization>. How well does your company understand what process changes need to be made in conjunction with <Partner Organization> to achieve specific business goals? Very little understanding of causal linkages 1 2 Some amount of understanding.CAUSAL) Please respond to the following questions related to your organization's understanding of what process and information changes need to be made to support changes in products/services offered in conjunction with <Panner Organization>. partner process interfaces. no clear agreement 3 4 5 High-level understanding based on detailed business models 6 7 N/A . AND EL SAWY 2. 1.42 OOSAIN. and process dependencies on <Partner Organization>. no clear agreement 3 4 5 High-level understanding based on detailed business models 6 7 N/A 3. Very little knowledge 1 Very detailed knowledge 6 7 N/A 2 3 4 5 Understanding of Causal Linkages (CKNOW . MALHOTRA. How well does your company understand how process changes made in conjunction with <Partner Organization> affect overall output product and service pertbrmance? Very little understanding of causal linkages 1 2 Some amount of understanding. Do you and <Panner OrganizLilion> exchange future plans (such as promotion and marketing plans. How wel! does your company understand what information flow and content changes need to be made in conjunction with <Partner Organization> to achieve specific business goals? Very little understanding of causal linkages 1 2 Some amount of understanding. Change.COORDINATING FOR FLEXIBILITY IN E-BUSINESS SUPPLY CHAINS 43 4. Do you and <Parlner Organization> exchange information related to market demand trends and forecasts? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 4. Do you and <Partner Organization> exchange information on demand shifts and changes in customer preferences? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 . Do not exchange I Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 3. Broadcasting. capacity utilization. Feedback Please indicate whether you exchange information with <P. capital investments. no clear agreement 3 4 5 High-level understanding based on detailed business models 6 7 N/A Interorganizational Information Sharing Information Breadth (INFBRD) Sensing. Do you and <Partner Organization> exchange details of upcoming product or service related changes? Do not exchange I Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 2. 1. etc.irtner Organization> in the following areas.)? . long-term production plans. technical specifications. production volumes. Do you and <Partner Ot. Do you and <Partner Organization> exchange process information needed to support changes in product features or volumes? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 8.)? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 9. and alliances? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sotnetimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 6.44 GOSAIN.)? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 10. Do you and <Partner Organization> exchange information on internal operating parameters (such as inventory levels.ganization> exchange infonnation about each other's internal processes? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 7. MALHOTRA. part numbers. Do you and <Partner Organization> exchange information related to changes in supply chain structure—such as addition or dropping of partner companies. AND EL SAWY 5. Do you and <Partner Organization> exchange information related to changes in information content (such as catalog information. mergers. Do you exchange information with <Partner Ot^anization> on how to improve coordination at the interface with each other? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 . etc. product availability. etc. Do you exchange feedback with <Partner Organization> related to each other's perfonnance vis-i-vis expectations? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 11. How would you rate the information exchanged with <Partner Organization> in terms of its completeness.ation> in terms of its timeliness.COORDtNATING FOR FLEXIBILITY IN E-BUStNESS SUPPLY CHAINS 4. compared to infonnation exchanged with other similar partners? Worse 1 2 3 Same 4 5 6 Better 7 N/A 3. How would you rate the information exchanged with <Partner Organization> in terms of its relevancy to your business needs.5 12. Do you exchange information with <Partner Organization> to help each other adjust your processes and information formats? Do not exchange 1 Exchange sometimes 4 Exchange extensively 7 N/A 2 3 5 6 Information Quality (INFQUAL) Please answer the following items related to the nature of information you exchange with <Partner Organization>. How would you rate the infonnation exchanged with <Partner Or^ani7. 1. How would you rate the information exchanged with <Partner Organization> in terms of its value-added \o your business needs. compared to information exchanged with other similar partners? Worse 1 2 3 Same 4 5 6 Better 7 N/A 4. compared to infomiation exchanged with other similar partners? Worse 1 2 3 Same 4 5 6 Better 7 N/A 2. compared to infomiation exchanged with other similar piirtners? Worse 1 2 3 Same 4 5 6 Better 7 N/A . Documents Similar To SCM- Coordinating in eBusiness Supply ChainSkip carouselcarousel previouscarousel next21st Century Supply Chain_kelompok 1_zu 2014OTIS ELEVATOR CASE ANAYSIS AND SUMMARYAPBS-EGlobal Manganese Acetate Industry Report 2015UntitledMeasuring SCM Benifits & SCORUntitledChap016.pdflamb1Forum BrochureOlam Presentation Bordeless Alliance Forum May 15 2012 FinalQuality Management Tools and TechniquesIBM - unit - ivUntitledWEFUSA_BeyondSupplyChains_Report2015MGT300 - Ch03 ExerciseHasnain Logistic9780273730781_pp06_Final.pdfUntitledHonda pptAmway Lean Office Hdi 2NRAN-7ZE9R3_R1_EN25 Ways to Simplify Your Business11 great Supply Chain disastersUntitledSCMDrivers affects in indian manufacturing industries.pdfGlossary of AbbreviationsDirector Of PurchasingGM 1927-08 Potential Supplier Assessment - PSA (Avaliaç_o de Risco)Footer MenuBack To TopAboutAbout ScribdPressOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelp / FAQAccessibilityPurchase helpAdChoicesPublishersSocial MediaCopyright © 2018 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Site Directory.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaSign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadClose DialogAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOK