See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324232252

Supply chain collaboration and firm’s performance: The critical role of

information sharing and trust

Article in Journal of Enterprise Information Management · April 2018

DOI: 10.1108/JEIM-08-2017-0114

CITATIONS READS

102 3,770

4 authors:

Farhad Panahifar P. J. Byrne

Shahid Beheshti University Dublin City University
16 PUBLICATIONS 358 CITATIONS 85 PUBLICATIONS 1,746 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohammad Asif Salam Cathal Heavey

King Abdulaziz University University of Limerick
47 PUBLICATIONS 703 CITATIONS 152 PUBLICATIONS 3,131 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Productive 4.0 (WP4 & WP5) View project

SME-SIM - SME Data Adapter for Advanced Simulation Modelling View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Farhad Panahifar on 05 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Enterprise Information Management
Supply chain collaboration and firm’s performance: The critical role of
information sharing and trust
Farhad Panahifar, P.J. Byrne, Mohammad Asif Salam, Cathal Heavey,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Farhad Panahifar, P.J. Byrne, Mohammad Asif Salam, Cathal Heavey, (2018) "Supply chain
collaboration and firm’s performance: The critical role of information sharing and trust", Journal
of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 31 Issue: 3, pp.358-379, https://doi.org/10.1108/
JEIM-08-2017-0114
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2017-0114
Downloaded on: 13 May 2018, At: 06:35 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 80 other documents.
To copy this document: [email protected]
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 81 times since 2018*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2017),"Business process management and supply chain collaboration: effects on performance and
competitiveness", Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 2 pp. 107-121 <a
href="https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2017-0008">https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-2017-0008</a>
(2017),"The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between technology, trust
and operational performance: An empirical investigation", Benchmarking: An International Journal,
Vol. 24 Iss 2 pp. 298-317 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2015-0075">https://doi.org/10.1108/
BIJ-07-2015-0075</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:383794 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
 Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0398.htm

JEIM
31,3 Supply chain collaboration and
firm’s performance
The critical role of information sharing
358 and trust
Received 23 August 2017
Farhad Panahifar
Revised 16 November 2017 Department of Socio-Technical Systems, Faculty of Management and Accounting,
22 March 2018
Accepted 23 March 2018 Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
P.J. Byrne
Business School, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Mohammad Asif Salam
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, King Abdulaziz University,

Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and
Cathal Heavey
Department of Design and Manufacturing Technology, University of Limerick,
Limerick, Ireland

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify and assess the interrelationships between various
characteristics of information sharing and trust and their criticality for effective information-centred supply
chain collaboration initiatives and, in turn, its criticality to overall firm’s performance.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 189 executives from different firms was conducted and the
resulting data were analysed to investigate how collaboration enablers affect effective collaboration and to
determine its impacts on organisational performance. Structural equation modelling through partial least
squares is used to study the relationships between four enablers (trust, information readiness, information
accuracy and information security), perceived collaboration success, and two outcomes (sales growth and
overall operational performance).
Findings – The empirical results indicate that three collaboration enablers including trust, information
readiness and secure sharing of information improve supply chain collaboration. The present study finds that
“secure sharing of information” was the most important factor in fostering information sharing-centred
collaboration. The present study also demonstrates that effective collaboration positively and significantly
influences on firm’s performance.
Practical implications – This study provides researchers and practitioners with a more comprehensive
understanding about the information sharing-centred collaboration, its enablers and effects on firms’
performance in a supply chain context. Future research should focus on developing additional constructs that
may capture other drivers of effective collaboration.
Originality/value – The present study makes an empirical contribution to the body of knowledge by
investigating an integrated framework focussing on the enablers of collaboration through information
sharing and its impact on firms’ performance.
Keywords Structural equation modelling, Firm’s performance, Supply chain management,
Information sharing, Collaboration enablers
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Over the last decade, there has been growing attention on supply chain collaboration in
Journal of Enterprise Information
Management order to improve the performance of individual companies as well as entire supply chains.
Vol. 31 No. 3, 2018
pp. 358-379
A steady stream of reports on information sharing-centred collaboration in supply
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0398
chains (e.g. Collaborative Planning Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR), Vender
DOI 10.1108/JEIM-08-2017-0114 Managed Inventory (VMI), Efficient Consumer Response (ECR)) has been reported in the
 literature (Claassen et al., 2008; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Wu et al., 2014; Panahifar, Critical role of
Heavey, Byrne and Fazlollahtabar, 2015). The effects of supply chain collaboration on information
company performance have also been extensively documented. Supply chain collaboration sharing and
through information sharing such as adopting CPFR and VMI has provided benefits to
trading partners from different aspects such as improvement of forecasting accuracy, trust
enhanced customer service quality and stronger relationship between partners. Sharing
information appropriately is not an easy undertaking, so companies aiming at improving 359
their performance using information sharing-centred collaboration face numerous
challenges that result in a low implementation rate.
While companies involved in information-centred collaboration have reported varying
results, its implementation is reported to have significant challenges due to the complex
nature of the collaborative schemes themselves. In reviewing one such information-centred
supply chain collaboration initiative, CPFR, Panahifar, Heavey, Byrne and Fazlollahtabar
(2015) characterised four critical dimensions for successful implementation including:
enablers, barriers, trading partner selection and incentive alignment. When reviewing
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

enablers specifically, they suggested that companies must be aware that enablers do
not act independently but interact, with little known to date on the different aspects of
integration of these enablers and their relationships. As two very significant enablers,
trust and information sharing between trading partners can drive collaborations and
improve the availability and flow of products in the supply chain resulting in improvement
of its performance.
To facilitate quality sharing of information across supply chains, an understanding
of the factors influencing information sharing is needed (Li and Lin, 2006), so that
firms can develop strategies in fostering information sharing with partners and
motivate seamless information flow. A small number of previous studies have been
conducted which attempt to identify key features for sharing information among partners;
however, empirical studies to fully investigate what essential factors and or
characteristics of information enhance others are still in their infancy. As an example,
Prajogo, and Olhager (2012) addressed the importance of a number of factors
with a suggestion that information sharing and trust are two major aspects of supply
chain integration and collaboration. Although recognising individual characteristics
such studies rarely consider the simultaneous interrelationships that exist between
these. Such characteristics include information readiness, information accuracy and
information security.
This study addresses this shortcoming by assessing the collective nature of information
sharing and trust on their criticality for effective information-centred supply chain
collaboration initiatives and, in turn, its criticality on overall firm’s performance.
In particular, in the context of information sharing characteristics (readiness, accuracy and
security) and trust, this study examines if and how these enablers are interrelated and
assesses their role in developing effective collaboration. Given this, the central proposition
of this study is that the collaboration enablers of trust and information characteristics
(readiness, accuracy and security) are interrelated and affect organisational performance.
This study explores these underlying collaboration enablers in relation to an organisation’s
potential performance improvement in terms of financial performance, customer satisfaction
and operational performance. As is discussed in the literature review section, there have
been relatively few empirical studies which have studied the relationship between
collaboration enablers and successful collaboration and its impacts on a firm’s performance.
As such, this study adds to both the research and practitioner communities in presenting a
more comprehensive understanding of collaboration and performance relationships
through empirical, field-based findings from firms operating in different manufacturing
sectors in Thailand.
 JEIM 2. Literature review and hypotheses developments
31,3 2.1 Supply chain collaboration forms
Almost all modern forms of supply chain collaboration can be traced back to the
developments that begun to take place in the early 1990s as a result of the general
acceptance of supply chain management as a discipline in the mid-1980s and facilitated by
the launch of the internet as an enabler. As such these developments play a pivotal role in
360 our understanding of supply chain collaboration and as such are presented briefly hereafter.
Although such collaboration techniques have been in existence for over 25 years, true
collaboration problems still persist. A mutual characteristic of most of these collaboration
approaches encourages sharing information rather than holding them internally. Different
results of improved sharing of information have been reported by industry and academia
including improved coordination for faster response, increased agility and flexibility,
and lowered inventory, transportation, and manufacturing costs and reduced bullwhip
effect (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012; Hofmann, 2017; Gunasekaran et al., 2017). Various
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

forms of collaboration practices have emerged, ranging from ECR to other information
sharing-centred practices such as VMI and CPFR. Collaboration using different approaches
still needs further investigation to identify their risks and values.
ECR emerged in the grocery and consumer packaged goods industries (Whipple and
Russell, 2007). The ECR concept suggests integrating specific business functions between
supply chain partners (e.g. retailers and suppliers) and operating the business based on
specific processes (Aastrup et al., 2008). In addition to ECR, other collaboration schemes
focussing on the concept of information sharing among partners have been developed to
address supply chain members’ needs. These forms of collaboration were joint
replenishment, VMI and CPFR which have been considered in our study.
Different joint replenishment models have been examined for supply chain performance in
previous studies (Yao and Chiou, 2004; Chen and Chen, 2005; Lyu et al., 2010). As highlighted in
Chen and Chen (2005), joint replenishment has been widely applied in many industries,
including parts supply for automotive assembly and refrigerated goods replenishment for
supermarket chain stores. The joint replenishment by trading partners can result in suboptimal
solutions for chain members (e.g. vendors and the buyers) (Yao and Chiou, 2004). Implementing
joint replenishment has resulted in cost reduction for partners (Chen and Chen, 2005).
In a true VMI programme, the supplier is given the freedom to plan its own production
and takes the responsibility for replenishing the customer’s inventory, resulting in a
decreased administration and inventory costs for customer (Claassen et al., 2008). Planning
only based on retailer’s inventory positions (i.e. POS data) was identified to be a main reason
for unsuccessful VMI implementation.
Compared with previous information-related collaboration practices (e.g. ECR and VMI),
CPFR has been developed to cover a greater amount of information sharing among partners
from end-users’ demand data to retailers’ promotions information and manufacturers’
production capacity all of which are critical resources. CPFR is a technological innovation
tool that was first registered as a trademark by the Voluntary Inter-Industry Commerce
Standards (VICS) in 1998 and is defined by VICS as a collection of new business practices
that leverage the internet and EDI in order to achieve two goals: radically reduce inventories
and expenses while improving customer service. CPFR involves joint planning of a supply
chain long-term activities using trading partners up-dated and actual demand and market
changes. Among the collaboration approaches, large-scale projects such as CPFR and VMI
have provided significant benefits to those firms that implement these well.

2.2 Collaboration enablers

Organisations aiming at improving supply chain performance face numerous approaches
that could possibly improve the supply chain performance. It is increasingly accepted that
 supply chain collaboration is an effective approach to help organisations to overcome their Critical role of
challenges in a competitive environment. It is also widely highlighted that companies for information
adopting information sharing-centred collaborative schemes such as CPFR face different sharing and
difficulties. For example, one of the main challenges of CPFR implementation is the lack of
understanding of CPFR critical factors. In other words, successful implementing trust
collaboration schemes such as CPFR require enablers.
In recent times, a number of studies have been presented with respect to the study and 361
evaluation of the critical factors associated with supply chain collaboration including both
enablers and barriers (Attaran and Attaran, 2007; Anbanandam et al., 2011; Patel et al., 2012;
Brinkhoff et al., 2015). However, little has been done to empirically examine their
interrelationships and their effects on a firm’s performance. In research conducted by
Panahifar, Heavey, Byrne and Fazlollahtabar (2015), different enablers of CPFR
implementation have been identified and clustered into two major dimensions including
intra-company and inter-company indicators. They argued that to implement a successful
CPFR, there is a need for practitioners to better understand these enablers and their relevant
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

interactions prior to CPFR engagement. A study conducted by Claassen et al. (2008)

examined the enablers of VMI successful application and their relationships. Some enablers
of collaboration have been identified by several studies which highlight their importance
such as the creation of a level of trust (Petersen et al., 2005; Fynes et al., 2008; Soni et al., 2014;
Panahifar, Byrne and Heavey, 2015) and the importance of information (Petersen et al., 2005;
Ramanathan and Gunasekaran, 2014). From a detailed review of the literature, four
important enablers have been identified: secure sharing of information, level of trust,
information accuracy and information readiness. These enablers are discussed individually
in the following subsections with a particular emphasis on the existing literature relating
these enablers to each other and to overall firm’s performance. From a theoretical
standpoint, this paper is consolidating and testing these individual collaboration enablers in
a singular firm’s performance-based model. For the purpose of hypothesis development, a
detailed review of the literature was conducted with the primary literature presented in a
summarised form in Table I. These literature sources are used throughout the following
hypothesis development subsections.

2.3 The enabling role of secure sharing of information

Information security triggers the fact that security protocols must be implemented to
safeguard all trading partners from leaks of proprietary information. In the context of
supply chain collaboration and integration, the importance of information sharing and

Constructs Related literature

Secure sharing of Smith et al. (2007), Ku et al. (2007), Li (2014), Panahifar, Byrne and Heavey (2015),
information Lorenzo Ochoa et al. (2017)
Trust Oly Ndubisi et al. (2007), Ghosh and Fedorowicz (2008), Kwon and Suh (2004),
Matopoulos et al. (2007), Fynes et al. (2008)
Information accuracy Whipple et al. (2002), Angulo et al. (2004), Petersen et al. (2005), Zhou and Benton
(2007), Panayides and Lun (2009), Tang and Musa (2011), Fu et al. (2016)
Information readiness Christopher and Lee (2004), Li and Lin (2006), Dawood and Sriprasert (2006), Lyu
et al. (2010), Panahifar, Byrne and Heavey (2015)
Supply chain Yao and Chiou (2004), Chen and Chen (2005), Lyu et al. (2010), Prajogo and Olhager
collaboration (2012), Hofmann (2017), Gunasekaran et al. (2017)
Firm’s performance Eng (2006), Li et al. (2006), Cao and Zhang (2011), Cao and Zhang (2011), Prajogo and Table I.
Olhager (2012), Wu et al. (2014), Claassen et al. (2008), Panahifar, Heavey, Byrne and Constructs and
Fazlollahtabar (2015) supporting literature
 JEIM secure sharing of information has been highlighted in the previous literature (Ku et al., 2007;
31,3 Li, 2014; Panahifar, Byrne and Heavey, 2015; Lorenzo Ochoa et al., 2017). In a study
conducted by Panahifar, Byrne and Heavey (2015), the importance of developing secure
sharing of information in collaboration is highlighted as it can positively affect building
trust between partners. Implementing information sharing-centred collaboration such as
CPFR requires a secure IT infrastructure for information sharing. This enables companies
362 to circulate accurate and timely information. As the level of collaboration and information
sharing rises, a greater emphasis must be placed on information security (Smith et al., 2007).
In a high-level information sharing-centred collaboration scheme (i.e. CPFR), some partners
are rightfully concerned about the idea of sharing strategic data such as financial reports,
production planning and schedules and inventory levels and values. Therefore, there is a
need to balance “information sharing” and “security” to achieve the best results for
companies involved in collaboration. Based on these theoretical justifications the following
three hypotheses are stated:
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

H1a. Secure sharing of information has positive effect on the information accuracy.
H1b. Secure sharing of information has positive effect on trust.
H1c. Secure sharing of information is positively related to the success of collaboration.

2.4 The enabling role of trust

“Trust” can be defined in terms of three main characteristics: reliability, predictability and
fairness (Agarwal and Shankar, 2003). In the field of inter-company relationships, trust has
been studied in the previous literature (Oly Ndubisi et al., 2007; Kwon and Suh, 2004;
Matopoulos et al., 2007; Fynes et al., 2008). The consensus in the literature is that trust is the
key enabler of collaboration which points to the importance of social relationships in
partnership. Ghosh and Fedorowicz (2008), using case studies, examined and approved the
influence of trust on the CPFR implementation. It is argued that trust is a critical factor
which can provide a foundation between collaboration partners and foster commitment
(Kwon and Suh, 2004), information sharing (Min et al., 2005), and information transparency
(Akkermans et al., 2004) among supply chain partners. For supply chain management in
electronic market, trust is not only the base of all interactions, but also is an efficient
mechanism to foster the cooperation between suppliers and customers (Chang et al., 2014).
About the importance of trust in collaboration, Matopoulos et al. (2007, p. 184) argued that
“regarding the critical elements affecting the establishment and maintenance of supply
chain relationships, trust seems to seriously affect the intensity of collaboration limiting the
depth and the width of collaboration”. Thus, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2. Level of trust is positively related to the effective collaboration.

2.5 The enabling role of information accuracy

Information accuracy is identified to be an effective indicator of information quality in a
collaborative planning (Petersen et al., 2005; Zhou and Benton, 2007; Fu et al., 2016). Information
inaccuracy refers to the error in information caused by the partners’ poor planning and
forecasting practices (Angulo et al., 2004). The lack of information accuracy may affect decision
making in supply chain (Tang and Musa, 2011) and result in a delay in information sharing
from partners until greater accuracy can be obtained (Whipple et al., 2002). The importance of
information accuracy is echoed in the study conducted by Christopher and Lee (2004).
They reported that in an information-centred collaborative supply chain, information such as
inventory, demand, forecasts, production and shipment plans and work in progress should be
accurate and timely, rendering it useful for all trading partners for planning and re-planning
 purposes. As highlighted by Panayides and Lun (2009), building trust among supply chain Critical role of
partners and supply chain performance parameters such as accuracy and timeliness is information
interrelated. Improvement in attributes like information accuracy is related to improvements in sharing and
the supply chain collaboration and the performance of the companies involved in collaboration.
Information accuracy can also affect trust when the information receiver obtains trust
information from multiple sources (Fu et al., 2016). The accuracy of the information should
be a source of confidence to the parties using the information. The following hypotheses 363
represent such view:
H3a. Information accuracy has positive effect on trust.
H3b. Information accuracy is positively related to the effective collaboration.

2.6 The enabling role of information readiness

The critical role of “information readiness or timeliness” in facilitating collaboration is
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

identified in the previous research (Christopher and Lee, 2004; Li and Lin, 2006; Lyu et al.,
2010; Panahifar, Byrne and Heavey, 2015). The readiness definition covers two main aspects
including availability and perfection of resources and information (Dawood and Sriprasert,
2006). Information timeliness is introduced as an important dimension of information
quality in supply chain collaboration (Petersen et al., 2005; Zhou and Benton, 2007).
Information readiness indicates that the implementation executives must be assured that
their trading partners act according to the defined information flow between them. Effective
collaboration is dependent on data available to existing systems at each trading partner, and
their ability to communicate with each other which are known as “information readiness”.
Li and Lin (2006) found that trust between buyers and suppliers facilitates the sharing of
information quality, which considered aspects such as information readiness, accuracy,
completeness, adequacy and reliability. Lyu et al. (2010) reported that the higher information
readiness that the partners have, the easier it is for them to examine the stock level of
products. It is argued that as an enabler of collaboration, information readiness can
significantly help to ameliorate level of trust (Panahifar, Byrne and Heavey, 2015).
Accordingly, from all of the above arguments, we can expect the following hypotheses:
H4a. Information readiness has effect on trust.
H4b. Information readiness is positively related to the effective collaboration.

2.7 Supply chain collaboration and firm’s performance

Collaboration has great potential to enhance firm’s performance where partners collaborate
with others to ensure that their supply chain can response to dynamic market needs
(Cao and Zhang, 2011). In a collaborative SCM, trading partners (e.g. suppliers and their
customers) exchange and integrate information to make strategic or tactical joint decisions
(e.g. supply and demand forecasts). The general idea is that partners can gain much benefit
from collaborating with other supply chain members. Benefits of collaboration schemes
(e.g. CPFR, VMI, joint forecasting and ECR) on firms’ performance have been discussed in
previous studies, and consist broadly of improvement of forecasting accuracy, reduction of
the bullwhip effect, increase revenues and earnings, increase responsiveness, reduction in
stock-outs and greater transparency in the supply chain (Claassen et al., 2008; Panahifar,
Heavey, Byrne and Fazlollahtabar, 2015).
Among the collaboration approaches, large-scale projects such as CPFR and VMI have
provided significant benefits to those firms that implement these well. It is also agreed that
trading partners who had higher level of collaboration practices were able to achieve better
operational performance (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2005).
 JEIM The relationship between supply chain collaboration and a firm’s performance has been
31,3 discussed in previous research (Eng, 2006; Cao and Zhang, 2011; Prajogo and Olhager, 2012;
Wu et al., 2014). A positive association between supply chain collaboration and a
firm’s performance has been generally supported. The effects of information sharing
and collaboration in enabling firm’s performance have been reflected in Wu et al. (2014).
Firm’s performance refers to how well a firm fulfils its market-oriented as well as its financial
364 goals compared with the firm’s primary competitors (Li et al., 2006; Cao and Zhang, 2011).
Eng (2006, p. 765) contended that “firm performance refers to perceived profitability and
market performance of the firm at the corporate or firm level”. Firm’s performance can be
measured at the firm or corporate level. Following these descriptions, we measure the
performance of the firm through perceived accounts of its sales growth and overall operational
performance in this study. These arguments enable us to suggest the following hypothesis:
H5. Effective collaboration is positively related to a firm’s performance.
From the literature review, four key collaboration enablers have been identified as critical
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

for collaboration success: secure sharing of information, information accuracy, information

readiness and level of trust. The resulting interrelationships as derived from this detailed
literature review between each of the individual enablers and overall firm’s performance are
presented in Figure 1. The hypothesised relationships between each of the four
collaboration enablers themselves and to effective collaboration are shown, which, in turn,
are directly analysed against firm’s performance.

3. Methodology
3.1 Structural equation modelling (SEM)
This study empirically assesses the impact of collaboration enablers on supply chain
collaboration and its impact on organisational performance. In this research, SEM is
employed by using the path modelling SEM (partial least squares (PLS)-SEM) approach and
SPSS to analyse the relationship between the variables and to test the theoretical model.
The structural model of this study involves interrelationships among latent variables and is
analysed using the SEM technique.

A level of trust

H1b
H2
H3a H4a

Information Effective Firm’

H5
sharing H1c collaboration performance
security

H3b
H4b
H1a

Information
accuracy

Figure 1. Information
Research model readiness
 As a technique, SEM has been extensively used in many different domains of supply Critical role of
chain management studies (e.g. inter-firm relations – Sigala, 2007; buyer-supplier information
relationships – Ian Stuart, 2012; Corsten and Felde, 2005; and informal sharing and
coordination – Ogulin et al., 2012). Sarstedt et al. (2017) suggested certain research-related
considerations that demand the use of the PLS-SEM over other analytical methods. trust
These are: when the goal of the study is to predict and explain a key target construct as well
as to identify its relevant antecedent; usually the objective is to use latent variable scores in 365
subsequent analyses. Second, when the structural path model is relatively complex and
involves 6 or more constructs per model and the number of indicators per construct is more
than 4. Third, the sample size is relatively small. This technique is preferable to a
covariance-based approach mainly due to the relatively small sample size which is
the case in this study (189 usable samples), for which PLS is particularly suitable (Reinartz
et al., 2009). In addition, as the research model is complex in terms of both the number of
variables and the relationships proposed as hypotheses, PLS is particularly appropriate
(Calvo-Mora et al., 2013). PLS is a SEM tool that produces loadings and weights between
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

items and constructs and estimates standardised regression coefficients (i.e. β coefficients)
for paths between constructs. The analysis of a PLS model comprises of two stages:
(1) the analysis of the validity and reliability of the measurement model; and
(2) the analysis of the structural model.
This sequence ensures that construct measures are valid and reliable before attempting to
draw conclusions regarding relationships between those constructs (Barclay et al., 1995).
The following figure presents the research study design. Steps 1, 2 and 3 in the research
diagram have been discussed above. Steps 4 and 5 will be discussed in more detail in
subsequent sections.

3.2 Survey instrument development and data collection

The objective of this study is to examine the structural effects of collaboration on
organisational performance. The questionnaire was developed based on measures from the
extant literature. In line with the existing literature, four enablers were identified as
important drivers of effective collaboration. These four enablers are: secure sharing of
information, information accuracy, information readiness and level of trust. Two main
categories of collaboration impact on firm’s performance are organisation’s sales growth
and overall operational performance. Our questionnaires consisted of two sections which
included the background of the company and the structural factors of collaboration
enablers. A seven-point Likert scale was used with a score of 1, indicating “strongly
disagree”, and 7, representing “strongly agree”, to extract the different attitudes of
respondents. The English version of the questionnaire was first pre-tested by eight
professionals with extensive experience in implementing collaborative approaches.
According to their recommendations from the pre-test result, several questions were
consequently rewritten and the questionnaire was improved. Following the pre-test, all
items were determined to be valid and reliable for the current research purposes. Next the
researchers conducted a pilot test of the survey with 30 respondents. Included in this pilot
test was an open discussion of the model and the survey items used to operationalise the
constructs. The reliability of the scale items was then assessed through an analysis of the
pilot data.
In this study, we focussed upon companies which are implementing at least one
collaborative approach in Thailand. The questionnaire first translated into Thai by a
bilingual research associate and then refined and verified for its translation accuracy by two
logistics and supply chain academics who are well versed in both languages. They were
 JEIM asked to review the questionnaire for readability and ambiguity. The Thai version was then
31,3 examined by two logistics and supply chain industry experts for content and faces validity,
resulting in some minor adjustments of the wordings of certain survey items. This process is
applied by researchers for bilingual survey instruments (Hwang et al., 1996). A small-scale
pilot study was carried out to evaluate the clarity of the survey instrument with a sample of
30 respondents.
366 The initial sample frame consists of a mailing list of international and local manufacturing
and service providing firms in Thailand taken from a list of 2,850 firms. Respondents were
randomly selected from the list of registered companies in the Thailand Business Directory
published by Teleinfo Media Public Co. Ltd, in 2012-2013. The sample firms included
businesses of various sizes, e.g. small, medium and large. A combination of mail, e-mail and
telephone survey was used to collect data. The questionnaire was sent to the logistics and
supply chain managers of 385 Thai companies. The questionnaires were then completed by
executives/experts from different sections of the firms (i.e. general manager, vice-president,
director of manufacturing, director of supply chain, production and operations manager and
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

sales manager/expert) who were fully aware of the implementation of collaborative schemes.
Summary details of the firms are presented in Table II which indicates that multiple industries
are represented. The survey through the distributed questionnaires was conducted within
two-and-a-half-month period. Thus, two techniques were used to improve the response rate,
which were following up with reminder phone calls and promising to mail a final summary of
the study’s results to responding firms for their reference. Survey respondents were asked to
answer each question based on specified characteristics of their business unit relative to their
major competitors. As a result, 196 questionnaires were finally received with a response rate
of 50.9 per cent. After eliminating 7 incomplete questionnaires, 189 questionnaires were
deemed usable, yielding a 49 per cent valid return rate. The response rate of 49 per cent is
reasonably acceptable when compared to that of similar studies in operations management
(Tan, 2001). To get such a response rate, repeated contact was made by phone and e-mail
following the first wave distribution of the questionnaires.

3.3 Measurement assessment

To specify the relationships between the observable variables and the theoretical concepts,
it is required to set up a measurement model. We adapted scales well established in the
literature and refined them through interviews with two of the academic experts who were
involved in survey development step. All constructs were measured using reflective scales
and all variables were measured using a seven-point Likert scale. This analysis is carried
out for the attributes of the item’s individual reliability, the constructs’ reliability, and the
convergent validity and discriminant validity of the indicators as measurements of the
latent variables.
Trust was measured with four items adopted from Zhang and Huo (2013), Corsten and
Felde (2005), Ryu et al. (2009) and Fynes et al. (2005). To measure secure sharing of
information, we used four items one of which was adopted from Lin (2013) and three
developed through interviews with experts. Information accuracy was measured with
three items one adopted from Sanders et al. (2011), one from Li et al. (2006) and one
developed through interviews with experts. Information readiness was defined as
availability and perfection of resources and information and was measured with four

Entity Supplier Manufacturer Distributor Retailer Transportation Others

Table II.
Distribution of Total firm 23 118 25 6 7 10
sample firms Per cent responses 12.17 62.43 13.23 3.17 3.70 5.29
 items one was adopted from Sanders et al. (2011) and Li et al. (2006) and two developed Critical role of
through interviews with experts. Effective collaboration construct was measured with information
four items three of which were adopted from Myhr and Spekman (2002) and Salam (2017) sharing and
and one developed through interviews with experts. Firm’s performance included five
items two of which were adopted from Ryu et al. (2009) and Huo (2012) and three trust
developed through interviews with experts.
367
3.4 Data profile
About 13 per cent of the responses were collected from firms with less than 100 employees
(small), 55 per cent from firms with between 100 and 1,000 employees (medium), and the
remaining 32 per cent from large companies with more than 1,000 employees. The size of the
companies also varies significantly according to the annual revenues; about 60 per cent of
the firms having annual revenues below $500 M, 23 per cent from $500 M-$1 B, 10 per cent
from $1 B-$3 B and 6.5 per cent over $3 B. As shown in Table II, 62 per cent of the
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

respondent firms are from manufacturing companies and more than 88 per cent of them
apply one of these four collaborative approaches: ECR, CPFR, VMI and joint replenishment.
The vast majority of participating firms (75.6 per cent) have experience in applying one of
these two collaborative relationships, manufacturer-supplier or manufacturer-customer.
In terms of the distribution of responses from various industries, about 30 per cent of the
responses were from the automotive industry, 9 per cent from consumer electronics,
7 per cent from food and agriculture, 4 per cent from building and constructs, 3 per cent
from medical device and the remaining 47 per cent from the various sectors such as
transport, telecom/IT, retail, petrochemical, hotel/tourism and finance/banking. The job
title of the respondents included c-level executive (10 per cent), senior management
(33.3 per cent), middle management (35.45 per cent), lower management (20.11 per cent) and
admin/others (1 per cent). In total, 20 per cent of the respondents had less than 5 years of
experience, 51 per cent had between 6 and 15 years and 42.8 per cent had more than 16 years
of experience in the same business function and current positions.

3.5 Common method bias assessment

The potential effects of common method bias were examined. First, the survey included only
the employees who are knowledgeable about the firm’s collaboration. These respondents are
recognised to be reliable informants, hence minimising the potential for common method
bias (Narayanan et al., 2011). Second, the impact of method variance was checked by using
the lowest bivariate correlation among the manifest variables as the market variable
(Lindell and Whitney, 2001). The adjusted correlation matrix computed and tested the
significance of the adjusted correlation matrix and tested the significance of the adjusted
correlations. All correlations remain significant after the adjustment. Based on the
above results, it is reasonable to conclude that common method bias is not a serious concern
in this study.

3.6 Non-response bias

Non-response bias can exist with survey research, even with relatively high response rates
(Lohr, 1999). One commonly employed means of assessing non-response bias is to compare
the answers of early survey respondents to those of late respondents (Lambert and
Harrington, 1990). The assumption here is that late respondents are more characteristic of
non-respondents than are early respondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977). To investigate
the possibility of non-response bias in the data, a test for statistically significant differences
in the responses of early and late waves of returned surveys was performed (Armstrong and
Overton, 1977; Lambert and Harrington, 1990). Each survey sample was split into two
 JEIM groups on the basis of early and late survey return times; t-tests were performed on the
31,3 responses of the two groups. The F-test and t-tests of major constructs and key
demographic variables yielded no statistically significant differences among the survey
items tested as presented in Table III. These results suggested that non-response bias did
not significantly impact the study.

368 4. Data analysis and results

4.1 Measurement model
4.1.1 Measurement model estimates. The measurement or outer model is analysed with the
aim of obtaining a view of the way in which the indicators measure the underlying
constructs. To do so, the regression coefficients between the indicators and underlying
constructs should be analysed. Since PLS execution algorithm is capable of any types of
statistical distribution of the data, that is why PLS does not require obtaining a
significance test of parameters (Chin, 1998b). Also, PLS can develop non-parametric
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

resampling techniques with the purpose of examining the significance of the estimations
generated by PLS. Due to that, in this research a bootstrap resampling with a total of
5,000 random subsamples were applied. As a result, all the regression coefficients between
the exogenous variables and their latent constructs are significant to a level of 99 per cent
as shown in Table IV, thus guaranteeing the significance of the estimations of the
underlying factors. Also, as indicated in Table IV, all construct items loading (over 0.7) are
significantly higher (t-statistics of the outer model loadings items are significant) than the
cross-loadings of other indicator items. Therefore, we conclude that all the scales have
sufficient construct validity.
4.1.2 Convergent validity. Convergent validity examines the magnitude of correlations
between item measures of a construct (Gefen, 2003). This simply indicates the extent to
which the constructs that are expected to be related are, in fact, related. The average
variance extracted (AVE) index provides an assessment of convergent validity.
The assessment of convergent validity requires the examination of the AVE measure
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981), which provides the amount of variance that a construct obtains
from its indicators in relation to the amount of variance due to the measurement error.
Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommended an AVE value ⩾ 0.5. All the constructs in our
study have an AVE value above this minimum. This condition is strictly fulfilled in all of the
constructs, all of the values are above 0.5 and above that threshold. Table V shows that this
condition is met in all cases.
4.1.3 Discriminant validity. This indicates the extent to which a construct differs from
others. Assessment of discriminant validity involves comparison of the AVE for all latent
constructs. For discriminant validity to exist, the AVE square root must be higher than the
correlation between the constructs. Also, when assessing discriminant validity, AVE should

F-statistics: test for equality t-Statistics: test for equality t-Statistics: test for
of variances – assumed of variances – assumed equality of variances –
Construct ( p-value) ( p-value) not assumed ( p-value)

Company size 0.039 (0.844) −1.111 (0.268) −1.102 (0.273)

Age of business 0.091 (0.762) 0.300 (0.764) 0.300 (0.765)
Effective collaboration 1.749 (0.188) −0.680 (0.497) −0.663 (0.509)
Information readiness 0.502 (0.479) 1.411 (0.160) 1.386 (0.168)
Table III. Information accuracy 0.016 (0.899) −1.358 (0.176) −1.364 (0.175)
Comparison of early Firm’s performance 0.150 (0.699) −0.978 (0.329) −0.971 (0.333)
and late responses Note: p-Values are in parentheses
 Latent variables Reflective indicators CFA loadings Bootstrap t-statistics Path coefficients
Critical role of
information
Information accuracy A1 0.870672 45.33 0.87 sharing and
A2 0.913295 86.89 0.91
A3 0.926479 147.30 0.92 trust
Collaboration SC1 0.853767 63.76 0.85
SC2 0.874764 42.82 0.87
SC3 0.923906 145.88 0.92 369
SC4 0.914521 108.35 0.91
Performance P1 0.805031 29.20 0.80
P2 0.875475 77.46 0.87
P3 0.849977 57.66 0.85
P4 0.80561 41.20 0.80
P5 0.620965 15.22 0.62
Information readiness R1 0.873659 43.12 0.87
R2 0.926377 133.04 0.92
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

R3 0.927342 109.37 0.92

R4 0.922928 134.59 0.92
Secure sharing of information S1 0.803358 40.81 0.80
S2 0.703848 16.57 0.70
S3 0.892915 69.04 0.89
S4 0.902648 86.40 0.90
Trust T1 0.945053 147.67 0.94
T2 0.935503 118.39 0.93
T3 0.912685 73.05 0.91 Table IV.
T4 0.913608 90.84 0.91 Outer model estimates

Composite Cronbach’s
Variable reliability α AVE Accuracy Collaboration Performance Readiness Trust Security

Accuracy 0.930 0.887 0.816 0.903

Collaboration 0.939 0.914 0.796 0.543 0.892 Table V.
Performance 0.895 0.852 0.634 0.509 0.794 0.796 Convergent and
Readiness 0.952 0.933 0.833 0.755 0.592 0.532 0.912 discriminant validity,
Trust 0.960 0.945 0.858 0.735 0.536 0.438 0.746 0.926 reliability and
Security 0.897 0.846 0.688 0.748 0.621 0.659 0.703 0.547 0.829 correlations among
Notes: Diagonal elements in italics are the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) latent constructs

be greater than the variance shared between the construct and other constructs in the model
(i.e. the squared correlation between two constructs) (Barclay et al., 1995). The latent
variables of our study fulfil this condition because the diagonal elements of Table IV are
greater than the off-diagonal elements in the corresponding rows and columns.
4.1.4 Reliability. The measurement model is assessed by examining internal consistency
and discriminant validity. These criteria should be applied only to latent constructs.
The measures for construct reliability and convergent validity represent measures of
internal consistency for indicators of latent constructs. Construct reliability is assessed
using the composite reliability measure and also Cronbach’s α. Both the measures can be
interpreted using Nunnally’s (1978) guidelines 0.7 as a benchmark for a “modest” reliability
applicable in the early stages of research and a more demanding 0.8 level for basic research.
In our study, all of the constructs are reliable without dropping any items from the analysis.
They all have measures of composite reliability above 0.8 and Cronbach’s α above 0.7
(see Table V ).
 JEIM 4.2 Structural model
31,3 4.2.1 Model predictability and fit. The PLS technique does not require the use of traditional
goodness-of-fit (GoF) measures (Hulland, 1999). The model predictability is evaluated by
means of R2 values for the dependent latent variables. Table VII shows that the R2 value for
the endogenous constructs exceeds the minimum value of 0.1 recommended by Falk and
Miller (1992). For example, the R2 value for the performance variable indicates that the
370 theoretical model proposed explains 63 per cent of the variance of the construct, which is a
satisfactory level of predictability.
This research used the criteria prescribed by Peng and Lai (2012) for checking the GoF.
Peng and Lai (2012) suggested checking the sign, magnitude and significance of each path
coefficient, all of which should be consistent with theory. The prescribed criteria of Peng
and Lai (2012) have been met and found to be consistent with the extant theory as
presented in Table V. Also, to evaluate the predictive power of the research model,
researchers should examine the explained variance of endogenous constructs.
The explained variance (R2) for each of the endogenous constructs is summarised in
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

Table VII. The literature suggests that R2 values of 0.67, 0.33 and 0.19 are substantial,
moderate and weak, respectively (Chin, 1998b). Based on the suggested criteria, all of the
R2 values for each latent construct met the prescribed threshold. Finally, the study also
examined the variance inflation factor (VIF) which is a frequently used means of detecting
multicollinearity. General statistics theory suggests that multicollinearity can be a
potential concern if the VIF is higher than 10 (Peng and Lai, 2012); however, in this study
VIF values in Table VII are well within the acceptable range therefore suggesting no
issues of multicollinearity.
4.2.2 Hypotheses testing. To determine the significance level of the path coefficients and to
confirm the robustness of the findings using the PLS technique, a resampling bootstrap
procedure with 5,000 subsamples (Chin, 1998a, b) has been conducted. As can be observed
in Table VI, which summarises the results, security has a significant effect on accuracy
( β ¼ 0.742****, t ¼ 32.87), supporting H1a. Security has a significant effect on trust
( β ¼ −0.166***, t ¼ 2.977), supporting H1b. Also, security has a significant effect on
collaboration ( β ¼ 0.492****, t ¼ 7.607), supporting H1c. On the other hand, trust has a
significant effect on collaboration ( β ¼ 0.226***, t ¼ 3.427), supporting H2. Accuracy has a
significant effect on trust ( β ¼ 0.483****, t ¼ 8.327), supporting H3a. However, accuracy has no
significant effect on collaboration ( β ¼ −0.082, t ¼ 1.297), not supporting H3b. Readiness has a
significant effect on trust ( β ¼ 0.433****, t ¼ 6.132), supporting H4a. Readiness has a significant
effect on collaboration ( β ¼ −0.183***, t ¼ 2.732), supporting H4b. Finally, collaboration
has a significant effect on performance ( β ¼ 0.793****, t ¼ 43.742), supporting H5. These fit

Structural path Standardised path coefficient t-Value Conclusion

Direct effects
Security → accuracy 0.74**** 32.8 H1a supported
Security → trust −0.16*** 2.97 H1b supported
Security → collaboration 0.49**** 7.60 H1c supported
Trust → collaboration 0.22*** 3.42 H2 supported
Accuracy → trust 0.48**** 8.32 H3a supported
Accuracy → collaboration −0.08 1.29 H3b not supported
Readiness → trust 0.43**** 6.13 H4a supported
Table VI. Readiness → collaboration 0.18*** 2.73 H4b supported
Structural equation Collaboration → performance 0.79**** 43.74 H5 supported
model results Notes: ***p o0.01; ****p o0.001
 indices are acceptable (except one), suggesting that the overall structural model provides a Critical role of
good fit with the data. The results of estimating the structural model are presented in Figure 2 information
(Tables VI and VII). sharing and
trust
5. Discussion
5.1 Results interpretation
The aim of this study was to improve the understanding of the role of collaboration 371
enablers, in the form of information sharing characteristics and trust, on its success and the
impact of information-centred collaboration on firm’s performance. The results of this study
contribute to theory development of supply chain collaboration by exploring a structural
model connecting the collaboration enablers, effective collaboration and firm’s performance
and identifying the most effective characteristics of information sharing. The research
model is divided into three subsections for detailed discussion. The first subsection is used
to examine the relationship between secure sharing of information, information accuracy,
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

information readiness and level of trust (H1a, H1b, H3a and H4a). We then discuss the
relationships between the enablers and effective collaboration in the second subsection

1
Literature review

2
Defining research problem and objectives

3
Hypothesis development Research model

Measurement
Survey instrument development Pre-test
assessment

Data collection

5
Figure 2.
Research design
Statistical analysis Data analysis and interpretation
diagram

R2 VIF

Accuracy ¼ 0.56 Security ¼ 2.52

Trust ¼ 0.63 Trust ¼ 2.75 Table VII.
Collaboration ¼ 0.45 Accuracy ¼ 3.59 Goodness-of-fit
Performance ¼ 0.63 Readiness ¼ 3.27 statistics
 JEIM (i.e. testing of H1c, H2, H3b and H4b). Finally, the third subsection is used to discuss the
31,3 relations among effective collaboration and a firm’s performance (H5).
From the left-hand side of Figure 3, H1a and H1b show that secure sharing of
information has a positive impact on information accuracy and a negative effect on level of
trust. The finding of this study reported that secure sharing of information will ameliorate
information accuracy. The proposed model suggests that companies have to increase
372 information security if they expect more accurate information from their trading partners as
firms will be more reluctant to share their critical information in an insecure environment.
Common sense suggests that the secure sharing of information and accuracy should work
supportively together to enhance the success of collaboration. Secure sharing of information
can be negatively associated with a level of trust. The negative correlations between secure
sharing of information and a level of trust, in the studied context, indicate that when there is
a lack of trust among trading partners, they try to fill this gap using a high secured
information sharing system. The importance of information security variable triggers the
fact that security protocols must be implemented to safeguard all trading partners from
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

leaks of proprietary information.

The results suggest that information accuracy can enhance a level of trust (H3a) directly.
In other words, the more accurate information shared by trading partners is the higher the
level of trust. It is proved that information readiness positively influences a level of trust
(H4a). To the best of our knowledge, to date, no research has attempted to empirically
measure the relationship between these two variables. Thus, timely sharing information
from partners will enhance the level of trust between them.
Next is reported the empirical results of testing the effect of enablers on effective
collaboration (H1c, H2, H3b and H4b). The results show that three of the four collaboration
enablers presented in this research including trust, information readiness, and information
security positively influenced the effective implementation of collaboration among trading
partners (H2, H1c and H4b). This result corroborates previous research findings (Whipple
et al., 2002; Ha et al., 2011) which showed that setting tangible and clearly defined enablers
can significantly strengthen the relationship between supply chain partners resulting in an
effective collaboration. From the results, the positive significant impact of information
accuracy on collaboration is not statistically supported (H3b). This finding is, however, in

Trust
H1b
0.22
–0.16 H2
H3a H4a

H1c H5
Information Firm’
sharing 0.49 Collaboration 0.79
performance
security

H3b
0.74 H4b
0.48 –0.08
H1a

Information
accuracy
0.43 0.18

Figure 3.
Research Information
model results readiness
 fact similar to that of Claassen et al. (2008) who did not find a significant positive impact of Critical role of
information quality (inclusive of information accuracy) on VMI success. information
Analysis of results of this research indicates that effective collaborations are sharing and
significantly influenced by secure sharing of information. An important challenge in
collaborations is ensuring that the information sharing system between partners is secured. trust
To continue the long-term relationship with other partners, it is essential to firms’ executives
to build secured information sharing systems both internally and externally. For secure 373
sharing of information, appropriate access and control mechanisms should be implemented
to ensure security. Poor security of information systems may seriously affect the success of
the collaborative schemes which are essentially designed based on information sharing.
As an important enabler of collaboration, trust indicates that a trading partner is willing
to rely on exchange of information with other partners in whom it has trust. As trust enables
the exchange of large amounts of information among trading partners, it facilitates the
implementation of collaboration.
The results suggest that information readiness or timeliness is an important driver for
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

collaboration. This finding is also in line with previous studies in the field that have
demonstrated that information readiness between supply chain partners is a strong
determinant of collaboration specially when information sharing is fundamental (Zhou and
Benton, 2007; Lyu et al., 2010).
While implementation of information sharing-centred approaches (e.g. CPFR and VMI) is
important, the significance of its impact on firms’ performance depends on the timeless and
security of the shared information. Based on the empirical data, the present study found that
“secure sharing of information” was the most important factor in fostering collaboration.
This suggests that all companies involved in collaboration should ensure that the
information sharing systems are secured properly to protect the organisations’ critical data.
Finally, the path model (Figure 3) showed that effective collaboration helps improve the
performance of a company in terms of organisation’s sales growth and overall operational
performance (H5). This finding indicates that collaborative arrangements including
collaborative planning and forecasting with trading partners are important to improve
firms’ operational performance in terms of improvement of forecasting accuracy, improved
quality of exchanged information, improved inventory management and improved
relationship between partners.
This result suggests that enhancing the collaboration can ensure the continued
performance of the firm. In other words, effective collaboration between trading partners
has positive effects on an organisation’s sales growth, customer satisfaction and overall
operational performance. The results of the analysis strongly support the positive impact of
effective collaborations in improved relationship between partners. We can interpret this
result in such a way that by implementing collaborative schemes such as CPFR, firms can
hope to build long-term relationships with their exciting partners. Based on the findings of
this study, the practitioners may find the results of this study useful in improving their
decision-making process by focussing on the important enablers of supply chain
collaboration. This will also allow the managers to develop trusted relationship among the
supply chain partners through sharing timely and accurate information.

5.2 Impact to practice

This study has considered an important issue of supply chain management, providing a
better decision for information sharing-centred collaboration using appropriate quantitative
technique. The paper has applied a broader, quantitative survey methodology, and hence
provides deeper knowledge about the impact of information sharing enablers on supply
chain collaboration and firm’s performance. It identifies critical enablers which are
important for industry to reinforcement. As most organisations suffer from scarce
 JEIM resources, this identification of the most important enablers of collaboration allows
31,3 managers to assign those scarce resources in reinforcing the most important factors, while
also being aware of the wider enablers.
This research has outlined several issues that should be considered when starting an
information sharing practice within supply chain. The structural framework focusses on
improving the effectiveness of the information sharing development process, helping
374 managers in the decision-making process, and retaining reasonable control over the
information sharing process and the most critical enablers. From a practical perspective, the
presented model provides evidence to confirm the positive impact of collaboration enablers
through information sharing on effective collaboration. Understanding the effectiveness of
the enablers can help firms to minimise the chance of collaboration failure by addressing
these key drivers of supply chain collaboration. In addition, it confirms that effective supply
chain collaboration through information sharing helps improve the operational performance
of firms. The outcomes of this research will help firms’ managers in which their knowledge
of synergies between the enablers of collaboration through information sharing will allow to
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

implement collaboration more effectively.

This study recommends managers involved in information sharing-centred collaboration
to bear in mind the critical role of secure sharing of information as it ameliorates information
accuracy and to ensure that the information sharing systems are secured properly to protect
the organisations’ critical data. Thus, management from both sides must put efforts in order
to initiate improvement in three important aspects of information quality including security,
readiness and accuracy. Managers based on the proposed structural framework would be
able to establish a strategic compatibility between partners willing to initiate resources or
process tools sharing for collaboration.
While the development and management of secured information sharing systems over
time is a challenging task for companies, if implemented appropriately, can lead to a
level of trust between SC members. Further, the results help managers with regard to their
strategic decisions.
Supply chains are economic and also social entities where group of people involve in
sharing information and working with others. Hence, the findings of this research may also
positively impact society through improvements to the overall working atmosphere.

6. Conclusions
While two factors including information sharing and trust have been addressed as the major
aspects of supply chain integration and collaboration but rarely studies have considered
simultaneously their interrelationships and impacts on supply chain collaboration using
empirical data. Thus, the model developed in this research identifies the most importance
characteristics needed for quality information sharing and their interrelationships. There
are some important conclusions that can be drawn from this study:
(1) This proposed model for collaboration provides a very useful source of what needs
to be implemented and achieved by partners to meet the requirements of successful
collaboration.
(2) Our structural model identified the relationships among collaboration enablers and
effective collaboration and confirms the importance of information sharing with
supply chain members in order to improve firm’s performance. With eight out of
nine hypotheses supported, the empirical results provided strong overall validation
for the research model.
(3) The results of this study contribute to prior supply chain collaboration literature by
establishing a structural model to examine the relationship among components such
 as the different aspects and features of information sharing, successful Critical role of
implementation of collaborative approaches such as CPFR and VMI and their information
positive impacts on the firm’s performance. sharing and
(4) The important conclusion from this study is that there is a significant evidence in trust
support of the role of information sharing in effective collaboration and the positive
effects of collaboration on a firm’s performance. The study identified a set of three
interconnecting dimensions that make up effective supply chain collaboration: trust, 375
information readiness and information security.
(5) The results of this research indicate that of the four enablers examined, secure sharing
of information can more effectively foster other enablers and effective collaboration.
(6) Trust is often emphasised as the most important enabler for supply chain
collaboration (Matopoulos et al., 2007; Ghosh and Fedorowicz, 2008; Fynes et al.,
2008). This study, thus, empirically validates these views.
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

(7) The study contributes to the development of the literature in three distinct ways: first it
develops valid and reliable instruments for supply chain collaboration, which are useful
to researchers who investigate collaboration among supply chain members. Second, it
enhances our understanding of how collaboration enablers relate to each other in
building effective collaboration. Particularly, it shows that enablers regarding
information sharing such as information readiness and security are critical in
information sharing-centred supply networks. Third, it helps to better capture the
relationship between successful and effective implementation of collaborative
approaches and a firm’s performance and attempts to understand the critical role
played by collaboration actions among partners in supply chains. Also, we believe there
are interesting insights for industries in other countries that have similar demographics
(in terms of their size) and information exchanges and collaborative efforts.
Some limitations to this research should be noted. First, because of the limited number of
respondents (189), the revalidation of constructs was not carried out in this research. This
needs to be addressed in the future research. Second, as the respondents include different
sides of SC (i.e. supplier, manufacturer, distributor and retailer), there might be significant
differences in relationship perceptions between different supply chain members. A factorial
invariance test can be used to explore the differences in the future research. Third, this model
includes only four enablers of supply chain collaboration and the future research can improve
upon this research by examining the impacts of other drivers of collaboration including
leadership, competitive environment and developing IT infrastructures. Future research
should also consider the impact of collaboration on different aspects of firms’ performance.
Fourth, the current study is based on a cross-sectional survey of samples. Hence, the study
findings are generalisable within the samples only. To overcome this limitation future
research should consider longitudinal study based on a larger sample size.

References
Aastrup, J., Kotzab, H., Grant, D.B., Teller, C. and Bjerre, M. (2008), “A model for structuring efficient
consumer response measures”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 590-606.
Agarwal, A. and Shankar, R. (2003), “On-line trust building in e-enabled supply chain”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 324-334.
Akkermans, H., Bogerd, P. and Van Doremalen, J. (2004), “Travail, transparency and trust: a case study
of computer-supported collaborative supply chain planning in high-tech electronics”, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 153 No. 2, pp. 445-456.
 JEIM Anbanandam, R., Banwet, D.K. and Shankar, R. (2011), “Evaluation of supply chain collaboration:
31,3 a case of apparel retail industry in India”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 82-98.
Angulo, A., Nachtmann, H. and Waller, M.A. (2004), “Supply chain information sharing in a vendor
managed inventory partnership”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 101-120.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
376 Marketing Research, pp. 396-402.
Attaran, M. and Attaran, S. (2007), “Collaborative supply chain management: the most promising
practice for building efficient and sustainable supply chains”, Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 390-404.
Barclay, D., Higgins, C. and Thompson, R. (1995), “The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal
modeling, personal computer adoption and use as an illustration”, Technology Studies, Vol. 2
No. 2, pp. 285-309.
Brinkhoff, A., Özer, Ö. and Sargut, G. (2015), “All you need is trust? An examination of inter-
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

organizational supply chain projects”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 24 No. 2,
pp. 181-200.
Calvo-Mora, A., Picón, A., Ruiz, C. and Cauzo, L. (2013), “The relationships between soft-hard TQM
factors and key business results”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 115-143.
Cao, M. and Zhang, Q. (2011), “Supply chain collaboration: impact on collaborative advantage and firm
performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 163-180.
Chang, L., Ouzrout, Y., Nongaillard, A., Bouras, A. and Jiliu, Z. (2014), “Multi-criteria decision making
based on trust and reputation in supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 147, Part B, pp. 362-372.
Chen, T.H. and Chen, J.M. (2005), “Optimizing supply chain collaboration based on joint replenishment
and channel coordination”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation
Review, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 261-285.
Chin, W.W. (1998a), “Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. vii-xvi.
Chin, W.W. (1998b), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”,
in Marcoulides, G. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ, pp. 295-336.
Christopher, M. and Lee, H. (2004), “Mitigating supply chain risk through improved confidence”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 388-396.
Claassen, M.J., Van Weele, A.J. and Van Raaij, E.M. (2008), “Performance outcomes and success factors
of vendor managed inventory (VMI)”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 406-414.
Corsten, D. and Felde, J. (2005), “Exploring the performance effects of key-supplier collaboration: an
empirical investigation into Swiss buyer-supplier relationships”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 445-461.
Dawood, N. and Sriprasert, E. (2006), “Construction scheduling using multi-constraint and genetic
algorithms approach”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 19-30.
Eng, T.Y. (2006), “An investigation into the mediating role of cross-functional coordination on the
linkage between organizational norms and SCM performance”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 762-773.
Falk, R.F. and Miller, N.B. (1992), A Primer for Soft Modelling, The University of Akron, OH.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fu, X., Dong, M., Liu, S. and Han, G. (2016), “Trust based decisions in supply chains with an agent”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 82, pp. 35-46.
 Fynes, B., De Burca, S. and Mangan, J. (2008), “The effect of relationship characteristics on relationship Critical role of
quality and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 56-69. information
Fynes, B., Voss, C. and De Burca, S. (2005), “The impact of supply chain relationship dynamics on sharing and
manufacturing performance”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 6-19. trust
Gefen, D. (2003), “Assessing unidimensionality through LISREL: an explanation and an example”,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 23-47.
377
Ghosh, A. and Fedorowicz, J. (2008), “The role of trust in supply chain governance”, Business Process
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 453-470.
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S.F., Childe, S.J., Hazen, B. and Akter, S. (2017),
“Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 308-317.
Ha, B.-C., Park, Y.-K. and Cho, S. (2011), “Suppliers’ affective trust and trust in competency in buyers:
its effect on collaboration and logistics efficiency”, International Journal of Operations &
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 56-77.

Hofmann, E. (2017), “Big data and supply chain decisions: the impact of volume, variety and velocity
properties on the bullwhip effect”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 17,
pp. 5108-5126.
Hulland, J. (1999), “Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a review of four
recent studies”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 195-204.
Huo, B. (2012), “The impact of supply chain integration on company performance: an organizational
capability perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 6,
pp. 596-610.
Hwang, C., Yan, W. and Scherer, R. (1996), “Understanding managerial behavior in different cultures: a
review of instrument translation methodology”, International Journal of Management, Vol. 13
No. 3, pp. 332-339.
Ian Stuart, F., Verville, J. and Taskin, N. (2012), “Trust in buyer-supplier relationships: supplier
competency, interpersonal relationships and performance outcomes”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 392-412.
Ku, K.C., Gurumurthy, C.K. and Kao, H.P. (2007), “Inter-firms collaboration of joint venture in IC
foundry business”, Technovation, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 296-305.
Kwon, I.W.G. and Suh, T. (2004), “Factors affecting the level of trust and commitment in supply chain
relationships”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 4-14.
Lambert, D.M. and Harrington, T.C. (1990), “Measuring non-response bias in customer service mail
surveys”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 5-25.
Li, S. and Lin, B. (2006), “Accessing information sharing and information quality in supply chain
management”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1641-1656.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T.S. and Rao, S.S. (2006), “The impact of supply chain
management practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance”, Omega,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 107-124.
Li, T.S. (2014), “Establishing an integrated framework for security capability development in a supply
chain”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 283-303.
Lin, H.F. (2013), “The effects of knowledge management capabilities and partnership attributes on the
stage-based e-business diffusion”, Internet Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 439-464.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional
research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 114-121.
Lohr, S.L. (1999), Sampling: Design and Analysis, Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA.
Lorenzo Ochoa, O., Claes, B., Koryak, O. and Diaz, A. (2017), “Integration through orchestration: the
interplay between enterprise systems and inventory management capabilities”, Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 555-582.
 JEIM Lyu, J., Ding, J.H. and Chen, P.S. (2010), “Coordinating replenishment mechanisms in supply chain: from
31,3 the collaborative supplier and store-level retailer perspective”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 123 No. 1, pp. 221-234.
Matopoulos, A., Vlachopoulou, M., Manthou, V. and Manos, B. (2007), “A conceptual framework for
supply chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri-food industry”, Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 177-186.
378 Min, S., Roath, A.S., Daugherty, P.J., Genchev, S.E., Chen, H., Arndt, A.D. and Glenn Richey, R. (2005),
“Supply chain collaboration: what’s happening?”, The International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 237-256.
Myhr, N. and Spekman, R.E. (2002), “Partnership performance in supply chains – the impact of
collaboration”, Darden Business School Working Paper No. 02-10, available at: http://sci-hub.tw/;
https://ssrn.com/abstract=392420; http://sci-hub.tw/; http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.392420
Narayanan, S., Jayaraman, V., Luo, Y. and Swaminathan, J.M. (2011), “The antecedents of process
integration in business process outsourcing and its effect on firm performance”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3-16.
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Ogulin, R., Selen, W. and Ashayeri, J. (2012), “Determinants of informal coordination in networked
supply chains”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 328-348.
Oly Ndubisi, N., Kok Wah, C. and Ndubisi, G.C. (2007), “Supplier-customer relationship management
and customer loyalty: the banking industry perspective”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 222-236.
Panahifar, F., Byrne, P.J. and Heavey, C. (2015), “A hybrid approach to the study of CPFR
implementation enablers”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 26 No. 13, pp. 1-20.
Panahifar, F., Heavey, C., Byrne, P.J. and Fazlollahtabar, H. (2015), “A framework for collaborative
planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR) state of the art”, Journal of Enterprise
Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 838-871.
Panayides, P.M. and Lun, Y.V. (2009), “The impact of trust on innovativeness and supply chain
performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 122 No. 1, pp. 35-46.
Patel, H., Pettitt, M. and Wilson, J.R. (2012), “Factors of collaborative working: a framework for a
collaboration model”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Peng, D.X. and Lai, F. (2012), “Using partial least squares in operations management research: a practical
guideline and summary of past research”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 467-480.
Petersen, K.J., Ragatz, G.L. and Monczka, R.M. (2005), “An examination of collaborative planning
effectiveness and supply chain performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 41
No. 2, pp. 14-25.
Prajogo, D. and 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, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 514-522.
Ramanathan, U. and Gunasekaran, A. (2014), “Supply chain collaboration: impact of success
in long-term partnerships”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 147, Part B,
pp. 252-259.
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M. and Henseler, J. (2009), “An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 332-344.
Ryu, I., So, S. and Koo, C. (2009), “The role of partnership in supply chain performance”, Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 109 No. 4, pp. 496-514.
Salam, M.A. (2017), “The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between
technology, trust and operational performance: an empirical investigation”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 298-317.
 Sanders, N.R., Autry, C.W. and Gligor, D.M. (2011), “The impact of buyer firm information connectivity Critical role of
enablers on supplier firm performance: a relational view”, The International Journal of Logistics information
Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Hair, J.F. (2017), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling”,
sharing and
in Homburg, C., Klarmann, M. and Vomberg, A. (Eds), Handbook of Market Research, Springer, trust
Heidelberg, pp. 1-40.
Sigala, M. (2007), “Investigating the internet’s impact on interfirm relations: evidence from the business
travel management distribution chain”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 20
379
No. 3, pp. 335-355.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2005), “The collaboration index: a measure for supply chain
collaboration”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35
No. 1, pp. 44-62.
Smith, G.E., Watson, K.J., Baker, W.H. and Pokorski Ii, J.A. (2007), “A critical balance: collaboration and
security in the IT-enabled supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45
No. 11, pp. 2595-2613.
Downloaded by Dokuz Eylul University At 06:35 13 May 2018 (PT)

Soni, U., Jain, V. and Kumar, S. (2014), “Measuring supply chain resilience using a deterministic
modeling approach”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 74, pp. 11-25.
Tan, K. (2001), “A structural equation model of new product design and development”, Decision
Science, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 195-226.
Tang, O. and Musa, S.N. (2011), “Identifying risk issues and research advancements in supply chain
risk management”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 133 No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Whipple, J.M. and Russell, D. (2007), “Building supply chain collaboration: a typology of collaborative
approaches”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 174-196.
Whipple, J.M., Frankel, R. and Daugherty, P.J. (2002), “Information support for alliances: performance
implications”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 67-82.
Wu, L., Chuang, C.H. and Hsu, C.H. (2014), “Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in
enabling supply chain performance: a social exchange perspective”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 148, pp. 122-132.
Yao, M.J. and Chiou, C.C. (2004), “On a replenishment coordination model in an integrated supply chain
with one vendor and multiple buyers”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 159 No. 2,
pp. 406-419.
Zhang, M. and Huo, B. (2013), “The impact of dependence and trust on supply chain integration”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 43 No. 7, pp. 544-563.
Zhou, H. and Benton, W.C. (2007), “Supply chain practice and information sharing”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1348-1365.

Further reading
Aviv, Y. (2002), “Gaining benefits from joint forecasting and replenishment processes: the case of auto-
correlated demand”, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Chin, W.W. (2001), PLS-Graph User’s Guide Version 3.0, available at: www.pubinfo.vcu.edu/carma/
Documents/OCT1405/PLSGRAPH3.0Manual.hubona.pdf
Chopra, S. and Meindl, P. (2012), Supply Chain Management: Strategy Planning and Operation, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Corresponding author
Farhad Panahifar can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

View publication stats