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

net/publication/318032969

Information sharing across multiple supply chain tiers: A Delphi study on

antecedents

Article  in  International Journal of Production Economics · June 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.032

CITATIONS READS

43 168

3 authors:

Joakim Kembro Dag Naslund

Lund University University of North Florida
18 PUBLICATIONS   447 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   1,350 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jan Olhager
Lund University
95 PUBLICATIONS   5,260 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Accumulation of knowledge about reshoring View project

Omni-channel logistics View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joakim Kembro on 17 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Production Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Information sharing across multiple supply chain tiers: A Delphi study

on antecedents
Joakim Kembro a, *, Dag N€aslund a, b, Jan Olhager a
a
Lund University, Department of Industrial Management and Logistics, SE-22100, Lund, Sweden
b
University of North Florida, Coggin College of Business, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this paper is to empirically explore antecedents associated with information sharing across
Information sharing multiple supply chain tiers. We conduct a Delphi study with 29 supply chain experts to collect qualitative and
Delphi study quantitative data, and identify a total of 22 factors that are grouped into six categories: information utilization,
Multi-tier
technology utilization, power structures, culture, business process, and legal. All 22 factors pose challenges to
Supply chain
information sharing beyond the dyadic relationships, and certain factors such as trust are regarded as barriers, i.e.
Antecedent
Challenges too difficult to resolve for implementing multi-tier information sharing. With respect to the many antecedents that
are identified, the study highlights several difficulties for companies to achieve seamless information flows across
multi-tier supply chains. These difficulties concern relational, behavioral, and structural issues in networks of
multiple companies. For instance, there is a lack of an overarching purpose and process so that all partners work
toward the same goal, and an increased number of relationships make it difficult to build strong relationships and
to formalize contracts. The multiple links and exchanges also make it difficult to forecast, aggregate, and share
accurate and timely information in a secure manner. This research study is one of the few that empirically ex-
plores information sharing across multi-tier supply chains and, as such, provides new insights to why the chal-
lenges may be difficult to resolve in a multi-tier setting.

1. Introduction
The Absolut Company shares demand-related information with their
immediate suppliers and customers only, but not beyond that, even
though they have experienced stable demand for long time-periods
(Kembro and Selviaridis, 2015). Kembro and Selviaridis (2015) studied
information sharing along a seven-tier supply chain – the Absolut Com-
pany and three tiers upstream as well as downstream – and concluded
that despite potential benefits, the companies refrained from sharing
information beyond the dyadic ties. They found that there are challenges
related to misinterpreted and incomplete information, which are
particularly difficult to resolve in multi-tier supply chains. This case
provides empirical support to previous research that suggests that com-
panies struggle with and avoid demand-related information sharing
across their supply chain; see e.g. Moberg et al. (2002), Angulo et al.
(2004), Taylor and Fearne (2006), and Fawcett et al. (2009). Angulo
et al. (2004) indicated that there may be several barriers to the imple-
mentation of multi-tier information sharing. Fawcett et al. (2007), for
example, submitted that information systems fall short of enabling the
seamless connectivity supply chain managers want, and that the con-
nectivity challenge is worsened by organizational cultures and structures
that reduce companies' willingness to share the information needed to
improve overall supply chain performance.
At the same time, there are proponents of information sharing along
the supply chain, that highlight potential benefits such as improved
allocation and utilization of logistics resources, improved production
planning, lower inventory costs, increased customer service, and reduced
lead times through the supply chain, see e.g. Angulo et al. (2004), Zhou
and Benton (2007), Prajogo and Olhager (2012), and Hill et al. (2012).
Several authors have also emphasized the need for increased information
sharing across the supply chain (see e.g. Ogden et al., 2005; Caridi et al.,
2010). Mason-Jones and Towill (1999), for instance, argue that un-
modified customer demand data should be shared as far upstream in
the supply chain as possible. Melnyk et al. (2009) urge managers to
ensure seamless information sharing by involving the entire supply chain
and working together collaboratively with secure and timely information
flows between the parties. Similarly, Autry et al. (2014) argue that the
effort to connect the triad and perhaps the broader supply chain at

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: joakim.kembro@tlog.lth.se (J. Kembro), dnaslund@unf.edu, dag.naslund@tlog.lth.se (D. N€aslund), jan.olhager@tlog.lth.se (J. Olhager).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.06.032
Received 20 June 2016; Received in revised form 26 June 2017; Accepted 27 June 2017
Available online 29 June 2017
0925-5273/© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
J. Kembro et al.
further tiers is worthwhile to achieve higher effectiveness and efficiency
in the supply chain.
Hence, there are two different views. One group claims that it is
difficult, if not impossible, to implement multi-tier information sharing
whereas the other group argues that information sharing across multiple
tiers can be done, should be done, and is being done in industry. Reviews
of extant literature applying an empirical research method (see e.g.
Kembro and N€ aslund, 2014) suggest that this disagreement to some
extent can be explained by a difference in reported unit of analysis and
studied unit of analysis. While results are often reported on the supply
chain level, research has predominantly focused on dyadic buyer-
supplier relationships (Autry et al., 2014; Caridi et al., 2014). As
argued by, for example, Mena et al. (2013) and Kembro and N€aslund
(2014), this dyadic approach to researching supply chains is problematic
bearing in mind that the complexity and dynamics across multi-tier
supply chains are different than in a buyer-supplier relationship. Mov-
ing beyond the dyadic relationships implies different competitive dy-
namics, increased relational and behavioral issues as well as structural
issues of networks including multiple links and exchanges (Kembro and
Selviaridis, 2015).
In the future, companies are expected to intensify their efforts to
establish relationships and share information across networks to
strengthen their cost, quality, and sustainability performance (Mena
et al., 2013). As argued by several authors (see e.g. Moberg et al., 2002; Li
and Lin, 2006; Bailey and Francis, 2008; and Vijayasarathy, 2010), re-
searchers should further investigate the challenges that companies need
to overcome to implement and unlock the claimed benefits of multi-tier
information sharing. The purpose of this study is therefore to identify and
explore antecedents to multi-tier information sharing. We formulate the
following research question:
RQ. How do factors relevant to multi-tier information sharing act as barriers
or challenges?
The unit of analysis is the supply chain (Mentzer et al., 2001) rep-
resenting three or more tiers, which could involve networks of multiple
suppliers, manufacturers and/or customers. Moreover, we define a bar-
rier as a factor, which likely is too difficult to overcome or solve in order
to implement information sharing across three or more tiers, whereas a
challenge represents a complicating factor, which likely can be overcome
or solved in order to implement information sharing across three or
more tiers.
We employ an extensive Delphi study with 29 panel experts including
industry professionals, academic scholars, and senior consultants. We
identify 22 factors that must be addressed to enable information sharing
in multi-tier supply chains, and group these factors into six categories.
The paper is organized as follows. First, we review the related literature
on information sharing in supply chains. Second, we present the Delphi
study methodology. We then present the results including a qualitative
and quantitative assessment. Finally, we discuss implications for practice
and research, as well as limitations and opportunities for future research.
2. Related literature
2.1. Information sharing in supply chains
Companies share demand-related information with their upstream
and downstream partners with the purpose to improve planning and
coordination of logistics and production related activities (Cooper et al.,
1997; Fawcett et al., 2009). Inter-organizational information sharing
involves two or more organizations from different tiers of the supply
chains. Information sharing can be categorized based on the intended
decision time horizon: (i) operational level: companies share sales and
order information to facilitate customer orders, reduce information
distortion, and lower stock levels (Patnayakuni et al., 2006; Klein and
Rai, 2009); (ii) tactical level: involves monthly and quarterly forecasts
and plans to help partners reserve adequate capacities for production and
78
International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86
logistics activities (Patnayakuni et al., 2006; Klein and Rai, 2009; Yigit-
basioglu, 2010); (iii) strategic level: organizations share annual demand
and promotion plans as well as marketing strategies to enable planning of
future purchases and growth within the alliance (Mentzer et al., 2001).
2.2. Antecedents to information sharing in supply chains
Considering the purpose of the paper, we built on previous literature
reviews in the area (Sahin and Robinson, 2005; Huang et al., 2003) and
conducted a systematic review of literature to identify factors that must
be addressed to enable information sharing in supply chains. We adopted
guidelines provided by e.g. Tranfield et al. (2003) and focused our search
on papers applying an empirical research method (Wacker, 1998) or
conceptual papers that are based on empirical results. We first conducted
a scoping study to define relevant keywords, which were then used to
search for literature in two recognized databases: Thomson Reuters
(formerly ISI) Web of Knowledge and SciVerse Scopus. We used a data
extraction sheet to identify and map various factors and classifications,
and reached the final list of factors by following two steps. First, we
created a long list of all factors mentioned in literature. Here, we noted
that literature to a certain extent mixes pre-requisites, antecedents,
challenges and barriers (and even drivers) to information sharing in
supply chains. Second, we identified common themes across the factors
and grouped factors that were similar together. In this process, we
concluded that there is a lack of a clear and systematic classification of
the various factors, which is one of the gaps that the manu-
script addresses.
The systematic review revealed that previous literature predomi-
nantly focuses on the dyadic buyer-supplier relationships, and there is a
lack of research applying the multi-tier supply chain as unit of analysis
(Moberg et al., 2002; Barratt, 2004; Autry et al., 2014; Kembro and
N€aslund, 2014). We found nine factors that must be addressed to enable
dyadic information sharing: (i) low information quality, (ii) costly and
inadequate information systems, (iii) power asymmetry, (iv) lack of
governance, (v) lack of trust, (vi) unfair allocation of benefits, (vii) lack of
common performance indicators, (viii) lack of common goals, and (ix)
confidential information. These are displayed in Table 1, with the
respective sources. Further, the review showed that related literature has
discussed one or a few of these nine factors at a time, and a large number
of the sources (15 out of 28 in Table 1) deal with only a single factor.
Among the few examples that empirically investigate information
sharing across three or more supply chain tiers, Kembro and Selviaridis
(2015) highlight issues related to low information quality. Capo-Vicedo
et al. (2011) investigate socio-technical factors such as trust and shared
vision. Bailey and Francis (2008) also discuss aligned performance
measures and benefit allocation among companies. Finally, Holweg and
Pil (2008, p. 401) argue that power dynamics determine the direction-
ality of information flows, where the dominant actor “will favor local
optimization of their respective processes over a solution that marks a
compromise derived from a systemic perspective.” Next, we discuss the
various factors (Table 1) and related concerns.
Companies are often embedded in several networks (cf. Choi and
Hong, 2002) where each firm may have multiple suppliers and cus-
tomers. Connecting supply chain partners and their different information
systems can therefore be difficult, time-consuming and expensive (Lee
and Whang, 2000; Childerhouse et al., 2003) often resulting in low in-
formation quality regarding accuracy, timeliness and proper formatting
(Moberg et al., 2002; Angulo et al., 2004; Li and Lin, 2006; Forslund and
Jonsson, 2007). Inaccurate and obsolete information has no value for
decision-making, and could even create a number of problems for up-
stream supply chain partners including process inefficiencies and excess
cost in production and transportation (Monczka et al., 1998; Lee and
Whang, 2000; Li et al., 2006).
Another concern relates to power. Power asymmetry represents an
imbalance in power and dependence between companies (e.g. Mason-
Jones and Towill, 1999). On the one hand, firms may refrain from
J. Kembro et al. International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86

Table 1 Fawcett et al., 2008). One of the reasons is that supply chain partners,
Factors that must be addressed to enable dyadic information sharing. considering the network perspective, have diverse goals, which could
Factor Description Sources make it difficult to achieve necessary changes for enabling information
Information Without proper formatting, Monczka et al. (1998); Lee and sharing (Harland et al., 2007). Also, companies are legally separate and
quality timeliness and reliability, the Whang (2000); Moberg et al. fear the risk of leaking sensitive information to competitors (e.g. Cooper
shared information is of little (2002); Childerhouse et al. et al., 1997; Spekman et al., 1998; Lau et al., 2004; Li and Zhang, 2008;
value to the receiver. (2003); Angulo et al. (2004); Klein and Rai, 2009). Managers are thus recommended “to consider the
Barratt (2004); Li and Lin (2006);
Li et al. (2006); Forslund and
tradeoffs between information exchange that enhances performance and in-
Jonsson (2007) formation exchange that allows trading partners to act opportunistically”
Costly and Partners may have different Christopher and Jüttner (2000); (Porterfield et al., 2010, p. 451).
inadequate systems in place that are not Lee and Whang (2000); Frohlich
information compatible, and the (2002); Childerhouse et al.
3. Methodology
systems implementation of new IT systems (2003); Shore and
may be negatively perceived due Venkatachalam (2003); Kelle and
to lack of incentives. Akbulut (2005); Patnayakuni Let us revisit the research question: How do factors relevant to multi-tier
The means for sharing et al. (2006); Fawcett et al. information sharing act as barriers or challenges? The research question
information may require high (2007); Harland et al. (2007); was, as recommended by Huscroft et al. (2013), defined based on results
capital investments. Fawcett et al. (2008)
Power Fear amongst partners to become Seidmann and Sundararajan
from previous research studies, discussions within the internal research
asymmetry overly dependent on each other. (1998); Mason-Jones and Towill group, and discussions with practitioners represented by industry and
Firms may fear losing the (1999); Ballou et al. (2000); consulting firms. Considering the aim to investigate antecedents associ-
favorable position and bargaining Christopher and Jüttner (2000); ated with information sharing across multiple supply chain tiers, which
power in a supplier-buyer Lee and Whang (2000); Frohlich
seems to be a largely unexplored area, the Delphi method was deemed
relationship. (2002); Li and Lin (2006);
Fawcett et al. (2007); Harland appropriate for this research study (see e.g. Linstone and Turoff, 2002;
et al. (2007) Lummus et al., 2005).
Governance/ Due to the disintegrated Childerhouse et al. (2003); The Delphi study can be described as a systematic, iterative group
dominant structures of supply chain, there is Fawcett et al. (2008) communication process that allows anonymous interaction between
player a lack of governance on how the
chain is directed and controlled.
dispersed panel experts (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). The goal of a
Trust Fear of opportunistic behavior Moorman et al. (1992); Cooper Delphi study is to reach consensus on a complex, interdisciplinary
may reduce willingness to share et al. (1997); Seidmann and problem. The panel members provide answers to multiple rounds of
due to the risk of information Sundararajan (1998); Spekman questions where responses from each round form input to the subsequent
leakage to competitors. et al. (1998); Barratt (2004); Kelle
round. The method is useful to collect group judgments while avoiding
and Akbulut (2005); Li and Lin
(2006); Fawcett et al. (2007); negative effects related to interpersonal biases, strong personalities,
Klein and Rai (2009); Porterfield defensive attitudes and unproductive disagreements (Linstone and Tur-
et al. (2010) off, 2002). Throughout the process, panel experts are able to consider
Benefits Unfair distribution of rewards of Mason-Jones and Towill (1999); feedback from other panel members and change their opinions without
allocation information sharing between Ballou et al. (2000); Lee and
involved partners. Whang (2000); Childerhouse
the risk of embarrassment (Lummus et al., 2005). As such, the research
et al. (2003); Sahin and Robinson method can be considered as appropriate for exploratory theory building
(2005); Harland et al. (2007); (Akkermans et al., 2003; Melnyk et al., 2009) and has repeatedly been
Fawcett et al. (2008) used to investigate factors influencing decision-making on a specific
Common Lack of common performance Ballou et al. (2000); Barratt
issue, topic or problem area in supply chain management. Examples of
performance indicators for capturing benefits (2004); Kelle and Akbulut (2005);
metrics related to inter-organizational Fawcett et al. (2008) such applications range from determining factors affecting location de-
information sharing. cisions in international operations (MacCarthy and Atthirawong, 2003)
Common goals Diverse goals of partners make it Kelle and Akbulut (2005); to identifying drivers and barriers to purchasing and supply management
difficult to achieve necessary Harland et al. (2007); Fawcett sustainability (Giunipero et al., 2012).
changes in business culture for et al. (2008)
The Delphi study reported in this paper was conducted in five steps,
enabling information sharing.
Confidential Fear of losing control of sensitive Lee and Whang (2000); Frohlich with the aim to continue until the point of theoretical saturation
information data that could reduce (2002); Lau et al. (2004); Kelle (McCutcheon and Meredith, 1993). We therefore conducted three rounds
competitiveness in the and Akbulut (2005); Li and Zhang with questionnaires followed by a complementing round to understand
marketplace. (2008); Porterfield et al. (2010)
consensus and differing opinions. The following paragraphs describe
each of the steps. Details on the questionnaires of the three rounds are
sharing confidential information to avoid losing bargaining power included in the Appendix.
(Seidmann and Sundararajan, 1998; Christopher and Jüttner, 2000;
Frohlich, 2002). On the other hand, a powerful player may use their 3.1. Step 1: setting up the panel
power to force other companies to share information (Ballou et al.,
2000). Imbalance in power may lead to lack of trust, which can be To ensure validity of the results, we followed general guidelines to set
defined as the lack of “a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom up a panel of respondents who possess a thorough understanding of the
one has confidence” (Moorman et al., 1992, p. 315) and represents an research topic and represent a variety of viewpoints (cf. Okoli and
inclination to avoid opportunistic behavior (e.g. Barratt, 2004; Li and Lin, Pawlowski, 2004; Ogden et al., 2005; Melnyk et al., 2009). To capture the
2006; Fawcett et al., 2007). Imbalance in power may also lead to that a inside perspective, we involved people that work inside companies that
powerful player can also use its position to reap all benefits generated engage in information sharing with supply chain partners. We used
from inter-organizational information sharing (Lee and Whang, 2000) professional networks to invite SCM executives from large multi-national
instead of distributing benefits fairly among the involved players enterprises with global operations. The respondents operate out of
(Childerhouse et al., 2003; Harland et al., 2007). Hence, some of the Europe or the US and represent a range of industries such as, for example,
factors listed in Table 1 are to a certain extent interrelated. information technology, telecom, automotive, packaging, and fast mov-
A related challenge is that companies still struggle with harmonizing ing consumer goods. All executives have at least 10 years of experience
different performance indicators and reward systems (Ballou et al., 2000; from global supply chain management. The outside perspective was
represented by academics and consultants. We invited researchers that

79
J. Kembro et al.
are well known, are well cited, and have a number of relevant publica-
tions, and we identified senior consultants by referring to listings of top
management and IT consulting firms in the world, in Europe, and in
Nordic countries.
While academic literature does not provide a specific formula to
determine the ideal size of a panel (Giunipero et al., 2012), guidelines do
exist (cf. Akkermans et al., 2003; Ogden et al., 2005; Huscroft et al.,
2013). First, the panel size should not exceed 30 experts since larger
groups tend to generate few additional insights as well as limit the
exploration of the insights that do emerge throughout the study. Second,
the panel should include at least 20 respondents in order to reduce po-
tential individual biases that can distort the aggregate responses. Third,
Okoli and Pawlowski (2004) suggest that subgroups (i.e. panels within
the panel) should consist of between 10 and 18 experts. Our original
intention was to create a panel with three subgroups capturing both the
perspective of professionals working inside the firms as well as the
outside perspective of experts working as consultants or researchers. We
therefore invited 98 individuals in total: 30 researchers, 36 consultants,
and 32 industry professionals. The final panel included 29 experts con-
sisting of 5 researchers, 12 consultants, and 12 industry professionals.
Despite significant efforts, we were not able to identify additional re-
searchers with appropriate expertise willing to participate in the study.
However, based on analysis of answers from questionnaires in each
Delphi round, we concluded that there was a high correlation between
the answers from researchers and consultants. One reason for this cor-
relation is that these respondents actually have similar profiles and
experience, and several of the consultants have a PhD and background as
researchers. We therefore decided to merge researchers and consultants
into one subgroup (consisting of 17 experts), which represent the
external perspective of the researched phenomenon. The set-up of the
final panel thus followed recognized Delphi guidelines (Akkermans et al.,
2003; Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004; Ogden et al., 2005; Huscroft et al.,
2013): it is between 20 and 30 in total and the subgroups are between 10
and 18. In addition, all experts participated in the entire study.
3.2. Step 2: exploration of the subject (round 1)
The invitation letter and first round explorative questions (see Ap-
pendix) were incorporated into one letter and sent through email. By
including the first round questionnaires, the invited experts could get
additional insights to what questions we wanted to ask. Thereby it was
possible for the invited person to immediately identify if he/she was
suitable for the panel or not. The invitation letter gave a short back-
ground to the study and described the scope and timeline of the project. It
also confirmed anonymity throughout the process and asked for confir-
mation that the expert indeed had the appropriate knowledge regarding
multi-tier information sharing and was interested in participating in the
panel (cf. Lummus et al., 2005). The questionnaire included open-ended,
easy to comprehend questions avoiding ambiguous statements or com-
pounded events. The questionnaire was also designed so that it would not
impose any bias on the panel members or lead any respondent in a
specific direction (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004; Lummus et al., 2005). A
pilot was conducted with a panel of three practitioners and three re-
searchers to (i) test the usefulness of the selected medium, (ii) test the
exploratory questions for clarity and to avoid ambiguity, (iii) improve
quality of communication and layout in order to increase attractiveness
of the project and grab attention of the experts in order to increase
number of panel members, and (iv) allow for proof reading. The partic-
ipants in the pilot test did not participate in the final panel.
All answers from the exploratory questionnaire were compiled and
inserted into one Word-document; in total 15,300 words. Thereafter, all
authors conducted independent content analyses to identify a list of
keywords regarding specific challenges and barriers to information
sharing across three or more supply chain tiers. Popular wordings were
identified and categorized based on e.g. particular context mentioned by
the respondent, and a unique code name was added to every new
80
International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86
challenge or barrier expressed in the questionnaire. Similar descriptions
were grouped and coded as one factor. The independent coders thereafter
compared the results to ensure their similarity, and discussed differences
until all researchers reached consensus (Gioia et al., 2013). The final list
of keywords were then entered into an Excel document for further
analysis in order to identify emerging themes, potential consensus of
opinions, differing views as well as interesting and unique insights to the
studied topic.
3.3. Step 3: reaching an understanding (round 2)
Building on the insights from the first round, the second round
questionnaire (see Appendix) included closed-end questions with the
option for respondents to provide additional commentary input. A pilot
test was conducted involving the same procedure and respondents as in
the first round. The questionnaire was attached in a Word-document and
provided through a link to SurveyMonkey. Based on results from the
second round, the list of keywords and themes was updated to reflect the
panel's view on antecedents to multi-tier information sharing. These
amendments are reflected in the Appendix. This list was carried forward
to be further investigated and assessed in a third round questionnaire.
3.4. Step 4: assessing opinions (round 3)
The identified factors were further investigated by allowing the re-
spondents to provide quantitative responses using a seven-point Likert
scale. The purpose of using this type of quantitative feedback was to
establish the level of impact of each factor. The Likert scale included the
following denotation: “1” represents a barrier whereas “7” signifies an
aspect that would not even be considered as a challenge to multi-tier
information sharing. In between these two ends of the scale, “2” repre-
sents a major challenge, “4” indicates a medium challenge and “6” de-
notes a minor challenge. A pilot test was conducted following the same
process as in step 2 and 3.
3.5. Step 5: final evaluation
At this stage, it was possible to identify a general agreement as well as
a limited number of outlying responses. These outliers were further
explored in a complementary round. By sharing the group consensus, the
respondents who provided outlying responses were given an opportunity
to reconsider and elaborate on their answers relative to the consensus
view. In all of these cases, the respondent chose to accept the consensus
view. Having collected all answers, the final step included analysis of
qualitative and quantitative input. In the final stage, all data on factors
were structured, and categorized through a systematic analysis involving
three researchers. Each researcher conducted an individual assessment,
clustering factors into categories, followed by a joint discussion and
assessment between the three researchers.
4. Findings
4.1. Identification and categorization of factors
Based on the qualitative input from the Delphi study, we identified 22
factors and grouped these into six categories representing antecedents to
information sharing across multiple supply chain tiers, see Fig. 1.
Simultaneously, the Delphi study emphasize that all factors are difficult
to implement and maintain, and subsequently act as barriers or serious
challenges. The six categories are (i) information utilization, (ii) tech-
nology utilization, (iii) power structure, (iv) culture, (v) business process,
and (vi) legal aspects. Below, we discuss these categories and comment
on the 22 factors. Quotes are used to exemplify the insights and experi-
ences from panel experts.
J. Kembro et al.
Fig. 1. Overview of factors identified through the Delphi study, grouped into six categories.
4.1.1. Information utilization
This category includes three factors: forecasting ability, planning
competence, and information quality. One of the main concerns for in-
formation sharing is the difficulty involved with forecasting future de-
mand. The lack of forecasting ability and planning competence result in
low information quality, which makes it difficult to plan logistics and
production related activities. Low information quality can also relate to
(i) delayed information, (ii) misinterpreted information, and (iii) the
difficulty to aggregate information. First, as underlined by one of the
respondents, delayed information has little or no value for decision
making in the supply chain: “When demand changes frequently, the speed of
information sharing from one end to the other is critical for the overall supply
chain competitiveness.” Delayed information can in fact be detrimental for
upstream partners because decisions are made on “old” and potentially
incorrect information. Second, the receiver cannot use the information
without understanding how the information was generated and what
aspects were considered by the sender. Making correct interpretations
and identifying discrepancies in the data can be difficult for upstream
partners and, in the worst case, the receiver will: “… try to calculate on
their own if they perceive the quality of information to be non-satisfactory.”
The issues of delayed and misinterpreted information are magnified with
the number of tiers involved. The sender and receiver of information also
lack a direct link and likely do not meet regularly to discuss how the
information was generated and how it should be interpreted. Third,
aggregating information for decision-making is difficult considering that:
“retail demand for a product does not translate to demand for a supplier's
components if there are multiple suppliers. Also, a component may be used in
81
International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86
many end products, implying that these demands should be aggregated for the
supplier.” When involving some sort of production in a multi-tier setting,
it is generally not possible to do one-to-one interpretation of demand
information. The bill of material (BOM) plays an important role in the
translation of demand data to purchase component data, decoupling the
inbound and outbound flows as well as specifying the internal value
added in terms of the material content of the finished good. This issue is
underlined by one respondent: “Complexity increases exponentially in
networks: both in terms of which data to send and how to collect and connect
the data. You need BOMs to calculate material requirements, as well as
aggregate data from other customers, unless it is dedicated products.”
4.1.2. Technology utilization
This category includes five factors: implementation costs, linked IT-
systems and common platforms, IT-maturity, standardized terminology,
and standardized format for data exchange. At the core of information
sharing, technology utilization refers to the various means for sharing,
receiving and making sense of transmitted information. While technol-
ogy and related challenges have been highlighted as a major obstacle in
previous research (see e.g. Moberg et al., 2002; Angulo et al., 2004; Li
and Lin, 2006), the respondents in this study tone down such techno-
logical difficulties. There are now systems and formats available on the
market to support information sharing across the supply chain: “Tech-
nically, information sharing is possible across the whole supply chain, and the
benefits have been proved in many studies, particularly in model-based studies.
Information sharing benefits in practice are more challenging to be realized in a
three-tier supply chain; in particular manufacturers have faced difficulties in
J. Kembro et al.
realizing those.” Nonetheless, even though the technology is available, the
dynamics of networks pose a challenge for multi-tier information
sharing. Companies are involved in numerous supply chains and the task
to connect suppliers and customers across multiple tiers quickly becomes
a cumbersome and costly undertaking over time.
4.1.3. Power structure
This category includes three factors: dominant player able to initiate
change, power asymmetry, and dependencies between firms. Power
structure relates to inter-dependencies between firms and a company's
power (or ability) to influence its business partners' behaviors. Com-
panies in many cases fear unbalanced dependencies and the risk of being
forced into information sharing arrangements. Related, companies
sometimes regard information sharing as a loss of power, which could
reduce their competitiveness in the marketplace. They may therefore be
reluctant to invest resources to help others. Although power asymmetry
may have a detrimental effect on companies' willingness to share infor-
mation, the respondents argue that it may actually be a pre-condition to
implement multi-tier information sharing. With a dominant player, it
could be easier to bring multiple partners together and, if need be,
enforce change in order to implement multi-tier information sharing. As
an example, dominant players such as Walmart can dictate IT system
requirements including formats and platform to be used as well as take
the lead to establish formal contracts for sharing risks and benefits be-
tween the involved partners. One researcher describes further: ”While
unbalanced power may create unfavorable climate to information sharing
within and beyond dyads, in the context where a big prime contractor controls
the supply chain, mandatory requirement to share information is sometimes
more effective than goodwill.”
4.1.4. Culture
This category includes three factors: trust, cultural differences, and
good inter-firm relationships. Culture represents the business relation-
ships and the attitude and willingness toward collaborating and sharing
information with supply chain partners. The respondents perceive good
inter-firm relationships and trust as critical for enabling inter-
organizational information sharing. Lack of such relationships and
trust, which signifies a lack of cooperative and non-opportunistic be-
haviors, appears to be magnified when involving partners across three or
more tiers. One respondent elaborates this issue: “Involving more partners
increase the risk of weakening the relationships and reducing the trust between
the companies.” An increased number of relationships could lead to a
diversity of cultures, which could make it “more difficult and potentially
more time consuming to build strong relationships, particularly if the partners
are not directly connected, as in the example of supplier – (manufacturer) –
customer”. In the case when three partners are involved, the companies
often operate in different industries and there is no direct link between
part 1 and 3. The sender and receiver of information therefore rarely
meet to discuss business, build mutual trust and resolve potential mis-
understandings; nor is there a formal contract in place regulating the
business relationship between two different legal entities.
4.1.5. Business process
This category includes five factors: linked business processes, benefit-
sharing and risk-sharing model, common goal, and common performance
measures. The respondents perceive the task to link business processes
among three or more partners to be difficult considering that: (i) there
must be an overarching purpose and process so that all partners work
toward the same goal, and (ii) there must be standardized business
processes (e.g. how to place an order and invoice) in place that efficiently
connect the dyads in case the information is transferred through the
intermediary player. One respondent develops this argument: “Generally
speaking, it is a tougher challenge to synchronize processes and systems in
flows across three or more tiers. In principle it is possible to manage the
business processes manually if there are only two partners, but to make it
efficient and effective with three or more partners in the chain, there is a need
82
International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86
for an automated, standardized solution.” It appears particularly chal-
lenging to implement processes for measuring and sharing risks and
benefits between partners. The idea of “give and take” that can work well
in dyadic relationships becomes much more difficult when increasing the
number of partners involved: “Far from everyone realize the benefits
involved with increased information sharing, and just because the supply chain
as a whole has improved, few of the partners actually see any gains on their
own.” This issue emphasizes the importance of recognizing each of the
companies' key performance metrics and visualizing the benefits for all
involved partners. Unclear gain sharing likely means that the partner
with the most power reaps the bigger share reducing the willingness of
other partners to get engaged. Risk sharing is also regarded as a major
challenge related to uncertainty and the difficulties involved in gener-
ating accurate forecasts. Incorrect forecasts may, sooner or later, result in
excessive stocks or delayed deliveries from upstream manufacturers,
which implies tied up capital and extra holding costs as well as lost sales.
When involving multiple partners that neither have regular meetings nor
any formal contracts in place, these issues become problematic to resolve.
4.1.6. Legal aspects
This category includes three factors: confidential information, legal
framework, and intellectual property rights. In a multi-tier setting, sup-
pliers and customers are generally embedded in multiple supply chains
meaning that information can travel both vertically and horizontally
across the network of business relationships. The multitude of companies
makes it difficult to control exactly what information is shared with
whom: “Confidential information access and sharing are always very tricky
aspects to manage, and become more complex as more stakeholders are
involved in the process.” Another respondent elaborates: “Confidentiality
across multiple tiers involves such tough challenges that the perceived risk is too
high in comparison with the potential gains.” Sharing information across
multiple supply chain tiers may thus expose companies to having confi-
dential information spread which, for example, could decrease compet-
itiveness in future negotiations. Companies may also fear leaking others'
confidential information and thus being regarded as a less trustworthy
partner. This issue is further discussed by one of the respondents: “Across
how many tiers can I overview and prevent leakages of intellectual property?
Will I be regarded as a risk by my customers if I am responsible for sharing their
information with my suppliers?” Considering all of these issues, the re-
spondents submit that there is a need to formalize the information
sharing through a legal framework, include for example: (i) what infor-
mation can be shared, (ii) how to interpret the information, (iii) how to
use the information for decision making in production or similar, (iv)
how to store and treat the information, and (v) with whom information
can be shared within and outside the company. However, as underlined
by particularly the researchers and consultants, bringing three or more
partners together to agree on and sign off on such a formal contract may
be a difficult task.
4.2. Quantitative assessment
Following the qualitative input, we acquired quantitative data by
asking the panel experts to assess the level of impact of all the identified
factors, along a seven-point scale (“1” ¼ barrier, “2” ¼ major challenge,
“4” ¼ medium challenge, “6” ¼ minor challenge, and “7” ¼ no even a
challenge). In Table 2, the assessments are displayed for (i) the entire
panel, (ii) researchers and consultants, and (iii) SCM executives, in terms
of mean value and standard deviation (the latter in brackets). The table
also includes the number of researchers and consultants as well as SCM
executives that consider a factor to be a barrier, i.e. a factor that is too
difficult to resolve for enabling information sharing across multiple
supply chain tiers.
Overall, the factors that are most difficult to resolve include trust
(2.5), benefit sharing (2.7), information quality (2.7), dominant player
(2.8), and confidential information (2.9). The quantitative assessment
reveals a big difference between the two groups. Particularly, in
J. Kembro et al. International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86

Table 2 instance, one of the most frequently mentioned barriers among aca-
Factors acting as challenges or barriers to multi-tier information sharing. demics/consultants (dominant player) was barely mentioned among the
Categories and factors Meana # Indicated as executives. Similarly, over half of the academics/consultants mentioned
barrier trust, yet only 25% of the executives. A possible explanation is that these
Total Res & SCM Res & SCM issues are part of the daily reality for most executives and thus they do
Cons Exec Cons Exec not come across as barriers to them. On the other hand, the most
(N ¼ 29) (N ¼ 17) (N ¼ 12) frequently mentioned barriers among the executives were issues such as
confidential information and benefit sharing models, which again are
Information utilization
Information quality; lack of 2.7 (1.4) 2.5 (1.4) 2.9 (1.4) 6 3 more pragmatic issues to deal with if information sharing in supply
Forecasting ability; lack of 3.8 (1.4) 4.1 (1.5) 3.3 (1.2) 1 1 chains shall become a reality.
Planning competence; lack of 3.8 (1.6) 3.7 (1.4) 4.0 (1.8) 2 1
Technology utilization
Implementation costs 3.3 (1.9) 3.1 (1.9) 3.8 (1.7) 6 2
5. Discussion
Linked IT-systems/common 3.4 (1.7) 3.5 (1.7) 3.3 (1.6) 3 2
platform; lack of This research study is one of the first to move beyond the commonly
IT-maturity; lack of 3.4 (1.6) 3.3 (1.6) 3.5 (1.6) 4 1 researched dyads and empirically investigate information sharing across
Standardized terminology; lack of 3.8 (1.4) 3.6 (1.6) 4.2 (1.1) 3 0
multi-tier supply chains. It is also unique in describing a multitude of
Standardized format for data 4.1 (1.7) 4.2 (1.7) 4.0 (1.6) 1 1
exchange; lack of antecedents for implementing and maintaining inter-organizational in-
Power structure formation sharing in the supply chain. In particular, this study contrib-
Dominant player able to initiate 2.8 (1.4) 2.4 (1.5) 3.4 (1.1) 7 1 utes in the following respects. First, we identify a wide range of factors
change; lack of that act as antecedents. Second, we provide a systematic and compre-
Power asymmetry 3.0 (1.7) 3.1 (1.8) 3.0 (1.5) 6 3
Dependencies between firms; 3.5 (1.5) 3.4 (1.6) 3.8 (1.2) 4 1
hensive categorization of these 22 factors that influence supply chain
unbalanced information sharing into six categories: (i) information utilization, (ii)
Culture technology utilization, (iii) power structure, (iv) culture, (v) business
Trust; lack of 2.5 (1.6) 2.2 (1.5) 2.9 (1.5) 10 3 process, and (vi) legal aspects. Third, we discuss how these factors impact
Cultural differences 3.7 (1.5) 3.7 (1.6) 3.7 (1.4) 3 1
information sharing across multiple supply chain tiers, supported by
Good inter-firm relationships; 3.9 (1.7) 3.8 (1.9) 4.1 (1.5) 3 0
establish statements by the experts participating in this research. Finally, we
Business process provide a quantitative assessment of factors acting as challenges and
Benefit-sharing model; 2.7 (1.7) 2.4 (1.1) 3.2 (2.2) 5 4 barriers, to investigate the relative importance of individual factors. In
implementation of particular, five factors stand out in this respect: Trust, benefit sharing,
Linked business processes; lack of 3.0 (1.3) 3.2 (1.3) 2.8 (1.3) 3 2
Risk-sharing model; implementation 3.0 (1.4) 2.6 (1.1) 3.4 (1.7) 3 1
information quality, dominant player, and confidential information all
of receive a low average score (below 2.9 on the 7-point scale, implying that
Common goal; lack of 3.5 (1.5) 3.5 (1.6) 3.5 (1.2) 2 1 these constitute major challenges) as well as a high number of listings as
Common performance measures 4.2 (1.3) 4.3 (1.4) 4.1 (1.3) 0 1 barrier (eight or more from the 29 experts). While previous research has
(KPIs); lack of
identified these five (among the nine in Table 1), our research shows that
Legal
Confidential information 2.9 (1.9) 2.9 (1.9) 2.9 (2.0) 6 4 these factors are very critical in the context of multi-tier supply chains,
Legal framework; lack of 3.3 (1.6) 2.9 (1.8) 3.9 (1.2) 6 0 and that another 17 factors are also important to consider. Thus, the
Intellectual property rights; handling 3.6 (2.0) 3.6 (1.9) 3.5 (2.1) 5 3 novel contribution of this Delphi research is the broad approach with
of multiple perspectives (internal and external expert views) in combina-
a
Scale: “1” is associated with a barrier, “2” represents a major challenge, “4” a medium tion with multiple factors (22 factors that can be logically grouped into
challenge, “6” a minor challenge, and “7” signifies an aspect that is not even considered a six categories) that strongly suggests that the combination of challenges
challenge.
may be very difficult to resolve.

comparison to SCM executives, the researchers and consultants perceive
six factors to be much more difficult to resolve (difference of 0.7 or
more). These factors include dominant player, legal framework, benefit-
sharing, risk-sharing, trust and implementation costs. Considering these
factors and the multiple issues involved when connecting companies
from three or more tiers, researchers and consultants argue that infor-
mation sharing across multiple tiers likely only works in theory, not in
practice. In contrast, forecasting ability is the only factor where SCM
executives are more negative. SCM executives are generally more posi-
tive about resolving issues for implementing and maintaining multi-tier
information sharing. It is rather a question of willingness, as one of the
SCM executives put it: “If one is willing to implement, it is possible to do it.”
Concerning barriers, there are six factors where a total of eight or
more respondents believe that they are impossible to resolve in order to
implement multi-tier information sharing. These factors include, with
number of respondents within brackets: trust (13), confidential infor-
mation (10), benefit sharing (9), information quality (9), intellectual
property rights (8), dominant player (8), and implementation costs (8). It
appears that the executives and academics/consultants approach the
barriers from somewhat different perspectives. The results indicate a
more pragmatic approach among the executives and a perhaps slightly
more theoretical approach among the researchers and consultants. For
5.1. Implications for theory and practice
An implication, considering the 22 factors identified in this explor-
atory study, is that multi-tier information sharing seems very difficult to
implement. The challenges that must be overcome relate to power
structures, culture and legal aspects, business processes as well as utili-
zation of technology and information quality. One of the panel experts
elaborates: “With some insight into both worlds I conclude that it is much
simpler to talk about multi-tier information sharing on a theoretical and
conceptual level than it is in reality. It sounds very simple, but in practice it is
often rather tricky, for different reasons.” Particularly, the multitude of
partnerships in networks, the weaker intensity of interdependence, the
lack of a direct link between information sender and receiver, and the
difficulty to translate demand information helps to explain why adding a
third or fourth tier has major implications for implementing information
sharing in the supply chain. Hence, moving beyond the dyadic rela-
tionship is not just about replicating what has worked well for two
partners. Multi-tier information sharing brings several antecedents that
seem to require much more engagement and efforts to make it work.
Considering that the combination of challenges may be very difficult
to resolve in a multi-tier setting, information sharing across multiple tiers
may not be possible to implement and maintain in all supply chains. The

83
J. Kembro et al.
successful cases that are described in literature are few and often limited
to large players in centrally controlled or internal supply chains (see e.g.
Fawcett et al., 2009). In such supply chains, some of the challenges may
be less of an issue. For example, the powerful player may dictate common
standards for information technology and sharing of risks and rewards. It
may also be less of an issue to deal with cultural differences and confi-
dential information. Building on these insights it is relevant to identify
contextual factors that influence the success of multi-tier information
sharing. If multi-tier information sharing works well for centrally
controlled or internal supply chains, the specific contingencies can be
documented and potentially replicated to other settings. A critical anal-
ysis of the supply chain setting is therefore necessary before information
sharing schemes are set up. However, considering the plethora of factors
that can affect the success of multi-tier information sharing, the task of
analyzing the supply chain situation is far from trivial.
This research study provides some guidance for companies to deal
with the multiple factors in order to enable multi-tier information
sharing. First, considering the multitude of partnerships in a supply
network, companies should focus their efforts on partners representing
high interdependence (cf. Kembro and Selviaridis, 2015). Focusing on
key partners increases the mutual willingness to engage in information
sharing and reduces the likelihood that partners change over time, which
enables a longer time horizon for establishing multi-tier information
sharing. Focusing on key partners also makes it less complex to connect
systems and enables translation and correct interpretation of demand
information across the supply chain. In parallel, based on insights from
social exchange theory (see e.g. Young-Ybarra and Wiersema, 1999;
Lambe et al., 2001; Fynes et al., 2004; Griffith et al., 2006; Narasimhan
et al., 2009), the involved partners should harmonize their performance
measures and concretize short as well as long-term benefits for each
company. To ensure that short-term costs will be compensated and to
eliminate fear of opportunistic behavior, building trust is a key element.
The relationships also need to be regulated through a formal contract in
order to eliminate the risks related to losing control over confidential
information and to share costs in the case of incorrect forecasts. Thus,
certain combinations of the factors identified in this research can
potentially act as facilitators of multi-tier information sharing, if
approached appropriately.
5.2. Limitations and future research
A limitation of this research is a potential selection bias in the sample
of the panel experts considering that a majority of the SCM executives
operate out of Europe or the US. However, the respondents represent a
wide range of industries and have more than ten years of experience from
large multi-national enterprises with global operations. We followed
recognized guidelines for conducting a Delphi study including a total
panel between 20 and 30 respondents (Akkermans et al., 2003; Ogden
et al., 2005; Huscroft et al., 2013) with two subgroups between 10 and 18
respondents (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). If such guidelines are fol-
lowed, Ogden et al. (2005) argue that it is unlikely that another panel
would reach significantly different agreements.
There are many interesting research opportunities emanating from
the findings of this study. The multi-tier setting involves particular issues
such as the lack of a direct link between the sender and receiver of in-
formation. In-depth case studies could be useful to understand how
companies can overcome such issues when moving beyond the dyads.
Both successful and unsuccessful case examples can add to the under-
standing of what works and what does not. Considering the challenges
and issues that arise when involving three or more partners, it would be
interesting to explore if connected dyadic information sharing could be
equally or more efficient and effective in comparison with multi-tier
information sharing. The role of the dominant player in the supply
chain for sharing information needs further research, e.g. concerning the
incentives and risks for the dominant player to initiate change and share
information two or more levels upstream or two or more levels
84
International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86
downstream. Finally, since some factors seem to be interrelated, future
research can explore the relationships among all antecedents to increase
our understanding of direct versus indirect effects (e.g. if some ante-
cedents are predecessors of others) on information sharing across mul-
tiple supply chain tiers.
Appendix. Delphi questionnaires (Rounds 1, 2, 3)
Round 1
In Round 1, you will find two questions that we would like you to
give your most honest opinion on. As a panel member, you will
during the next six months, have additional opportunities to
complement and comment on the results and conclusions.
Throughout the process, we guarantee complete anonymity.
Question 1: Is there any difference regarding demand-related in-
formation sharing (such as point of sales data, forecasts, marketing
campaigns) across independent companies representing three or
more supply chain tiers (e.g. supplier – manufacturer – retailer) in
comparison with information sharing between dyadic partnerships
(supplier – buyer)?
If yes,
○ What is the difference in general terms?
○ What are the specific barriers and/or challenges to information
sharing across three or more tiers, particularly in comparison
with dyadic sharing? Suggest and describe a maximum of five
factors (internal or external).
If no, why is there no difference? Please motivate your answer.
Question 2: Is there anything else that you find relevant consid-
ering information sharing in the supply chain?
We also wonder if you are aware of any case where companies do
share information across three or more supply chain tiers. If yes, we
would be grateful if you could provide a short description and, if
possible, share contact information.
Round 2
Round 2 is based on a synthesis of comments and ideas that
emerged from Round 1. You also have the opportunity to pro-
vide comments.
Question: Which of the following factors can be considered a
barrier or a challenge to implementing information sharing across
3 or more supply chain tiers (e.g. supplier – manufacturer – buyer)?
 Barrier is a factor that likely is too difficult to overcome or solve
in order to implement information sharing across 3 or more tiers.
 Challenge is a complicating factor that likely can be overcome or
solved in order to implement information sharing across 3 or
more tiers.
For each factor, indicate whether you think it can be considered as
i) a barrier, ii) a challenges, iii) neither barrier nor challenge; or iv)
indicate that you don't know.
J. Kembro et al. International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86

Capo-Vicedo, J., Mula, J., Capo, J., 2011. A social network-based organizational model
1. Benefit-sharing model (implementation of) for improving knowledge management in supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J.
16 (4), 284–293.
2. Risk-sharing model (implementation of)
Caridi, M., Crippa, L., Perego, A., Sianesi, A., Tumino, A., 2010. Do virtuality and
3. Confidential information (handling of) complexity affect supply chain visibility? Int. J. Prod. Econ. 127 (2), 372–383.
4. Legal framework: control of information sharing (lack of) Caridi, M., Moretto, A., Perego, A., Tumino, A., 2014. The benefits of supply chain
5. IT-maturity (lack of) visibility: a value assessment model. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 151, 1–19.
Childerhouse, P., Hermiz, R., Mason-Jones, R., Popp, A., Towill, D.R., 2003. Information
6. Linked IT-systems/common platform (lack of) flow in automotive supply chains-identifying and learning to overcome barriers to
7. Standardized format for data exchange (lack of) change. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 103 (7), 491–502.
8. Standardized terminology to interpret information (lack of) Choi, T.Y., Hong, Y., 2002. Unveiling the structure of supply networks: case studies in
Honda, Acura, and Daimler Chrysler. J. Oper. Manag. 20 (5), 469–493.
9. Good inter-firm relationships (establish) Christopher, M., Jüttner, U., 2000. Supply chain relationships: making the transition to
10. Power asymmetry closer integration. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 3 (1), 5–23.
11. Dependencies between firms (unbalanced) Cooper, M.C., Lambert, D.M., Pagh, J.D., 1997. Supply chain management: more than a
new name for logistics. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 8 (1), 1–14.
12. Trust (lack of) Fawcett, S.E., Osterhaus, P., Magnan, G.M., Brau, J.C., McCarter, M.W., 2007. Information
13. Planning competence (lack of) sharing and supply chain performance: the role of connectivity and willingness.
14. Forecasting ability (lack of) Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 12 (5), 358–368.
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., McCarter, M.W., 2008. Benefits, barriers, and bridges to
15. Distance between companies
effective supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 13 (1), 35–48.
16. Capacity flexibility Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Magnan, G., 2009. Supply chain information sharing:
17. Capacity limitation benchmarking a proven path. Benchmarking Int. J. 16 (2), 222–246.
18. Standardized business processes (lack of) Forslund, H., Jonsson, P., 2007. The impact of forecast information quality on supply
chain performance. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 27 (1), 90–107.
19. Linked business processes (lack of) Frohlich, M.T., 2002. e-Integration in the supply chain: barriers and performance. Decis.
20. Supply chain maturity (collaboration practices) Sci. 33 (4), 537–556.
21. Intellectual property rights (handling of) Fynes, B., De Burca, S., Marshall, D., 2004. Environmental uncertainty, supply chain
relationship quality and performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 10 (4), 179–190.
22. Cultural differences (handling of) Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G., Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive
23. Ability of dominant player to initiate change (lack of) research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Org. Res. Methods 16 (1), 15–31.
24. Information quality (lack of) Giunipero, L.C., Hooker, R.E., Denslow, D., 2012. Purchasing and supply management
sustainability: drivers and barriers. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 18 (4), 258–269.
25. Implementation costs Griffith, D.A., Harvey, M.G., Lusch, R.F., 2006. Social exchange in supply chain
relationships: the resulting benefits of procedural and distributive justice. J. Oper.
Manag. 24 (2), 85–98.
Harland, C.M., Caldwell, N.D., Powell, P., Zheng, J., 2007. Barriers to supply chain
information integration: SMEs adrift of eLands. J. Oper. Manag. 25 (6), 1234–1254.
Hill, A., Doran, D., Stratton, R., 2012. How should you stabilise your supply chains? Int. J.
Round 3 Prod. Econ. 135 (2), 870–881.
Holweg, M., Pil, F.K., 2008. Theoretical perspectives on the coordination of supply chains.
Round 3 is based on a synthesis of comments, suggestions and ideas J. Oper. Manag. 26 (3), 389–406.
that emerged from Round 1 and Round 2. You also have the op- Huang, G.Q., Lau, J.S.K., Mak, K.L., 2003. The impacts of sharing production information
portunity to provide comments. on supply chain dynamics: a review of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Res. 41 (7),
1483–1517.
Which of the following factors can be considered a barrier or a Huscroft, J.R., Hazen, B.T., Hall, D.J., Skipper, J.B., Hanna, J.B., 2013. Reverse logistics:
past research, current management issues, and future directions. Int. J. Logist.
challenge to implementing information sharing across 3 or more Manag. 24 (3), 304–327.
supply chain tiers (e.g. supplier – manufacturer – buyer)? Please Kelle, P., Akbulut, A., 2005. The role of ERP tools in supply chain information sharing,
indicate a number between 1 and 7 according to the following 7- cooperation, and cost optimization. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 93, 41–52.
Kembro, J., N€aslund, D., 2014. Information sharing in supply chains, myth or reality? a
point Likert scale: 1 ¼ barrier; 2 ¼ major challenge; 4 ¼ medium
critical analysis of empirical literature. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 44 (3),
challenge; 6 ¼ minor challenge; 7 ¼ not even a challenge. 179–200.
Kembro, J., Selviaridis, K., 2015. Exploring information sharing in the extended supply
[For reference] the list is same as in Round 2 – Question 2 with the chain: an interdependence perspective. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 20 (4), 455–470.
following changes: Klein, R., Rai, A., 2009. Interfirm strategic information flows in logistics supply chain
relationships. MIS Q. 33 (4), 735–763.
Five factors were removed: Distance between companies; Capacity Lambe, C.J., Wittmann, C.M., Spekman, R.E., 2001. Social exchange theory and research
flexibility; Capacity limitation; Standardized business processes; on business-to-business relational exchange. J. Bus. Bus. Mark. 8 (3), 1–36.
Lau, J.S., Huang, G.Q., Mak, K.L., 2004. Impact of information sharing on inventory
Supply chain maturity. replenishment in divergent supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Res. 42 (5), 919–941.
Lee, H.L., Whang, S., 2000. Information sharing in a supply chain. Int. J. Manuf. Technol.
Two factors were added: Common goal (lack of); Common set of
Manag. 1 (1), 79–93.
performance measures (KPIs) (lack of). Li, S., Lin, B., 2006. Accessing information sharing and information quality in supply
chain management. Decis. Support Syst. 42 (3), 1641–1656.
Li, L., Zhang, H., 2008. Confidentiality and information sharing in supply chain
coordination. Manag. Sci. 54 (8), 1467–1481.
Li, J., Sikora, R., Shaw, M.J., Woo, T.G., 2006. A strategic analysis of inter organizational
References information sharing. Decis. Support Syst. 42 (1), 251–266.
Linstone, H.A., Turoff, M., 2002. The Delphi Method, Techniques and Applications.
Akkermans, H.A., Bogerd, P., Yücesan, E., Van Wassenhove, L.N., 2003. The impact of Lummus, R.R., Vokurka, R.J., Duclos, L.K., 2005. Delphi study on supply chain flexibility.
ERP on supply chain management: exploratory findings from a European Delphi Int. J. Prod. Res. 43 (13), 2687–2708.
study. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 146 (2), 284–301. MacCarthy, B.L., Atthirawong, W., 2003. Factors affecting location decisions in
Angulo, A., Nachtmann, H., Waller, M.A., 2004. Supply chain information sharing in a international operations – a Delphi study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 23 (7), 794–818.
vendor managed inventory partnership. J. Bus. Logist. 25 (1), 101–120. Mason-Jones, R., Towill, D.R., 1999. Using the information decoupling point to improve
Autry, C.W., Williams, B.D., Golicic, S., 2014. Relational and process multiplexity in supply chain performance. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 10 (2), 13–26.
vertical supply chain triads: an exploration in the US restaurant industry. J. Bus. McCutcheon, D.M., Meredith, J.R., 1993. Conducting case study research in operations
Logist. 35 (1), 52–70. management. J. Oper. Manag. 11 (3), 239–256.
Bailey, K., Francis, M., 2008. Managing information flows for improved value chain Melnyk, S., Lummus, R., Vokurka, R., Burns, L.J., Sandor, J., 2009. Mapping the future of
performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 111 (1), 2–12. supply chain management: a Delphi study. Int. J. Prod. Res. 47 (16), 4629–4653.
Ballou, R.H., Gilbert, S.M., Mukherjee, A., 2000. New managerial challenges from supply Mena, C., Humphries, A., Choi, T.Y., 2013. Toward a theory of multi-tier supply chain
chain opportunities. Ind. Mark. Manag. 29 (1), 7–18. management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 49 (2), 58–77.
Barratt, M., 2004. Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D., Zacharia, Z.G.,
Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 9 (1), 30–42. 2001. Defining supply chain management. J. Bus. Logist. 22 (2), 1–25.

85
J. Kembro et al.
Moberg, C.R., Cutler, B.D., Gross, A., Speh, T.W., 2002. Identifying antecedents of
information exchange within supply chains. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 32
(9), 755–770.
Monczka, R.M., Petersen, K.J., Handfield, R.B., Ragatz, G.L., 1998. Success factors in
strategic supplier alliances: the buying company perspective. Decis. Sci. 29 (3),
553–577.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R., 1992. Relationships between providers and
users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations.
J. Mark. Res. 29 (3), 314–329.
Narasimhan, R., Nair, A., Griffith, D.A., Arlbjørn, J.S., Bendoly, E., 2009. Lock-in
situations in supply chains: a social exchange theoretic study of sourcing
arrangements in buyer–supplier relationships. J. Oper. Manag. 27 (5), 374–389.
Ogden, J.A., Petersen, K.J., Carter, J.R., Monczka, R.M., 2005. Supply management
strategies for the future: a Delphi study. J. Supply Chain Manag. 41 (3), 29–48.
Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S.D., 2004. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example,
design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag. 42 (1), 15–29.
Patnayakuni, R., Rai, A., Seth, N., 2006. Relational antecedents of information flow
integration for supply chain coordination. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 23 (1), 13–50.
Porterfield, T.E., Bailey, J.P., Evers, P.T., 2010. B2B eCommerce: an empirical
investigation of information exchange and firm performance. Int. J. Phys. Distrib.
Logist. Manag. 40 (6), 435–455.
Prajogo, D., Olhager, J., 2012. Supply chain integration and performance: the effects of
long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics
integration. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 135 (1), 514–522.
Sahin, F., Robinson, E.P., 2005. Information sharing and coordination in make-to-order
supply chains. J. Oper. Manag. 23 (6), 579–598.
Seidmann, A., Sundararajan, A., 1998. Sharing logistics information across organizations:
technology, competition and contracting. In: Kemerer, C.F. (Ed.), Information
86
View publication stats
International Journal of Production Economics 193 (2017) 77–86
Technology and Industrial Competitiveness: How IT Shape Competition. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Shore, B., Venkatachalam, A.R., 2003. Evaluating the information sharing capabilities of
supply chain partners: a fuzzy logic model. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 33 (9),
804–824.
Spekman, R.E., Kamauff Jr., J.W., Myhr, N., 1998. An empirical investigation into supply
chain management: a perspective on partnerships. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 3 (2),
53–67.
Taylor, D.H., Fearne, A., 2006. Towards a framework for improvement in the
management of demand in agri-food supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 11
(5), 379–384.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P., 2003. Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J.
Manag. 14 (3), 207–222.
Vijayasarathy, L.R., 2010. Supply integration: an investigation of its multi-dimensionality
and relational antecedents. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 124 (2), 489–505.
Wacker, J.G., 1998. A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-
building research methods in operations management. J. Oper. Manag. 16 (4),
361–385.
Yigitbasioglu, O.M., 2010. Information sharing with key suppliers: a transaction cost
theory perspective. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 40 (7), 550–578.
Young-Ybarra, C., Wiersema, M., 1999. Strategic flexibility in information technology
alliances: the influence of transaction cost economics and social exchange theory.
Organ. Sci. 10 (4), 439–459.
Zhou, H., Benton, W.C., 2007. Supply chain practice and information sharing. J. Oper.
Manag. 25 (6), 1348–1365.