Supply Chain Collaboration: A Framework for Bridging Barriers

(1)

Supply Chain Collaboration

A Framework for Bridging Barriers

Olov Elofsson Ludvig Paulsson

Industrial and Management Engineering, master's level 2020

Luleå University of Technology

Department of Business Administration, Technology and Social Sciences

(2)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study is the final part of our master’s degree in Industrial and Management Engineering with a specialization in Industrial Logistics at Luleå University of Technology.

We want to thank all of the respondents for sharing their knowledge and providing input for this study. Additionally, we want to express gratitude to our supervisors, Lovisa Haglöf, and Mikael Zachrisson. This study would not have taken place without your valuable expertise and commitment. Moreover, we want to thank Thomas Fernqvist for your warm welcome during visits, along with your profound insight. Lastly, we would like to thank our university supervisor, Björn Samuelsson, and our fellow students, who provided valuable feedback.

Thank you.

Luleå, June 2020.

(3)

ABSTRACT

Purpose - The purpose of this study is to advance the understanding of collaboration in supply chains. To answer this purpose, the following research questions were developed: 1) What are possible barriers to collaboration, and 2) How can such barriers be managed?

Method - This study was conducted by a qualitative single case study with a grounded theory approach. In total, 17 interviews were conducted in three waves with varying intentions, and findings were derived using a thematic analysis.

Findings – The findings of this study are presented in a framework for bridging barriers. In total, seven barriers have been encountered: 1) lack of traceability, 2) mistrust in data, 3) knowledge deficit, 4) silo mentality, 5) lack of transparency, 6) misalignment, and 7) lack of standardization.

Moreover, four bridges have been identified: 1) joint goals and metrics, 2) information system, 3) education and training, and 4) steering committee.

Theoretical and managerial implications - This study expands the literature by unraveling in- depth knowledge of collaboration in supply chains based on insights from large industrial companies. In specific, it contributes to ongoing examinations by shredding the lights on barriers and bridges, conceptualized from antecedents and activities. Furthermore, it added practically with a framework that managers can use as guidance for bridging barriers in collaboration.

Limitations and future research - This study is limited to a single case study. As a result, future research is suggested to validate the findings in another context and geographical areas.

(4)

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION ...1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...3

2.1 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ...3

2.2 ANTECEDENTS ...4

2.3 ACTIVITIES ...6

3. METHOD ...8

3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH ...8

3.2 DATA COLLECTION ...9

3.3 DATA ANALYSIS... 11

3.4 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES ... 13

4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ... 14

4.1 ENCOUNTERED BARRIERS ... 14

4.2 IDENTIFIED BRIDGES ... 18

4.3 A FRAMEWORK FOR BRIDGING BARRIERS... 21

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 23

5.1 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 23

5.2 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS ... 23

5.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 24

6. REFERENCES ... 25

7. APPENDIX I ... 28

(5)

1. INTRODUCTION

The emergence of global business environments has given rise to rapidly changing markets, increased global competition, and more demanding consumers, making the landscape dynamic and uncertain (Singh, Garg, & Sachdeva, 2018). To maintain business under these conditions, firms need to seek opportunities beyond their organizational boundaries and collaborate with partners to ensure that supply chains are productive and responsive enough to satisfy customer needs (Chen et al., 2017). As a result, companies such as Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Dell, Procter

& Gamble are all seeking greater supply chain collaboration as one of their top priorities (Cao

& Zhang, 2011). Collaboration in the supply chain entails two or more independent firms working together to plan and execute operations, and can, according to Benavides, Eskinazis and Swan (2012) be defined as:

“[…] joint initiatives that go beyond the ordinary course of day-to-day operations to deliver significant improvements over the long-term.”

Focusing on the outcomes, firms that have made substantial use of collaboration have benefitted greatly from a profit uplift by 5 percent to 11 percent through the combination of increased sales and cost reduction (Benavides et al., 2012). Companies have also reported increased on-time delivery by 50 percent, lowered inventories by 35 percent, and declined acquisition costs by 5 percent (Fawcett & Magnan, 2001). Moreover, anecdotal evidence is derived in forms of increased visibility, service levels, and flexibility, improved inventory management, quicker market responsiveness, and higher customer satisfaction (Singh et al., 2018; Pradabwong, Braziotis, Tannock, & Pawar, 2017). Besides, the ability to work closely provides excellent opportunities for innovation (Liao, Hu, & Ding, 2017; Benavides et al., 2012). Such innovations have varied from small increases in production efficiency to radical and incremental innovations like new production techniques or entirely new commodities.

However, despite promising opportunities, collaboration is neither straightforward nor convenient, and many relationships struggle to meet the expectations (Ramesh, Banwet, &

Shankar, 2010). In fact, due to cultural and structural barriers (i.e., resisting forces), only small proportions can indeed utilize the synergetic outcome (Fawcett, Magnan, & Ogden, 2007).

Collaborations are, for example, struggling with low levels of trust (Yuen & Thai, 2017; Ramesh et al., 2010), resistance to change (Ramesh et al., 2010; Fawcett et al., 2007), and insufficient information transfer (Fawcett, Magnan, & McCarter, 2008). In addition, many organizations fail

(6)

to devote enough resources to make collaborations work (Yuen & Thai, 2017), or they spread limited resources over too many initiatives. Besides, the very nature of collaboration makes it even more complicated as independent firms must align their activities and navigate differences in organizational architecture and culture (Fawcett et al., 2007). Simultaneously, dysfunctional relationships can make partners unwilling to share critical data, causing them to concentrate on their role in separate silos (Benavides et al., 2012).

In conclusion, barriers associated with collaboration have been identified in previous literature, although it is limited (e.g., Yuen & Thai, 2017; Anis, Islam, Hashim, & Rahim, 2019).

Moreover, most of the barriers are usually related to a heterogeneous structure and examined in particular contexts. This leaves the insights unique to individual circumstances and is likely not adaptable in all configurations. In addition, some barriers were noted to be fragmented. For example, Vijayasarathy (2010) restricted his analysis of relational barriers, such as trust, commitment, and mutual dependency, while Fawcett et al. (2008) focused on barriers that relate to inter-firm rivalry and managerial complexity. As a result, the current literature lacks a holistic understanding and scattered studies have offered little knowledge consolidation. Therefore, some of the main factors which hinder collaboration may remain unknown.

Unless organizations address their barriers, they will fail to utilize the synergetic outcome and risk losing their enthusiasm for future initiatives. However, collaboration is not inconceivable, and there are ways in which critical issues can be resolved.

To this background, the purpose of this study is to advance the understanding of collaboration in supply chains. In particular, possible barriers to collaboration will be recognized, followed by guidance on managing them, in forms of bridges. Regarding this purpose, the following research questions have been formulated:

RQ1: What are possible barriers to collaboration?

RQ2: How can such barriers be managed?

To answer the research questions, we have undertaken a single case study examining the current collaboration. This research will contribute to the literature by advancing the current understanding of collaboration by shedding light on barriers and bridges. Furthermore, the study will have practical implications. In particular, it will help guide managers in their attempts to make progress through the path towards better collaboration.

(7)

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter aims to provide an overview of previous research in collaborations. First, we are developing a conceptual model based on the constructs of antecedents and activities. Second, we discuss the components of each construct in more detail.

2.1 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT

Collaboration is a broad and extensive-term, and when put in the context of a supply chain, it needs further clarification (Barratt, 2004). Consequently, the complex nature of supply chains adds difficulties in conceptualizing supply chain collaboration.

However, we advocate the insights by Min et al. (2005) that collaboration can be conceptualized by antecedents and activities, which, if executed correctly, leads to synergetic outcomes. Antecedents are constructs that form an intuitively appealing set of conditions creating the building blocks of the collaboration. At the same time, activities are the construct that involves the day-to-day operations and are founded on the base provided by antecedents.

Hence, this suggests a virtuous cycle where antecedents could both facilitate and inhibit the practice of activities, as illustrated in Figure 1. The components that make up each of the constructs will be discussed in more detail through the following sections.

Figure 1. Conceptual model.

(8)

2.2 ANTECEDENTS

The nature of antecedents is often narrowly defined (Min et al., 2005), and few attempts have been made to provide a holistic overview of the construct (Zhang & Cao, 2018).

Based on several publications (e.g., Pradabwong et al., 2017; Basheer, Siam, Awn, &

Hassan, 2019; Smart, Maddern, & Maull, 2009; McCarter, Fawcett, & Magnan, 2005), we have throughout this study chosen to perceive antecedents as four components: 1) strategic alignment, 2) commitment, 3) information technology, and 4) formalization. These antecedents are considered to include a wide variety of areas and are presented in the following sections.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

Several studies have acknowledged strategic alignment as an antecedent to collaboration (e.g., Pradabwong et al., 2017; Smart et al., 2009; Min et al., 2005). Without collectively accepted, and transparent approaches, supply chain processes cannot be appropriately aligned to provide relevant customer offers (Smart et al., 2009). Therefore, strategic alignment aims to outline a clearly defined vision and long-term goals, while also consider customers preferences and align internal organizational characteristics (Pradabwong et al., 2017; Smart et al., 2009). Moreover, this idea must be sold internally and shared with key supply chain partners.

In addition, a common understanding of the supply chain is also advocated and called for (Pradabwong et al., 2017). This suggests that businesses should recognize and track supply chain activities to make a sustainable alliance. As most processes involve several value-added activities spanning multiple functions and across organizational boundaries, efforts must be made to close these gaps of understanding.

Furthermore, establishing internal and external alignments will yield additional dividends by helping streamline activities in critical areas such as production, forecasting, distribution, and procurement (Min et al., 2005). It involves developing policies to enhance the joint value through the redesign of processes. Therefore, it is used as an instrument for translating organizations' directions into specific needs and enforcing them into operation (Pradabwong et al., 2017).

COMMITMENT

Numerous studies have acknowledged commitment as an antecedent to collaboration (e.g., Fawcett et al., 2008; Fawcett & Magnan, 2001; McCarter et al., 2005). Commitment is commonly referred to as a necessity for a successful partnership, and it requires investments in

(9)

both financial resources (e.g., money, technology) and non-financial resources (e.g., time, training) from all participating chain members (Fawcett & Magnan, 2001). Moreover, it often takes shape through top management support, channel participation, advisory councils, or steering committees (Fawcett et al., 2008).

However, it is essential not to overlook people when utilizing assets, as they are at the root of all interdisciplinary advances (McCarter et al., 2005). Assets can only be used to the fullest extent if knowledge and experience are distributed among all workers (Fawcett et al., 2008). Therefore, sharing expertise among members is indeed a facilitator that allows the entire supply chain to become more efficient and, therefore, more competitive.

Furthermore, cross-organizational teams are outlined as a useful and valuable mechanism for mutual responsibility and the narrowing of organizational structures (Barratt, 2004). Thus, this entails the need for activities that involve cross-organizational personnel to promote the willingness and familiarity between the partners to establish closer partnerships (Fawcett et al., 2008).

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Various studies have recognized information technology as an antecedent to collaboration (e.g., Basheer et al., 2019; Powell, 2013). It is practically impossible to synchronize activities across functional and organizational boundaries without the exchange of information between operational and transactional operations (Basheer et al., 2019). Therefore, if supply chain managers are supposed to make tough choices in complicated settings, valuable information must be accessible in the right place at the right time (McCarter et al., 2005).

Consequently, information technology is believed to be the most significant factor for minimizing costs, enhancing operational agility, and improving overall supply chain performance (Basheer et al., 2019). Information technology can integrate all relevant parts of the supply chain, including planning, resource allocation, and control activities for all the different departments within the individual organization and its partners (Powell, 2013). A higher degree of technology integration has indeed shown improved operational performance, information sharing, end-to-end visibility, and process integration (Prajogo & Olhager, 2012;

Sheu, Yen, & Chae, 2006).

However, without the willingness and engagement to share sensitive data, information technology cannot be utilized to its full potential. Therefore, the human side is of equal or even greater importance (McCarter et al., 2005). If these are combined, the use of information technology will unify partners by encouraging closer, more regular interactions.

(10)

FORMALIZATION

Multiple studies have identified formalization as an antecedent to collaboration (e.g., Chen, Daugherty, & Roath, 2009; Min et al., 2005). Formalization refers to the extent to which decision-making is regulated by explicit rules, principles, and procedures, and sets the expectations in forms of practices and outcomes of the collaboration.

Searching for better practices and ideas that lead to positive outcomes implies that chain members also need to benchmark their existing collaborative practices to other collaborative supply chains (Fawcett & Magnan, 2001). Hence, benchmarking allows companies to define the highest level of quality in customer services and processes and then introduce the required changes to achieve or surpass those standards.

Moreover, joint metrics should be used and periodically reviewed to drive performance and ensure that customer requirement is met (Chen et al., 2009). These provide mutual understanding, encourages correct behaviors, and promote a shared focus among all partners.

The most desirable outcome is to have metrics aligned with organizational and supply chain objectives, that moreover, are easily understood by everyone, and that are both operational and strategically oriented.

2.3 ACTIVITIES

The nature of activities is not to well understood (Lejeune & Yakova, 2005), consistently redefined (Narayanan, Narasimhan, & Schoenherr, 2015) and varies depending on the unique research purpose (Sheu et al., 2006).

Based on several publications (i.e., Cao & Zhang, 2011; Chen et al., 2017; Simatupang &

Sridharan, 2005), we have throughout this study chosen to perceive activities as seven components: 1) information sharing, 2) goal congruence, 3) decision synchronization, 4) incentive alignment, 5) resources sharing, 6) collaborative communication, and 7) joint knowledge creation. These activities are considered to include a wide variety of areas and are presented in Table 1.

(11)

Table 1. Activities.

INFORMATION SHARING

It refers to the process by which a company shares a variety of relevant, accurate, and timely information with its partners (Cao & Zhang, 2011). It has been described as the heart, essential ingredients, and foundation of collaboration. Consequently, firms are willing to make data such as forecasts, inventory levels, and marketing strategies available to their collaborative partners.

GOAL CONGRUENCE

It refers to how a company perceives its objectives are fulfilled by achieving the supply chain objectives (Cao & Zhang, 2011). In the spirit of goal congruence, firms believe that, in the case of disparity, their intentions can be satisfied as a direct result of working towards the supply chain's goals.

DECISION SYNCHRONIZATION

It refers to the process by which partners orchestrate decisions in planning and operations that optimize the supply chain benefits (Simatupang & Sridharan, 2005). There are several supply chain decisions, such as production planning, procurement, inventory replenishment, and order delivery.

INCENTIVE ALIGNMENT

It refers to the process by which partners share costs, risks, benefits, and developing incentive schemes (Simatupang & Sridharan, 2005). Successful supply chain partnerships entail that each actor share gains and losses equally, which means profits are proportional to investment and risk.

RESOURCE SHARING

It refers to the process of leveraging and investing in capabilities and assets with partners (Cao & Zhang, 2011). Resources include physical resources, such as manufacturing equipment, facility, and technology.

COLLABORATIVE COMMUNICATION

It refers to the message transmission process among partners in terms of frequency, direction, and mode (Cao & Zhang, 2011). Open, frequent, balanced, two-way, multilevel communication is generally an indication of close inter-organizational relationships.

JOINT KNOWLEDGE CREATION

It refers to the extent to which partners develop a better conception of and respond to the competitive environment by working together (Cao & Zhang, 2011). The exchange and assimilation of knowledge between supply chain partners enable the long-term competitiveness of the supply chain.

(12)

3. METHOD

This chapter aims to provide an overview of how the study was conducted. First, we explain the chosen research approach. Second, we present the data collection and analysis. Third, we discuss actions that were made to improve the study's trustworthiness.

3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH

This study relies on a grounded theory, which is referred to as an abductive approach (David &

Sutton, 2011). More precisely, it allows new theory to be generated through continuous data collection and analysis, supported by current literature (Murphy, Klotz, & Kreiner, 2017). Since new theory is provided by empirical evidence, a qualitative single case study was considered a suitable strategy, since it enabled us to focus on meaning rather than generalization (David &

Sutton, 2011). This strategy has also been considered a necessary type of research in supply chain management, as conventional strategies often constrain their applicability (Pfohl & Buse, 2000).

See An overview of the research process is presented in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Research process.

Regarding the lack of consensus on what barriers to expected in collaboration, we choose to address this study on the idea that an empirical assessment of the presented activities will provide us with a comprehensive view of potential barriers. In doing so, we were not

(13)

constrained by a specific barrier proposed in the literature, but rather, allowed for a systematic approach to identify new barriers. Furthermore, based on the conceptual model, it was believed that antecedents might yield potential bridges to manage encountered barriers if they are recognized within activities.

CASE COMPANY

Stora Enso Oyj is one of the largest producers of pulp and paper globally, developing solutions based on wood and biomass for industries and applications worldwide. At their core, they help customers adapt to more eco-friendly and yet competitive solutions in a world where the demand for sustainable solutions is continuously growing.

Stora Enso Skog AB is the division within Stora Enso Oyj responsible for providing raw material to Stora Enso Oyj’s Swedish mills. The main focus is to provide an adequate amount of raw material to ensure that absence is never the cause of production stoppages. However, to utilize the fibers efficiently, it is essential not to overstock inventories and hence, risk the decaying of raw material. This balance between availability and productivity requires a harmonious distribution, and thus requires close coordination. As a result, the companies have joined forces in a vendor managed inventory, where Stora Enso Skog AB are responsible for maintaining and supplying the inventory stock on behalf of Stora Enso Oyj’s Swedish mills.

3.2 DATA COLLECTION

The data were primarily collected through 17 interviews held with 13 unique respondents, carried out in three waves (i.e., exploratory, in-depth, and consolidatory).

The average interview lasted for 41 minutes, with the shortest lasting 30 minutes and the longest lasting 60 minutes. During all interviews, we were both presents where one of us led the conversation, while the other concentrated on analyzing answers and asking detailed follow- up questions. On eleven occasions, the interviews were conducted via an online conference due to travel restrictions and different geographical locations. For further information, see Table 2.

To achieve triangulation (Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002), a thorough literature review was assisted with field observations and review of documents (e.g., internal reports, strategic documents, and operational papers). These were used to confirm and complement the statements from interviews and to gather additional background information.

(14)

EXPLORATORY

The first wave of interviews was intended to increase our understanding of the current situation and to gain insights for further research. The interviews were held on-site to allow us to explore all potential topics which could be discussed. All respondents were selected based on recommendations from our supervisors in combination with snowball sampling, which possessed different expertise related to the discussed topics.

The interviews were unstructured, which enabled us to discover the respondents' percepts through an open dialogue with spontaneous follow-up questions (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016). None of the interviews was recorded. However, detailed notes and meaningful quotes were taken during all of them and were compiled immediately afterward.

Table 2. Respondents.

NR DATE WAVE ACTOR RESPONDENT TYPE DURATION

1 2020.02.10 1 Stora Enso Skog AB R1 F2F 30 min

2 2020.02.12 1 Stora Enso Oyj R2 F2F 60 min

8 2020.03.2 2 Stora Enso Skog AB R6 Online 50 min

14 2020.04.02 2 Stora Enso Oyj R11 Online 45 min

15 2020.04.02 2 Stora Enso Oyj R2 Online 35 min

16 2020.05.26 3 Consolidator R12 Online 35 min

17 2020.05.28 3 Consolidator R13 Online 45 min

(15)

IN-DEPTH

The second wave of interviews was intended to seek in-depth knowledge concerning the formulated research questions. To delineate the challenges that impede collaboration, the respondents were asked to discuss the barriers or roadblocks that they have encountered in their collaboration efforts. All the respondents were either selected based on previous interviews or recommendations from our supervisors, which all had different in-depth knowledge concerning the topics discussed.

The interviews were semi-structured, which enabled us to ask follow-up questions on fixed discussion topics and thus add depth to the data (Saunders et al., 2016). An interview guide was developed based on insights from the first wave of interviews and the initial literature review regarding activities, see Appendix I. The interview guide was sent to the respondents well in advance to give them time to prepare thought out answers. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed, following the 24-hour rule (Eisenhardt, 1989).

CONSOLIDATORY

The third wave of interviews was intended to consolidate and discuss the findings. Initial findings were presented and reviewed during the discussions to ensure that all data were understood correctly and to verify the practical relevance of the results.

All respondents were selected based on their knowledge and experience in the field of research. However, respondents that had not previously been part of the study to ensure an impartial perspective. In total, two interviews were conducted, none were recorded, but notes were taken.

3.3 DATA ANALYSIS

We analyzed the collected data using a thematic approach inspired by Braun and Clarke (2006).

This method was considered most appropriate since it allowed us to analyze and summarize critical features from large sets of collected data in a consistent manner.

The analysis followed an iterative approach and was carried out in five different steps: 1) familiarize with the data, 2) representative quotes, 3) descriptive themes, 4) review of themes, and 5) thematic table.

(16)

FAMILIARIZE WITH THE DATA

We had some initial indications and ideas on how to start the analysis by conducting the interviews in combination with previous informal conversations.

However, before initiating the analysis, we listened through the recordings of the interviews and read the transcriptions intensively to get thoroughly familiar with the content and the respondents. In this process, we concentrated on understanding the depth of the material and searched for interpretation behind statements.

REPRESENTATIVE QUOTES

After completing the step of getting familiarized with our data, we created an initial list of interesting data that could potentially be useful quotes. Data that were deemed attractive and useful were direct quotes or broader statements with a profound meaning that correlated to our research questions. The most interesting quotes and comments were then chosen as our representative quotes.

DESCRIPTIVE THEMES

Once a list of representative quotes had been generated, the analysis focused on grouping correlating quotes into broader descriptive themes. By reading and comparing quotes to each other, we were able to identify connections, similarities, and reoccurrences in the statements.

Thus, if multiple quotes shared similarities and correlated to a collective meaning, they were grouped into descriptive themes.

REVIEW OF THEMES

After creating the descriptive themes, the next step in the analysis was a more in-depth review to determine if any of them could be combined, refined, separated, or discarded.

Data within each theme should ideally merge meaningfully. Hence there should be clear and identifiable differences between the themes. This was done by checking the descriptive themes with the representative quotes they were composed of. This meant that the codes and themes were thoroughly discussed back and forth, which gave a better understanding of the analysis and ensured that crucial details were not missed.

(17)

THEMATIC TABLE

In the final step, the objective was defined to capture the essence of the data they symbolized in a concise and punchy manner. Thus, an ongoing analysis was required to enhance the identified themes further. This was done to ensure that the themes in our study were genuinely based on empirical data and that they were relevant to the research questions. This resulted in the creation of a thematic table, which is presented in Table 3.

3.4 QUALITY IMPROVEMENT MEASURES

The quality of the research is often assessed in terms of its validity and reliability. Validity concerns whether the study measures what it was intended to measure, while reliability is the degree to which the measure yields the same findings in repeated trials (Bryman & Bell, 2001).

To increase validity, we used serval data collection methods to achieve triangulation. We conducted interviews in several waves, using different interview techniques, and all meetings were held with both of us present which ensured that all the correct topics were discussed.

Moreover, the selection of respondents covered various areas of operational responsibilities as well as different managerial levels. Besides, we discussed the findings with two independent consolidators to confirmed and validated if the outcome was believed to be reasonable.

To increase reliability, all research activities were carefully documented, and in-depth interviews were transcribed. By documenting the process, an outsider can follow the study and reproduce it in practice. However, the study's replication is difficult since a substantial part of the data collection took place in dynamic and varied settings. Nevertheless, all data used in the analyses were stored, and the interview guide, which was used, is saved, enabling other researchers to repeat the analysis.

(18)

4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

This chapter aims to answer this study’s research questions. First, we present encountered barriers. Second, we present identified bridges that can be used to manage these barriers. Third, the findings are compiled into a framework for bridging barriers.

4.1 ENCOUNTERED BARRIERS

In total, seven barriers have been encountered: 1) lack of traceability, 2) mistrust in data, 3) knowledge deficit, 4) silo mentality, 5) lack of transparency, 6) misalignment, and 7) lack of standardization. Each barrier is discussed separately throughout the following sections. The thematic table describing the descriptive themes and the representative quotes used for the study is presented in Table 3.

LACK OF TRACEABILITY

The ability to track the movement of raw materials through the supply chain has been articulated as a critical capacity to sustain the current market position and to become even more competitive by allowing the acquisition of new consumers. However, respondents indicated that the degree of traceability is far from the level required.

Consequently, current systems are constrained by the absence of input data, which prevents process optimization. For example, respondents explained how inventory operations and production processes could be improved if additional information was available. There are systems in place to make use of such data, but the data is not available. Some respondents were also facing growing pressure from consumers seeking a higher level of traceability than what is currently possible. As regards to the possibilities provided by increased traceability, a respondent explained:

“Increased data on properties and origins of raw materials is important to make inventory operations more efficient, improve the quality of finished goods, and increase customer satisfaction." – R4

(19)

Table 3. Thematic table.

LACK OF TRACEABILITY

“Increased data on properties and origins of raw materials is important to make inventory operations more efficient, improve the quality of finished goods, and increase customer satisfaction.” – R4

“Depending on the means of transportation and where the raw material is originated, I cannot access all the information that I require.” – R2

”The end-customers are becoming more thorough and are starting to demand more background information regarding the products they purchase” – R11

MISTRUST IN DATA

“The quality of the information varies, and because of this variation, it is no reliable, and we do not trust it to the extent we want.” – R6

“We do not trust the information to the extent as we want, we know it is not quite accurate.” – R1 KNOWLEDGE DEFICIT

"[...] this leads us to make our own assumptions based on experience, which only work because we have the expertise. If we no longer have the experience for various reasons, we don't have the ability to deal with these problems." – R1

“At the moment, new employees are not informed enough, which will create difficulties since many workers will retire in the coming years.” – R2

"Many employees concentrate on their functional areas and fail to recognize how collaboration with others can improve overall performance, both inside and beyond the organization." – R1

SILO MENTALITY

"The supplier needs to be more involved in the requirements that we have from our customers, and they need to understand the importance of satisfying the end-customer." – R6

"We need to start with the customer requirements and then backtrack in the supply chain to identify what each actor needs to contribute to reaching the customers' requirements." – R2

"Many employees concentrate on their functional areas and fail to recognize how collaboration with others can improve overall performance, both inside and beyond the organization." – R1

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

“It [delivering right quantities and the right time] is difficult for the people that manage the supply since they have no visual representation or insight into the state of their inventory operations” – R1

“Sometimes deliveries appear, and it would be helpful to know when and how deliveries will be made in advance. That way, I could plan my work more efficiently.” – R3

“I feel like we have different views and self-interests, and therefore, some high-up manager must step in and establish goals and criteria for us to work towards." – R2

“It would be beneficial to have direct access to all the information in the supply chain, to improve our understanding about why certain decisions are made” – R5

MISALIGNMENT

"We need common goals since we have strategies and principles of having an end-customer focused supply chain." – R1

"We depend on them, so we have to push them" – R11

LACK OF STANDARDIZATION

"It is almost impossible to make the right decisions when there is no systematic method for quantifying total consumption at different production sites, which makes our task far more problematic as each of us needs to have good experience in how they conduct business." – R10

"There are no common routines for inventory operations, which causes problems when delivering to these different inventories” – R6

(20)

MISTRUST IN DATA

Although data is being transferred between the partners, respondents did not consider the data to be entirely trustworthy. Hence, respondents expressed difficulties in streamlining activities and making decisions when it is based on unrepresentative data. This issue was experienced at both operational and strategical levels.

Furthermore, knowing that information is unreliable induces practitioners to make assumptions and interpretations of the data, which adds more deviation to the already inaccurate data. Respondents indicated that some of the mistrust in data could be traced to the poor, and somewhat inconsistent, procedures for obtaining production-related information. As a respondent explained the mistrust in data:

“The quality of the information varies, and because of this variation, it is no reliable, and we do not trust it to the extent we want.” – R6

KNOWLEDGE DEFICIT

The partners have excellent know-how in their respective fields. However, concerns about expertise being individual knowledge and not organizational knowledge was a significant worry.

As knowledge is tied to key individuals, the partners have become overly reliant on such individuals, suggesting a shortage of people with the requisite skills to execute operations and activities properly.

Moreover, such individuals have primarily served in the organizations for a prolonged period, allowing them to learn about routine activities and inter-organizational ties. Without standardized structures for business operations, coordination, and knowledge exchange, these individuals are vital for the collaboration's long-term success. Therefore, respondents expressed concerns about the possibility of losing these key individuals and the expertise they possess. As a respondent explained:

“At the moment, new employees are not informed enough, which will create difficulties since many workers will retire in the coming years.” - R2

SILO MENTALITY

Several respondents appeared to have a narrow view of the supply chain and thus tend to focus on their operational activities. This has resulted in a silo mindset, which implies that the parties do not function coherently and are instead operating on their objectives rather than on their shared interests. Consequently, decisions are made from a single point of reference to reach local

(21)

optimums, regardless of the influence on other organizational units. Hence, the unintended result of this is a sub-optimization of the remainder of the supply chain.

Nonetheless, some respondents acknowledged this shortcoming and shared frustration that not all participants in the partnership are committed to satisfying the needs of the end-customer.

As a respondent explained:

“Many employees concentrate on their functional areas and fail to recognize how collaboration with others can improve overall performance, both inside and beyond the organization.” - R2

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

Respondents indicated that process information is not easily available to all participants, causing challenges in obtaining a comprehensive understanding and perspective of the supply chain.

Without real-time information regarding the statuses of operations and processes, production planning, and forecasts, rationalizing the supply chain becomes an increasingly difficult task.

Consequently, without information accessibility, this has led to difficulties since the supply chain vision is confined, and holistic decision making is problematic. Furthermore, the ability to collectively optimize operations and integrate processes to increase joint value creation was also believed to have been limited. As a respondent explained:

“It would be beneficial to have direct access to all the information in the supply chain, to improve our understanding about why certain decisions are made.” – R5

MISALIGNMENT

Inconsistent goals and inadequate measurement practices cause misalignment. Different targets cause managers to make self-centered decisions that may contradict those decisions made by other managers in the supply chain. Besides, the respondents expressed that the deviation of goals does not provide the foundation needed to design and manage cross-functional activities collectively. Moreover, most respondents were somewhat discouraged by what they call inconsistent, non-aligned, or different measures. Hence, it was widely viewed as a critical impediment, and respondents expressed concerns that these measures not only influence but also drive unwanted behavior.

In this scenario, they experience a lack of commitment by the partners as measures promoted different behaviors than towards the mutually set course. Hence, only when the

(22)

various actors' in the supply chain are pulling in the same direction can competitive product offerings be developed and managed for posterity. As a respondent explained:

LACK OF STANDARDIZATION

The respondents raised reservations about the lack of consistency in terms of communication.

An enormous amount of interaction is still occurring in an old-fashioned way, that is, by telephone. Several workers concluded that they are always on the phone with colleagues, customers, or suppliers. Moreover, the respondents clarified that there are few guidelines regarding communication channels and that sensitive information can often be exchanged inappropriately. This has also led to challenges in tracing and identifying where information has come from and who shared it.

Moreover, many respondents acknowledged an inability to provide structured working practices spanning over several activities. This has further led to difficulties in coordinating activities and processes since there are no clear points of reference used for regulating procedures.

The biggest issue mentioned was variations in the forecasting techniques, and as a respondent concluded:

"It is hard to make right decisions when there is no systematic method for quantifying total consumption at different production sites. This makes our task far more problematic as each of us needs to have good experience in how they conduct business." – R10

4.2 IDENTIFIED BRIDGES

As presented, some considerable barriers have been encountered. The willingness to move forward with a joint initiative depends on whether managers believe that bridges can be put in place to address such barriers.

With our knowledge gained from the study, with support from the literature review, four bridges have been identified: 1) joint goals and metrics, 2) information system, 3) education and training, and 4) steering committee. Throughout the following subsections, each bridge is discussed separately.

(23)

JOINT GOALS AND METRICS

The primary emphasis should be on a shared vision that is forcefully articulated (Pradabwong et al., 2017). Clearly defined goals that support the vision are also called for (Smart et al., 2009).

Moreover, the joint initiative requires the development of standardized policies and procedures.

With vision, goals, policies, and procedures all unified within the firm and across organizational boundaries, greater consensus will arise to promote harmonious and synergistic actions.

As equally important is the monitoring using joint measurement metrics (Chen et al., 2009). The metrics should provide senior managers with a realistic description of the collaboration while also highlighting possibilities for improvement. However, it may not be comfortable picking the right metrics, and it will indeed require trade-offs. Therefore, it is recommended to keep things as simple as possible by advocating metrics easily understood by everyone. The smallest possible number of metrics should consequently be used and handled carefully with regular reviews and problem-solving sessions to ensure relevancy.

Also, continuous benchmarking efforts are required to ensure staying on the cutting edge of collaboration. Benchmarking against the best practice is a vital component of a robust and efficient measurement system (Fawcett & Magnan, 2001). It is advised that the organizations' benchmark not only against top rivals, but also best practices in-house. If so, managers should be confident that they can move the collaboration forward and met customer requirements with fewer headaches.

INFORMATION SYSTEM

New technologies have made information systems to an essential part of any joint initiatives and business coordination (Basheer et al., 2019; Powell, 2013). Therefore, it is recommended to establish an integrated information system capable of sharing data in real-time with all actors, covering activities critical to the collaborative effort. The integrated information system will allow data to be obtained, processed, and distributed more efficiently and in larger quantities. It will also simplify operations, generate end-to-end visibility, and ideally develop momentum to meet consumer demands (Prajogo & Olhager, 2012; Sheu et al., 2006).

However, the human aspect may be of equal or greater importance and should not be overlooked (McCarter et al., 2005). A healthy relationship is often considered the foundation upon which the willingness to share sensitive information. Therefore, managers must consider such aspects and build up the confidence to ensure that all exchanged data will be used

(24)

appropriately. If so, it will enable joint problem solving, knowledge creation, and other continuous improvements that are dependent on people working nearby.

Besides, an information system can only be used to the full extent if employees are committed and recognize its potential. Therefore, managers must actively work to merge willingness, technologies, and relationships. Only when these sides come together can businesses achieve the dramatic benefits that first attracted the managerial attention and financial investment.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The need for education and training has been recognized among the most important criteria for long-term collaboration, affecting the relationship both upstream and downstream (Fawcett et al., 2008). Nevertheless, education and training can be carried out with numerous purposes at different levels of collaboration. Therefore, three main focus areas have been recognized. First, senior managers need to be educated on the opportunities of collaboration and the advantages that follow. At this stage, the goal of the education should be to create interest and understanding in joint initiatives and establishing the basis in which management can set priorities and allocate resources.

Second, practitioners need to broaden their horizons by intensified participation in cross- functional teams and other collaborative events that provide them with an understanding of value-added activities beyond their authority (Barratt, 2004). Therefore, someone who possesses strong expertise in their respective field and yet understands the roles, challenges, and responsibilities of cross-functional co-workers can help transcend organization boundaries.

Third, it is of the utmost importance that knowledge is nurtured, and employees' vital practical expertise must be shared (Fawcett et al., 2008; McCarter et al., 2005). Consequently, it is essential to promote and support knowledge sharing within all respective functional areas through in-house training and knowledge exchanging, by hands-on activities such as workshops and seminars led by individuals whose expertise is vital to distribute.

STEERING COMMITTEE

A steering committee can play a crucial part throughout this endeavor to help reduce friction and work towards a greater consensus (Fawcett & Magnan, 2001). While specific roles and responsibilities may change over time, it may consist of senior managers, ideally meeting each quarter and acts as a board of directors for the collaboration. The committee should assist in the collaborative initiative by openly discussing the pros and cons of current practice so that realistic

(25)

proposals can be fully understood, developed, and ultimately implemented. However, it is advised to take particular caution in choosing actions that can be successfully applied to create visibility, build momentum, and motivate more investment, before more challenging initiatives can be acknowledged.

Besides, it is recommended to set up advisory councils for specific commodities or technologies and use them as sounding boards for new ideas and disseminate best practices (Barratt, 2004). The advisory council may, for example, be obligated to continuously work to ensure a meaningful exchange of information, involvement in product development among the engineering teams, and better communication practice and policies.

4.3 A FRAMEWORK FOR BRIDGING BARRIERS

When assessing the characteristics of the barrier in connection to the bridge, it was evident that there was no optimal bridge for all barriers. Instead, certain bridges meet specific barriers more effectively. To illustrate these insights, we have developed a framework for bridging barriers presented in Figure 3. The framework shows how well bridges can manage barriers based on a three-level scale varying from low (*) to medium (**) to high (***). The method for the appraisal is as followed. When a bridge clearly demonstrated that it could manage a barrier, it was given a high connection. When a bridge showed a good, but not optimal, ability to manage a barrier, it was given a medium connection. Lastly, when a bridge did not demonstrate any direct impact to manage a barrier, it was given a low connection.

However, we believe that some barriers can be managed by the combination of multiple bridges, suggesting that synergy effects can be produced. For example, joint goals and metrics promote standardized policies and consistent operating procedures, which reduces the lack of standardization. In addition, a lack of standardization also benefits from a steering committee that formulates specific roles and responsibilities. None of these bridges manages the lack of standardization entirely, but in a combination, the barrier can be managed to some degree.

Consequently, synergy effects between joint goals and metrics and the steering committee are created to manage the lack of standardization.

(26)

Figure 5. A framework for bridging barriers.

(27)

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This study has advanced the understanding of collaboration in supply chains by developing a framework for bridging barriers. This knowledge is important as more companies embracing the opportunity of collaboration in the supply chain, where a well-functioning partnership is fundamental to achieve strategic outcomes (e.g., Benavides et al., 2012). Hence, this study provides meaningful implications for both scholars and managers.

5.1 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Collaboration is an encompassing term, and when put in the context of the supply chain, it needs further clarification (Barratt, 2004). While some barriers associated with collaboration have been identified in previous literature, it is limited, and the few studies that exist have either been fragmented or examined in particular contexts with diverse settings (e.g., Yuen & Thai, 2017; Anis et al., 2019). Consequently, the literature lacks a comprehensive understanding and the main factors that hinder collaboration remain unknown.

This study expands this literature by unraveling in-depth knowledge of collaboration in supply chains based on insights from large industrial companies. In specific, it contributes to ongoing examinations by shredding the lights on barriers and bridges, conceptualized from antecedents and activities. In total, seven barriers have been encountered: 1) lack of traceability, 2) mistrust in data, 3) knowledge deficit, 4) silo mentality, 5) lack of transparency, 6) misalignment, and 7) lack of standardization. Moreover, four bridges have been identified: 1) joint goals and metrics, 2) information system, 3) education and training, and 4) steering committee.

Most notably, this is one of the few studies that provide a comprehensive examination of the barriers to collaboration by the use of a conceptual model. This knowledge is becoming increasingly important as more companies are expanding their businesses across organization boundaries.

5.2 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The potential benefits and synergic outcomes of collaborating in supply chains are compelling (e.g., Singh et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2017; Pradabwong et al., 2017; Benavides et al., 2012). As a result, regardless of the collaboration's essence, managers should believe that partnerships will

(28)

help their businesses succeed in today's highly competitive environment and shift their attitudes towards more collaborative initiatives.

However, as concluded, there exist some barriers that can be daunting. Managers must not ignore these issues, and preferably, design tools and techniques to overcome them.

Therefore, we have contributed practically with a framework that managers can use as guidance for bridging barriers. In other words, these insights can help managers either address an existing barrier or, in the best-case scenario, avoid a barrier altogether. These findings may also allow managers to identify potential barriers before they appear and thus allow them to act proactively instead of reactively. This should provide managers with new ideas and help them prioritize resources into individual initiatives to achieve greater collaboration.

5.3 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Although we did our best to provide a valid and reliable study, some limitations related to this study suggest future research. First, although extensive efforts were taken to ensure the validity of the respondents, there is still room to improve the study's rigorousness. Collaboration involves different parties, both internally and externally, and they may have different perceptions of their collaboration practices. Therefore, data collection from different actors in the supply chain may generate more significant results by comparing and contrasting the responses from various practices.

Moreover, a single case study strategy was adopted with geographical constraints (i.e., solely with companies in Sweden). This means that the findings were based entirely on the Swedish industry prerequisites. As conditions may differ between countries, the occurrence of collaboration may also vary. Thus, future research is suggested to validate the findings in another context and geographical areas. By doing so, the generalization of the results can be further supported.

(29)

6. REFERENCES

Anis, A., Islam, R., Hashim, H., & Rahim, A. R. A. (2019). Internal and External Barriers to Effective Supply Chain Management Implementation in Malaysian Manufacturing Companies: A Priority List Based on Varying Demographic Perspectives. Int. J Sup.

Chain. Mgt Vol, 8(6), 1069.

Barratt, M. (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: an international journal.

Basheer, M., Siam, M., Awn, A., & Hassan, S. (2019). Exploring the role of TQM and supply chain practices for firm supply performance in the presence of information technology capabilities and supply chain technology adoption: A case of textile firms in Pakistan. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 7(2), 275-288.

Benavides, L., Eskinazis, V. D., & Swan, D. (2012). Six steps to successful supply chain collaboration. SCMP’s Supply Chain Quarterly Q, 2, 23.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2001). The nature of qualitative research. Social research methods, 365- 399.

Cao, M., & Zhang, Q. (2011). Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of operations management, 29(3), 163-180.

Chen, H., Daugherty, P. J., & Roath, A. S. (2009). Defining and operationalizing supply chain process integration. Journal of Business Logistics, 30(1), 63-84.

Chen, L., Zhao, X., Tang, O., Price, L., Zhang, S., & Zhu, W. (2017). Supply chain collaboration for sustainability: A literature review and future research agenda. International Journal of Production Economics, 194, 73-87.

David, M., & Sutton, C. D. (2011). Social research: An introduction. Sage.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.

Fawcett, S. E., & Magnan, G. M. (2001). Achieving world-class supply chain alignment:

benefits, barriers, and bridges. Tempe, AZ: Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies.

(30)

Fawcett, S. E., Magnan, G. M., & McCarter, M. W. (2008). Benefits, barriers, and bridges to effective supply chain management. Supply chain management: An international journal.

Fawcett, S. E., Magnan, G. M., & Ogden, J. A. (2007). Achieving world-class supply chain collaboration: Managing the transformation. Center for Advanced Purchasing Studies.

Lejeune, M. A., & Yakova, N. (2005). On characterizing the 4 C's in supply chain management. Journal of operations Management, 23(1), 81-100.

Liao, S. H., Hu, D. C., & Ding, L. W. (2017). Assessing the influence of supply chain collaboration value innovation, supply chain capability and competitive advantage in Taiwan's networking communication industry. International Journal of Production Economics, 191, 143-153.

McCarter, M. W., Fawcett, S. E., & Magnan, G. M. (2005). The effect of people on the supply chain world: Some overlooked issues. Human Systems Management, 24(3), 197-208.

Min, S., Roath, A. S., Daugherty, P. J., Genchev, S. E., Chen, H., Arndt, A. D., & Richey, R.

G. (2005). Supply chain collaboration: what's happening?. The international journal of logistics management.

Murphy, C., Klotz, A. C., & Kreiner, G. E. (2017). Blue skies and black boxes: The promise (and practice) of grounded theory in human resource management research. Human Resource Management Review, 27(2), 291-305.

Narayanan, S., Narasimhan, R., & Schoenherr, T. (2015). Assessing the contingent effects of collaboration on agility performance in buyer–supplier relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 140-154.

Pfohl, H. C., & Buse, H. P. (2000). Inter‐organizational logistics systems in flexible production networks. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management.

Powell, G. M. (2013). Continuum of collaboration: Little steps for little feet. SCHOLE: A Journal of Leisure Studies and Recreation Education, 28(1), 24-31.

Pradabwong, J., Braziotis, C., Tannock, J. D., & Pawar, K. S. (2017). Business process management and supply chain collaboration: effects on performance and competitiveness. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.

Prajogo, D., & Olhager, J. (2012). Supply chain integration and performance: The effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration. International Journal of Production Economics, 135(1), 514-522.

(31)

Ramesh, A., Banwet, D. K., & Shankar, R. (2010). Modeling the barriers of supply chain collaboration. Journal of Modelling in Management.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business students.(ed.

7 th) Harlow.

Sheu, C., Yen, H. R., & Chae, B. (2006). Determinants of supplier‐retailer collaboration:

evidence from an international study. International Journal of Operations & Production Management.

Simatupang, T. M., & Sridharan, R. (2005). An integrative framework for supply chain collaboration. The International Journal of Logistics Management.

Singh, H., Garg, R., & Sachdeva, A. (2018). Supply chain collaboration: A state-of-the-art literature review. Uncertain Supply Chain Management, 6(2), 149-180.

Smart, P. A., Maddern, H., & Maull, R. S. (2009). Understanding business process management:

implications for theory and practice. British journal of management, 20(4), 491-507.

Vijayasarathy, L. R. (2010). Supply integration: an investigation of its multi-dimensionality and relational antecedents. International Journal of Production Economics, 124(2), 489-505.

Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., & Frohlich, M. (2002). Case research in operations management. International journal of operations & production management.

Yuen, K. F., & Thai, V. (2017). Barriers to supply chain integration in the maritime logistics industry. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 19(3), 551-572.

Zhang, Q., & Cao, M. (2018). Exploring antecedents of supply chain collaboration: Effects of culture and interorganizational system appropriation. International journal of Production economics, 195, 146-157.

(32)

7. APPENDIX I

Respondent:

Actor:

Date:

Duration:

Background questions:

Current position Time at case company Previous working experience General questions:

View on collaboration Future goals for collaboration Questions about barriers:

[The interviewer defined and explained each activity X presented in the literature review.]

Barrier during activity X Concluding questions:

Is there anything you would like to add that we did not bring up?

Can we contact you again if further questions arrases?