Industrial Management & Data Systems

Benefits of information sharing with supply chain partnerships

Zhenxin Yu, Hong Yan, T.C. Edwin Cheng,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Zhenxin Yu, Hong Yan, T.C. Edwin Cheng, (2001) "Benefits of information sharing with supply chain partnerships", Industrial
Management & Data Systems, Vol. 101 Issue: 3, pp.114-121, https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570110386625
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570110386625
Downloaded on: 27 February 2018, At: 03:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 15 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 13775 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(1999),"Measuring supply chain performance", International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 19
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)

Iss 3 pp. 275-292 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910249714">https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579910249714</a>

(2001),"Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment", International Journal of Operations &amp;
Production Management, Vol. 21 Iss 1/2 pp. 71-87 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468">https://
doi.org/10.1108/01443570110358468</a>

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:426046 []
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.

 Benefits of information sharing with supply chain
partnerships
Keywords
Decentralization supply chain,
Partnering, Information exchange,
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)
Pareto analysis
Abstract
The power of information
technology can be harnessed to
help supply chain members
establish partnerships for better
supply chain system performance.
Supply chain partnerships can
mitigate deficiencies associated
with decentralized control and
reduce the ``bullwhip effect''. This
study illustrates the benefits of
supply chain partnerships based
on information sharing. For a
decentralized supply chain
comprising a manufacturer and a
retailer, we derive the members'
optimal inventory policies under
different information sharing
scenarios. We show that
increasing information sharing
among the members in a
decentralized supply chain will
lead to Pareto improvement in the
performance of the entire chain.
Specifically, the supply chain
members can reap benefits in
terms of reductions in inventory
levels and cost savings from
forming partnerships with one
another. A case study is provided
for illustration.
This research was partially
supported by The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University
under research grant
number G-V625.
Industrial Management &
Data Systems
101/3 [2001] 114±119
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0263-5577]
[ 114 ]
Zhenxin Yu
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Hong Yan
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
T.C. Edwin Cheng
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
Introduction
Globalization of business has been
accelerating in pace in the last two decades
due to the rapid development of technology in
manufacturing and information, increased
cost pressure and more aggressive demand
from customers. Traditional production-
distribution schemes have been dramatically
changed. Most companies have been forced to
relocate or redesign their manufacturing
network in different countries. New
partnership relationships among suppliers,
manufactures, retailers and other parties
have replaced the conventional free market
structures. Although the supply chain is
frequently referred to as the logistic network
in the literature, supply chain management
emphasizes the overall and long-time benefit
of all parties on the chain through
cooperation and information sharing. By
coordinating different parties along the
logistics network, or establishing business
partnerships, supply chain management
creates a win-win situation for all members.
Information sharing on a supply chain brings
about a great advance in business
connections, such as vendor managed
inventory (VMI), cross-docking and quick
response (QR).
A supply chain partnership is a
relationship formed between two
independent members in supply channels
through increased levels of information
sharing to achieve specific objectives and
benefits in terms of reductions in total costs
and inventories. It promises a win-win
situation for the members involved. This
paper illustrates the benefits of supply chain
partnerships through an analytical model.
The partnerships are focused on the basis of
different levels of information sharing
between two adjacent partners on the chain.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
Supply chain uncertainty and the
bullwhip effect
Uncertainties in a production distribution
chain are usually buffered by inventories. To
formulate an effective inventory control
policy, uncertainties in the system need to be
identified. In traditional logistics studies, a
supply chain is often considered as a multi-
site inventory system. There are three
distinct sources of uncertainty that affect a
supply chain: suppliers, manufacturers and
customers. Uncertainties are caused by
delayed deliveries, machine breakdowns,
order fluctuations, etc., which necessitate
increased inventories. Uncertainties will
propagate through the supply chain in the
form of amplification of ordering variability,
which leads to excess safety stock, increased
logistics costs and inefficient use of
resources.
In a supply chain, every member of the
chain needs to make a forecast of its
downstream site's product demand for its
own production planning, inventory control
and material requirement planning. Usually,
the demand forecasting includes some
uncertain terms, which can be described as
demand variability. An important
phenomenon observed in supply chain
practices is that the variability of an
upstream member's demand is greater than
that of the downstream member. This effect
was found by logistics executives at Procter
& Gamble (P&G) and called the ``bullwhip
effect''. In recent years, it has become a major
concern for many manufacturers,
distributors and retailers. For a
manufacturing system, this phenomenon can
be described as the variance of production
exceeding the variance of sales under the
optimal behavior even if the manufacturer
can backlog excess demand (Kahn, 1987). The
causes of the bullwhip effect have been
identified as: demand forecasting, order
batching, price fluctuation and rationing
game (Lee et al., 1997). Basically, the bullwhip
 Zhenxin Yu, Hong Yan and effect is largely caused by variability of
T.C. Edwin Cheng ordering. To mitigate or eliminate this effect,
Benefits of information information sharing between members of a
sharing with supply chain
partnerships supply chain should be increased to reduce the
Industrial Management & uncertainty. Increasing vertical information
Data Systems sharing using Electronic Data Interchange
101/3 [2001] 114±119
(EDI) technology can enhance shipment
performance of suppliers and greatly improve
the performance of the supply chain system
(Srinivasan et al., 1994). The expanding
importance of information integration also
prompts increasing attention to establish
strategic supply chain partnerships.
Deficiency of decentralized control
Modern organization management theory
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)
suggests that decentralizing decision rights
is an effective way of managing a large
organization. To make timely decisions
effectively, decision rights should be
assigned to the person who is just at the
decision spot and has specialized knowledge
of his or her surroundings. In a supply chain,
the participants may belong to different
organizations (within the same company or
across companies). Each member has its own
decision rights to make control policies at its
spot, i.e., it acts as a single decision maker to
optimize its costs or benefits. Thus, the
supply chain is operated in a decentralized
fashion. One problem of this decentralized
control is, however, the whole system may
not achieve the optimum performance even
though each member optimizes its own
performance. For example, in a supply chain
with multi-echelon, one site decides to reduce
its inventories. In order to maintain its
service level, the inventory pressure is often
put on its upstream sites (or suppliers). If this
site's improvement is achieved by only
increasing the upstream site's inventories, it
will hardly yield improvement for the whole
system's performance. A ``broken'' supply
chain will have substantial stock held at one
site to enable another site's stock reduction
(Davis, 1993). This deficiency caused by
decentralized control has led to the evolution
of partnership relations between buyers and
suppliers. Therefore, it is expected that if
each member of the supply chain has more
information about other members, and treats
each other as strategic partners, it would be
easier to achieve an optimum performance
based on each member's control policy.
A stream of modeling research has been
reported to study different members' optimal
control policies in decentralized supply
chains. Clark and Scarf (1960) made one of the
earliest efforts in decentralized optimization
of a two-echelon system. Federgruen and
Zipkin (1984) extended their result to the
infinite-horizon case. The echelon stock
policy was studied by Chen and Zheng (1997).
Most research suggests centralized
information can improve a decentralized
supply chain's performance, and different
control policies have been studied under an
environment of information cooperation (see,
for example, Tzafestas and Kapsiotis, 1994;
McGavin et al., 1997; Chen, 1999).
Information sharing and
partnership
The reason for uncertainties is that perfect
information about the system cannot be
secured. While every single member has
perfect information about itself,
uncertainties arise due to a lack of perfect
information about other members. To reduce
uncertainties, the supply chain member
should obtain more information about other
members. If the members are willing to share
information, each of them will have more
information about others. Therefore, the
whole system's performance will be
improved because each member can gain
improvement from information sharing. This
cooperation mode for increasing information
sharing among supply chain members can be
called a supply chain partnership. With
partnership, the negative impact of the
bullwhip effect on a supply chain can be
reduced or eliminated because it can help the
supply chain members share more
information to reduce uncertainties. The
deficiency of decentralized control is also
associated with uncertainties. Thus, with
information sharing, the decentralized
supply chain can achieve the optimal
performance under centralized control.
Among existing quantitative studies of
information sharing and supply chain
partnerships, Iyer and Bergen (1997)
examined the impact of quick response (QR)
on the fashion apparel industry. Baganha
and Cohen (1998) presented a hierarchical
model as an analytical framework to examine
the stabilizing effect of inventories in supply
chains. EDI implementation can incorporate
information flow between a supplier and a
retailer, which will benefit a two-echelon
supply chain model (Gavirneni et al., 1999).
However, there exists a large amount of
literature on the concepts of supply chain
partnerships projecting extremely optimistic
views about their promise as win-win
partnerships without rigorous analysis to
support the cause of optimism (Maloni and
Benton, 1997). There is a lack of research that
adopts more rigorous analytical approaches
to examine the supply chain partnership
issues.
[ 115 ]
 Zhenxin Yu, Hong Yan and
T.C. Edwin Cheng Methodology
Benefits of information
sharing with supply chain To illustrate the benefits of partnerships with
partnerships information sharing, we use a decentralized
Industrial Management & supply chain consisting of a single retailer
Data Systems and a single manufacturer to model the
101/3 [2001] 114±119 partnership. We define three levels of
information integration to describe three
types of partnerships under different
information sharing situations. Then, a cost-
minimizing model is formulated as the
building block of the modeling analysis. We
use this basic model to derive each supply
chain member's optimal inventory policies
under the three levels of information
sharing. From the comparison of inventory
reductions and cost savings among the three
information integration levels, we show that
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)
``Pareto improvement'' will be achieved, i.e.
both the retailer and the manufacturer are at
least as well off and at least one of them is
better off. Therefore, we conclude that the
information sharing-based partnership can
improve the overall performance of a
decentralized supply chain.
We now introduce the three levels of
information sharing. According to different
situations of information sharing and
ordering information coordination, the
partnership between the retailer and the
manufacturer can be described as one of the
following integration levels (see Figure 1).
1 Level 1: This is referred to as
``decentralized control''. The inventories
at different sites of the supply chain are
controlled independently. There is neither
information sharing nor any ordering
coordination between the retailer and the
manufacturer. Both the retailer and the
manufacturer make their inventory
decisions according to their own
forecasting. The retailer uses the
customer demand information and the
Figure 1
Three information sharing levels
[ 116 ]
manufacturer uses the retailer's ordering
information. We suppose both of them use
the base stock policy as their inventory
control policy. The base stock policy is of
the (s, S) type with periodic review
procedures, which means an order will be
placed to replenish the stock level to S at
each time period if the stock level is less
than the reorder point s. S is called the
order-up-to level.
2 Level 2: It is referred to as ``coordinated
control''. The two neighboring inventories
are coordinated with sharing of the
customer ordering information. In this
situation, the manufacturer will obtain
the customer demand information,
together with the retailer's ordering
information, and then make its inventory
decision based on both the current
customer demand information and the
retailer's ordering information.
3 Level 3: We name this situation as
``centralized control''. Under this
situation, the decentralized supply chain
can obtain the optimal performance
achievable by a supply chain under
centralized control. Based on EDI, both
the retailer and the manufacturer can
retrieve the customer's demand
information in a synchronized manner.
VMI can be adopted. This means the
manufacturer takes the initiative to make
major inventory replenishment decisions
for the retailer in parallel with its own
inventory decisions. In this case, the
manufacturer will not depend on the
retailer's ordering information, but on the
customer's demand directly.
Model formulation
We present the basic cost-minimization
model for two supply chain members. It is
assumed that the retailer orders a single item
from the manufacturer at each time period.
Both of them adopt the order-up-to inventory
policy with a periodic review procedure and
any excess demand is backlogged. At the
beginning of each period, the retailer and
manufacturer should decide their order-up-to
levels. For each of them, the decision is made
based on such a basic inventory model.
Mathematically, the inventory problem is
given by
" #
X1 X
t‡L
t 1 L
Min Z ˆ cRt ‡ G St ; Dl ;
tˆ1 lˆt
where
!‡ !‡
X
t‡L X
t‡L X
t‡L
G St ; Dl ˆ h St Dl ‡g Dl St
lˆt lˆt lˆt
with x+ = max {0, x} and St = Wt + Rt.
 Zhenxin Yu, Hong Yan and The notation is:
T.C. Edwin Cheng Rt: quantity ordered in period t,
Benefits of information Wt: quantity on hand plus on order in
sharing with supply chain
partnerships period t,
Industrial Management &
L: lead time in terms of number of
Data Systems periods,
101/3 [2001] 114±119 c: unit cost of ordering,
h: unit holding cost,
g: unit shortage cost,
: discounted factor for each period
(0 < < 1).
At the beginning of period t, a decision to
order a quantity Rt of the item is made. This
time point is the ``decision point'' for period t.
Products ordered will arrive after L periods.
The decision variable St is the amount of the
item on hand plus on order (including those
in transit) after the decision Rt has been
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)
made before demand Dt is experienced.
This model is used to find the optimal
order-up-to level St of each supply chain
member. Then, we can investigate the
ordering decisions and inventory control
policies of the retailer and the manufacturer
at the three levels of information integration.
Analysis
The basic model gives us the optimal order-
up-to levels of the retailer and the
manufacturer under the three different
information integration scenarios. By using
the optimal order-up-to levels of the two
members, we can analyze their average
inventory levels and expected inventory
costs. The benefits of the information sharing
are shown by comparing the average
inventory levels and expected costs of Level 2
and 3 to those of Level 1. The deduction of the
optimal inventory control policies and the
comparison of the policies under different
scenarios involve complicated mathematical
analysis. The comprehensive analytical
details can be found in Yu et al. (1999). The
comparison results of the two supply chain
members' performance improvement are
shown in Table I.
1 The retailer's benefits. Under Level 2, the
retailer's order-up-to level remains the
same as that under Level 1 and so do the
average inventory level and expected
inventory cost. This result means the
retailer will not obtain any improvement
by sharing the customer ordering
information with the manufacturer. The
reason for this outcome is that the retailer
already knows the customer's demand and
there is no further customer demand
information that the retailer can obtain
when it shares the information with the
manufacturer. Under Level 3, the retailer
can gain performance improvement. The
reason is that the retailer's lead time is
reduced due to improvement in the
manufacturer's supplying reliability
because of the adoption of VMI policy.
Without any information cooperation
from the manufacturer, the retailer's lead
time is an estimation of the
manufacturer's times for order
processing, manufacturing and
delivering. The supply chain partnership
under Level 3 allows the manufacturer to
share the lead time information with the
retailer. This leads to reduction in the
retailer's lead time variability, or may
even make the manufacturer shorten the
retailer's lead time. Therefore, the retailer
can achieve benefits in both inventory
level and expected cost from the
partnership with information sharing.
2 The manufacturer's benefits. From the
results in Table I, we can see that the
manufacturer's optimal order-up-to level
decreases with an increasing level of
information integration and so do the
average inventory level and expected
inventory cost. This observation shows
that the manufacturer's inventory
decreases with an increasing level of
information sharing. The manufacturer
can achieve reductions both in inventory
level and expected cost. Under Level 2, the
retailer shares the customer demand
information at the ordering time with the
manufacturer so the manufacturer can
reduce a portion of the retailer ordering
uncertainty, which is from the
accumulated uncertainty of customer
demand. With the adoption of VMI (Level
3), there is no accumulated customer
demand uncertainty for the
manufacturer's decision making.
Obviously, the manufacturer's inventory
level can be further reduced. It is obvious
that the manufacturer can obtain more
benefits than the retailer with increasing
information sharing. Therefore, the
manufacturer should offer the retailer
some incentives to induce the retailer to
participate in information sharing.
Pareto improvement
Pareto improvement implies that all members
in a system are at least as well off, and some
members are better off. From the comparison
results (see Table I) of inventory reductions
and cost savings of the supply chain
members under the three relationship
integration levels, we see that the
manufacturer can obtain proportionate
benefits with an increasing level of
information integration. Under the supply
chain partnership with information sharing,
both the retailer and the manufacturer are at
[ 117 ]
 Zhenxin Yu, Hong Yan and Table I
T.C. Edwin Cheng
Benefits of information Results
sharing with supply chain
partnerships
order-up-to level
Industrial Management &
Data Systems Information sharing levels
101/3 [2001] 114±119
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Notes: R = retailer; M = manufacturer; ± = the value equals that of Level 1; ; = the value is less than ``±'';
;; = the value is less than ``;''
least as well off, and at least one of them ± the
manufacturer ± is better off. The partnership
can improve the overall performance of the
supply chain. Therefore, we conclude that
with information sharing-based supply chain
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)
partnerships, Pareto improvement can be
achieved in respect of the overall
performance of the supply chain.
A case study
This section exhibits a case study for
illustrating the benefit of information sharing
in a supply chain. L&TT is a Hong Kong based
multination company, manufacturing and
distributing electronic components to its
customers mainly located in Europe. The
company was established in 1979 and now is a
major supplier of mobile phone components
in the region and the world. With the rapid
development of the mobile phone market, a
large number of new manufacturers and
component suppliers have emerged into the
industry. The prices are reduced and the
ultimate customers are more demanding. The
lead time of the manufacturer, therefore of
the suppliers is required to be shorter and
shorter. The market becomes more and more
time and service-sensitive. A precise forecast
becomes impossible.
From the beginning of 1999, L&TT
increased its inventory level to meet the
customer demand by reducing the ordering
lead time from six weeks to two weeks on
average. However, after implementing this
inventory policy for six months, it has been
observed that although the inventory cost
has increased significantly, the customer
order fulfillment level is not changed.
Furthermore, raw materials for the
company's production pile up. The negative
financial impact is also obvious. It is clear
that a high inventory level without accurate
forecasting does not help in improving the
situation.
Later in 1999, L&TT started seeking a new
solution for the problem. Supply chain
management, characterized by the concept of
information sharing attracted the top
management team. As pointed out above, one
[ 118 ]
Average Average Expected
inventory level inventory cost
R M R M R M
± ± ± ± ± ±
± ; ± ; ± ;
; ;; ; ;; ; ;;
of the most critical issues in the company's
operations can be tracked down to the
incompleteness of information. In this study,
the company is considered as the
manufacturer, we implement our model to
identify the benefit of sharing information
with its upstream suppliers.
The production and sales data of the
company in the first half of 1999 are used. To
fulfill the parameter requirements of the
model, the management team is requested to
make some reasonable estimation. The
current situation is referred to as the first
information sharing level. The comparisons
of computational results are reported in
Figures 2 and 3.
Figure 2 shows the change of average
inventory level, and Figure 3 shows the
change of expected inventory cost on time. It
is clear that both the average inventory level
and the expected inventory cost can be
reduced with an increase in the information
sharing level. Furthermore, the variability of
the average inventory level will decrease
since the variability of the order-up-to level
decreases from time to time.
Conclusions
This paper attempts to illustrate the benefits
of supply chain partnerships with
information sharing. Based on a two-stage
decentralized supply chain comprising a
retailer and a manufacturer, modeling study
and analysis have been performed to
investigate supply chain members' optimal
inventory control policies. The partnerships
between the retailer and manufacturer are
defined in terms of three information sharing
levels. From the comparison results of
inventory reductions and cost savings of the
two members, it is deduced that Pareto
improvement is achieved in respect of the
entire supply chain performance. Specifically,
both the retailer and the manufacturer can
obtain performance improvement in terms of
inventory level and cost with an increasing
level of information sharing.
The bullwhip effect exists in the
decentralized supply chain in our paper
 Zhenxin Yu, Hong Yan and Figure 2
T.C. Edwin Cheng The average inventory level of the factory
Benefits of information
sharing with supply chain
partnerships
Industrial Management &
Data Systems
101/3 [2001] 114±119
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)
Figure 3
The expected inventory cost of the factory
because the manufacturer uses the retailer's
ordering information to determine its
inventory policy without any information
about the customer demand process. With
access to the customer ordering information,
the manufacturer can eliminate the amplified
customer's demand variance in its
replenishment process. If the manufacturer
and the retailer can retrieve the customer
demand information in a synchronized
manner, perhaps by using EDI, a VMI
strategy can be adopted to obtain performance
improvement of the whole system. In the VMI
case, the manufacturer makes the major
inventory replenishment decisions depending
on the customer demand process directly,
without regard to the retailer's ordering
information. According to the quantitative
analysis, we see that the supply chain
partnership can not only help the members of
a decentralized supply chain to eliminate the
bullwhip effect, but also improve the overall
performance of the supply chain. The supply
chain partners can use EDI to support a VMI
strategy for inventory decision making. In our
modeling study, the manufacturer obtains
more benefits than the retailer. Therefore, the
manufacturer should take the initiative to
establish information sharing-based
partnerships and also give the retailer some
incentives (such as sharing logistics costs with
the retailer or guaranteeing supply reliability)
to induce the retailer's cooperation.
References
Baganha, M.P. and Cohen, M.A. (1998), ``The
stabilizing effect of inventory in supply
chains'', Operations Research, Vol. 46,
pp. s72-s83.
Chen, F. (1999), ``Decentralized supply chains
subject to information delays'', Management
Science, Vol. 45, pp. 1076-90.
Chen, F. and Zheng, Y. (1997), ``One-warehouse
multi-retailer systems with centralized stock
information'', Operations Research, Vol. 45,
pp. 275-87.
Clark, A.J. and Scarf, H. (1960), ``Optimal policies
for a multi-echelon inventory problem'',
Management Science, Vol. 6, pp. 475-90.
Davis, T. (1993), ``Effective supply chain
management'', Sloan Management Review,
Summer, pp. 35-46.
Federgruen, A. and Zipkin, P. (1984),
``Computational issues in an infinite-horizon,
multi-echelon inventory model'', Operations
Research, Vol. 32, pp. 818-36.
Gavirneni, S., Kapuscinski, R. and Tayur, S.
(1999), ``Value of information in capacitated
supply chain'', Management Science, Vol. 45,
pp. 16-24.
Iyer, A.V. and Bergen, M.E. (1997), ``Quick
response in manufacturer-retailer channels'',
Management Science, Vol. 43, pp. 559-70.
Kahn, J.A. (1987), ``Inventories and the volatility
of production'', The American Economic
Review, Vol. 77, pp. 667-79.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabhan, V. and Whang S. (1997),
``The bullwhip effect in supply chains'', Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 38, pp. 93-102.
McGavin, E.J., Ward, J.E. and Schwarz, L.B.
(1997), ``Balancing retailer inventories'',
Operations Research, Vol. 45, pp. 820-30.
Maloni, M.J. and Benton, W.C. (1997), ``Supply
chain partnerships: Opportunities for
operations research'', European Journal of
Operations Research, Vol. 101, pp. 419-29.
Srinivasan, K., Kekre, S. and Mukhopadhyay, T.
(1994), ``Impact of Electronic Data Interchange
technology on JIT shipments'', Management
Science, Vol. 40, pp. 1291-304.
Tzafestas, S. and Kapsiotis, G. (1994),
``Coordinated control of manufacturing/
supply chains using multi-level techniques'',
Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems,
Vol. 7, pp. 206-12.
Yu, Z., Yan, H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (1999),
``Modeling the benefits of information
sharing-based supply chain partnerships'',
Working Paper, No. 03/99-00, The Hong Kong
Polytechnic University.
[ 119 ]
 This article has been cited by:

1. FuchsChristoph, Christoph Fuchs, BeckDaniel, Daniel Beck, LienlandBernhard, Bernhard Lienland, KellnerFlorian, Florian
Kellner. 2018. The role of IT in automotive supplier supply chains. Journal of Enterprise Information Management 31:1,
64-88. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Kasper Kiil, Heidi C. Dreyer, Hans-Henrik Hvolby, Lukas Chabada. 2018. Sustainable food supply chains: the impact of
automatic replenishment in grocery stores. Production Planning & Control 29:2, 106-116. [Crossref]
3. Cigdem Gonul Kochan, David R. Nowicki, Brian Sauser, Wesley S. Randall. 2018. Impact of cloud-based information sharing
on hospital supply chain performance: A system dynamics framework. International Journal of Production Economics 195,
168-185. [Crossref]
4. Olli-Pekka Hilmola. Early Era 1995–2008: Citations to Published Research Works and Their Authors 23-41. [Crossref]
5. Muhammad Khyzer Bin Dost, Ch. Abdual Rehman, Shahram Gilaninia, Kamariah Bte Ismail, Muhammad Wasim Akram.
2018. The impact of knowledge management’s practices on supply chain performance of the dairy sector in Central Punjab:
a mediating role of decentralization. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 31:1, 290. [Crossref]
6. ZhongDr Ray Y., Dr Ray Y. Zhong, TanProfessor Kim, Professor Kim Tan, BhaskaranProfessor Gopalakrishnan, Professor
Gopalakrishnan Bhaskaran. 2017. Data-driven food supply chain management and systems. Industrial Management & Data
Systems 117:9, 1779-1781. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Meehee Cho, Mark A. Bonn, Larry Giunipero, John S. Jaggi. 2017. Contingent effects of close relationships with
suppliers upon independent restaurant product development: A social capital perspective. International Journal of Hospitality
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)

Management 67, 154-162. [Crossref]

8. Huy Truong Quang, Yoshinori Hara. 2017. Risks and performance in supply chain: the push effect. International Journal
of Production Research 71, 1-20. [Crossref]
9. FuShaoling, Shaoling Fu, HanZhaojun, Zhaojun Han, HuoBaofeng, Baofeng Huo. 2017. Relational enablers of information
sharing: evidence from Chinese food supply chains. Industrial Management & Data Systems 117:5, 838-852. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
10. Thi Le Hoa Vo, Thi Lan Anh Nguyen. 2017. CSR collaboration in multi-level supply chains: a conceptual model. Logistique
& Management 25:2, 96-106. [Crossref]
11. Ying Zhang, Lihua Wang, Jie Gao. 2017. Supplier collaboration and speed-to-market of new products: the mediating and
moderating effects. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 28:3, 805-818. [Crossref]
12. Bo Yan, Zhuo Chen, Hongyuan Li. 2017. Evaluation of agri-product supply chain competitiveness based on extension theory.
Operational Research . [Crossref]
13. Mohua Banerjee, Manit Mishra. 2017. Retail supply chain management practices in India: A business intelligence perspective.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 34, 248-259. [Crossref]
14. Felix W. Baumann, Uwe Breitenbücher, Michael Falkenthal, Gerd Grünert, Sebastian Hudert. 10451, 215. [Crossref]
15. Thanos Papadopoulos, Angappa Gunasekaran, Rameshwar Dubey, Nezih Altay, Stephen J. Childe, Samuel Fosso-Wamba.
2017. The role of Big Data in explaining disaster resilience in supply chains for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production
142, 1108-1118. [Crossref]
16. Rugema Semaana Hilary, Haroon Sseguya, Paul Kibwika. 2017. Information quality, sharing and usage in farmer
organizations: The case of rice value chains in Bugiri and Luwero Districts, Uganda. Cogent Food & Agriculture 3:1. . [Crossref]
17. Sung Yoon, Suk Jeong. 2016. Implementing Coordinative Contracts between Manufacturer and Retailer in a Reverse Supply
Chain. Sustainability 8:12, 913. [Crossref]
18. M.Z. Babai, J.E. Boylan, A.A. Syntetos, M.M. Ali. 2016. Reduction of the value of information sharing as demand becomes
strongly auto-correlated. International Journal of Production Economics 181, 130-135. [Crossref]
19. Meehee Cho, Mark A. Bonn, Sora Kang. 2016. A nonlinear approach to the congruence of perceived uncertainty and
information sharing with suppliers: Effects upon startup and established restaurants. International Journal of Hospitality
Management 58, 82-94. [Crossref]
20. Kamel A. Fantazy, Syed Awais Ahmad Tipu, Vinod Kumar. 2016. Conceptualizing the relative openness of supply chain and its
impact on organizational performance. Benchmarking: An International Journal 23:5, 1264-1285. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Ferry Jie, Kevin A. Parton, Mustafid. 2016. Supply chain performance flexibility in the Australian beef industry. International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 19:4, 300-317. [Crossref]
22. Felix Friemann, Paul Schönsleben. 2016. Reducing Global Supply Chain Risk Exposure of Pharmaceutical Companies
by Further Incorporating Warehouse Capacity Planning into the Strategic Supply Chain Planning Process. Journal of
Pharmaceutical Innovation 11:2, 162-176. [Crossref]
23. Hua Song, Kangkang Yu, Anirban Ganguly, Rabia Turson. 2016. Supply chain network, information sharing and SME credit
quality. Industrial Management & Data Systems 116:4, 740-758. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 24. Shikha Aggarwal, Manoj Kumar Srivastava. 2016. Towards a grounded view of collaboration in Indian agri-food supply chains.
British Food Journal 118:5, 1085-1106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Claudia Archetti, M. Grazia Speranza. 2016. The inventory routing problem: the value of integration. International
Transactions in Operational Research 23:3, 393-407. [Crossref]
26. Ghazal Bargshady, Seyed Mojib Zahraee, Mohammad Ahmadi, Ali Parto. 2016. The effect of information technology on
the agility of the supply chain in the Iranian power plant industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 27:3,
427-442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Huy Truong Quang, Paulo Sampaio, Maria Sameiro Carvalho, Ana Cristina Fernandes, Duong Thi Binh An, Estela Vilhenac.
2016. An extensive structural model of supply chain quality management and firm performance. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management 33:4, 444-464. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
28. Irene Petrick, Carleen Maitland, Nicolai Pogrebnyakov. 2016. Unpacking Coordination Benefits in Supply Networks: Findings
from Manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management 54:2, 582-597. [Crossref]
29. Glenn C Parry, Saara A. Brax, Roger S. Maull, Irene C. L. Ng. 2016. Operationalising IoT for reverse supply: the development
of use-visibility measures. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:2, 228-244. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Satyendra Sharma, Srikanta Routroy. 2016. Modeling information risk in supply chain using Bayesian networks. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management 29:2, 238-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. Esra Ekinci, Adil Baykasoglu. 2016. Modelling complexity in retail supply chains. Kybernetes 45:2, 297-322. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
32. Lawrence D. Fredendall, Peter Letmathe, Nadine Uebe-Emden. 2016. Supply chain management practices and intellectual
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)

property protection in China. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 36:2, 135-163. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
33. Amin Maghsoudi, Ala Pazirandeh. 2016. Visibility, resource sharing and performance in supply chain relationships: insights
from humanitarian practitioners. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 21:1, 125-139. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
34. Tarik Saikouk, Alain Spalanzani. 2016. Review, typology and evaluation of traceability technologies: case of the French forest
supply chain. Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal 17:1, 39-53. [Crossref]
35. Malte Brettel, Felix Gabriel Fischer, David Bendig, Anja Ruth Weber, Bartholomäus Wolff. 2016. Enablers for Self-optimizing
Production Systems in the Context of Industrie 4.0. Procedia CIRP 41, 93-98. [Crossref]
36. Jan Holmstrőm, Johanna Småros, Stephen M. Disney, Denis R. Towill. Collaborative Supply Chain Configurations: The
Implications for Supplier Performance in Production and Inventory Control 27-37. [Crossref]
37. 英 英. 2016. A Review of Supplier Relationship: from Rivalry to Cooperation. Service Science and Management 05:03, 74.
[Crossref]
38. Shanna Appelhanz, Victoria-Sophie Osburg, Waldemar Toporowski, Matthias Schumann. 2016. Traceability system for
capturing, processing and providing consumer-relevant information about wood products: system solution and its economic
feasibility. Journal of Cleaner Production 110, 132-148. [Crossref]
39. Joana Oliveira Rosado, Susana Relvas. Integral supply chain performance management system design and implementation
788-802. [Crossref]
40. Divesh Ojha, Richard E. White, Pamela P. Rogers, Ching-Chung Kuo. 2015. Information processing-related infrastructural
antecedents of manufacturing flexibility – a real options perspective. International Journal of Production Research 53:17,
5174-5192. [Crossref]
41. Manisha Seth, D.P. Goyal, Ravi Kiran. 2015. Development of a Model for Successful Implementation of Supply Chain
Management Information System in Indian Automotive Industry. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective 19:3, 248-262.
[Crossref]
42. Muhammad Ali Nasir, Shizra Sultan, Samia Nefti-Meziani, Umar Manzoor. Potential cyber-attacks against global oil supply
chain 1-7. [Crossref]
43. 英英英, 英英英. 2015. The Effect of Emotional Trust and Cognitive Trust on Mutual Information Sharing and Logistics
Performance. Korean Journal of Logistics 23:2, 67-86. [Crossref]
44. Jafar Rezaei, Roland Ortt, Paul Trott. 2015. How SMEs can benefit from supply chain partnerships. International Journal
of Production Research 53:5, 1527-1543. [Crossref]
45. Yung-Yun Huang, Robert B Handfield. 2015. Measuring the benefits of ERP on supply management maturity model: a “big
data” method. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 35:1, 2-25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Thoo Ai Chin, Huam Hon Tat. 2015. Does gender diversity moderate the relationship between supply chain management
practice and performance in the electronic manufacturing services industry?. International Journal of Logistics Research and
Applications 18:1, 35-45. [Crossref]
 47. Malihe Manzouri, Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman, Haslina Arshad. 2015. Issues in Supply Chain Implementation. International
Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 8:1, 85-101. [Crossref]
48. Jan Claes, Geert Poels. 2014. Merging event logs for process mining: A rule based merging method and rule suggestion
algorithm. Expert Systems with Applications 41:16, 7291-7306. [Crossref]
49. Jairo R. Montoya-Torres, Diego A. Ortiz-Vargas. 2014. Collaboration and information sharing in dyadic supply chains: A
literature review over the period 2000–2012. Estudios Gerenciales 30:133, 343-354. [Crossref]
50. InduShobha Chengalur-Smith, Peter Duchessi. 2014. An Empirical Investigation of Extensible Information Sharing in Supply
Chains. Information Resources Management Journal 27:4, 1-22. [Crossref]
51. Suresh Kumar Jakhar, Mukesh Kumar Barua. 2014. An integrated model of supply chain performance evaluation and decision-
making using structural equation modelling and fuzzy AHP. Production Planning & Control 25:11, 938-957. [Crossref]
52. Mona Ahmadi Rad, Farid Khoshalhan, Christoph H. Glock. 2014. Optimizing inventory and sales decisions in a two-stage
supply chain with imperfect production and backorders. Computers & Industrial Engineering 74, 219-227. [Crossref]
53. Christopher Durugbo, Ashutosh Tiwari, Jeffrey R. Alcock. 2014. Managing integrated information flow for delivery
reliability. Industrial Management & Data Systems 114:4, 628-651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Ming Juan Ding, Ferry Jie, Kevin A. Parton, Margaret J. Matanda. 2014. Relationships between quality of information sharing
and supply chain food quality in the Australian beef processing industry. The International Journal of Logistics Management
25:1, 85-108. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
55. Maria Caridi, Antonella Moretto, Alessandro Perego, Angela Tumino. 2014. The benefits of supply chain visibility: A value
assessment model. International Journal of Production Economics 151, 1-19. [Crossref]
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)

56. Atour Taghipour. 2014. Improving the Plan of a Manufacturing Network with Non-Integrated Business Units. International
Journal of Applied Logistics 5:2, 1-11. [Crossref]
57. Wei-Hsi Hung, Chieh-Pin Lin, Chin-Fu Ho. 2014. Sharing information in a high uncertainty environment: lessons from
the divergent differentiation supply chain. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 17:1, 46-63. [Crossref]
58. Usha Ramanathan. 2014. Performance of supply chain collaboration – A simulation study. Expert Systems with Applications
41:1, 210-220. [Crossref]
59. Ajaya Swain, Qing Cao. Impact of Online Firm Generated Content (FGC) on Supply Chain Performance: An Empirical
Analysis 561-573. [Crossref]
60. Areti Manataki, Yun-Heh Chen-Burger, Michael Rovatsos. 2014. SCOlog: A logic-based approach to analysing supply chain
operation dynamics. Expert Systems with Applications 41:1, 23-38. [Crossref]
61. Pietro De Giovanni, Alfio Cariola, Mariacarmela Passarelli. 2013. Recent developments on Reactivity: Theoretical
conceptualization and empirical verification. European Journal of Operational Research 231:3, 690-701. [Crossref]
62. Jao-Hong Cheng, Shu-Wei Chen, Fang-Yuan Chen. 2013. Exploring how inter-organizational relational benefits affect
information sharing in supply chains. Information Technology and Management 14:4, 283-294. [Crossref]
63. Imam Baihaqi, Amrik S. Sohal. 2013. The impact of information sharing in supply chains on organisational performance:
an empirical study. Production Planning & Control 24:8-9, 743-758. [Crossref]
64. Fei Ye, Zhiqiang Wang. 2013. Effects of information technology alignment and information sharing on supply chain
operational performance. Computers & Industrial Engineering 65:3, 370-377. [Crossref]
65. Andrew Dela Rosa, Hong Joo Lee. 2013. Two App Stores in One Smartphone : A Comparative Study on Mobile Application
Stores between Google Play and T-Store. Journal of the Korea society of IT services 12:2, 269-289. [Crossref]
66. Patrik Jonsson, Stig-Arne Mattsson. 2013. The value of sharing planning information in supply chains. International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:4, 282-299. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Riikka Kaipia, Iskra Dukovska‐Popovska, Lauri Loikkanen. 2013. Creating sustainable fresh food supply chains through waste
reduction. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43:3, 262-276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Usha Ramanathan. 2013. Aligning supply chain collaboration using Analytic Hierarchy Process. Omega 41:2, 431-440.
[Crossref]
69. 英英英. 2013. A Case Study of the Effects of Manufacturers' Provision and Sharing of Demand Information on Suppliers' Profit.
Korean Journal of Logistics 21:1, 1-21. [Crossref]
70. Hsin Hsin Chang, Yao‐Chuan Tsai, Che‐Hao Hsu. 2013. E‐procurement and supply chain performance. Supply Chain
Management: An International Journal 18:1, 34-51. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Zahra Lotfi, Muriati Mukhtar, Shahnorbanun Sahran, Ali Taei Zadeh. 2013. Information Sharing in Supply Chain
Management. Procedia Technology 11, 298-304. [Crossref]
72. Yikun Lu, Timo Kakola. An Information System Design Product Theory for Integrated Order, Transportation and
Warehouse Management Systems 3717-3726. [Crossref]
 73. Hao Luo, Sha Sha, George Q. Huang. 2013. The Impact of Information and Knowledge sharing on the Buyer-supplier
Relationship and Performance in Electronics Industry. IFAC Proceedings Volumes 46:9, 1944-1949. [Crossref]
74. Felipe Fehlberg Herrmann, Giancarlo Medeiros Pereira, Miriam Borchardt, Rosnaldo Inácio da Silva. 2013. Benefícios e
impeditivos à integração da cadeia de suprimentos calçadista por meio da tecnologia de informação. Gestão & Produção 20:4,
939-952. [Crossref]
75. Raj Kamalapur. 2013. Impact of Forecast Errors in CPFR Collaboration Strategy. American Journal of Industrial and Business
Management 03:04, 389-394. [Crossref]
76. Mohammed N. Shaik, Walid Abdul-Kader. 2013. Interorganizational Information Systems Adoption in Supply Chains.
International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 6:1, 24-40. [Crossref]
77. Richard J. Lehmann, Robert Reiche, Gerhard Schiefer. 2012. Future internet and the agri-food sector: State-of-the-art in
literature and research. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 89, 158-174. [Crossref]
78. Olatunde Amoo Durowoju, Hing Kai Chan, Xiaojun Wang. 2012. Entropy assessment of supply chain disruption. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 23:8, 998-1014. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
79. Muqi Wulan, Dobrila Petrovic. 2012. A fuzzy logic based system for risk analysis and evaluation within enterprise
collaborations. Computers in Industry 63:8, 739-748. [Crossref]
80. Daniel Ekwall. 2012. Antagonistic threats against supply chain activities are wicked problems. Journal of Transportation
Security 5:2, 123-140. [Crossref]
81. Jing Lin, Behzad Ghodrati. Information sharing in a spares demand system 36-44. [Crossref]
82. Prachi Pandey, Sanghamitra Bhattacharyya, Arshinder Kaur. 2012. Exploring the role of HR practices in supply chain. Journal
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)

of Advances in Management Research 9:1, 113-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

83. Johan Scholliers, Sirra Toivonen, Antti Permala, Timo Lahtinen. 2012. A Concept for Improving the Security and Efficiency
of Multimodal Supply Chains. International Journal of Applied Logistics 3:2, 1-13. [Crossref]
84. Antti Permala, Karri Rantasila, Eetu Pilli-Sihvola. 2012. RFID. International Journal of Applied Logistics 3:2, 14-24. [Crossref]
85. Horatiu Cirtita, Daniel A. Glaser‐Segura. 2012. Measuring downstream supply chain performance. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 23:3, 299-314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
86. Reza Sarlak, Ali Nookabadi. 2012. Synchronization in multi-echelon supply chain applying timing discount. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 59:1-4, 289-297. [Crossref]
87. Chitra Srivastava Dabas, Brenda Sternquist, Humaira Mahi. 2012. Organized retailing in India: upstream channel structure
and management. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 27:3, 176-195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
88. Daniel Prajogo, Jan Olhager. 2012. Supply chain integration and performance: The effects of long-term relationships,
information technology and sharing, and logistics integration. International Journal of Production Economics 135:1, 514-522.
[Crossref]
89. Nilesh Anand, Hans Quak, Ron van Duin, Lori Tavasszy. 2012. City Logistics Modeling Efforts: Trends and Gaps - A
Review. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 39, 101-115. [Crossref]
90. S.C.L. Koh, A. Gunasekaran, T. Goodman. 2011. Drivers, barriers and critical success factors for ERPII implementation in
supply chains: A critical analysis. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 20:4, 385-402. [Crossref]
91. Robert C. Rickards, Rolf Ritsert. 2011. Coping with the challenges of indirect sales and distribution controlling in SMEs.
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 39:12, 927-944. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
92. Christos Braziotis, James Tannock. 2011. Building the extended enterprise: key collaboration factors. The International Journal
of Logistics Management 22:3, 349-372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Richard J. Lehmann, John E. Hermansen, Melanie Fritz, Detert Brinkmann, Jacques Trienekens, Gerhard Schiefer. 2011.
Information services for European pork chains – Closing gaps in information infrastructures. Computers and Electronics in
Agriculture 79:2, 125-136. [Crossref]
94. Mohammad Alawamleh, Keith Popplewell. 2011. Interpretive structural modelling of risk sources in a virtual organisation.
International Journal of Production Research 49:20, 6041-6063. [Crossref]
95. Tritos Laosirihongthong, Keah-Choon Tan, Dotun Adebanjo. 2011. Supply chain management in ASEAN automotive
manufacturing industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 14:5, 317-333. [Crossref]
96. Fereshteh Ghahremani, Mohammad Jafar Tarokh. 2011. IT-Based Classification for Supply Chain Coordination Mechanisms.
International Journal of Applied Logistics 2:4, 1-14. [Crossref]
97. Yasanur Kayikci. 2011. Value Creation in Electronic Supply Chains by Adoption of a Vendor Managed Inventory System.
International Journal of Interdisciplinary Telecommunications and Networking 3:4, 17-27. [Crossref]
98. Huiping Ding, Baochun Guo, Zhishuo Liu. 2011. Information sharing and profit allotment based on supply chain cooperation.
International Journal of Production Economics 133:1, 70-79. [Crossref]
 99. Susanne Hohmann, Stephan Zelewski. 2011. Effects of Vendor-Managed Inventory on the Bullwhip Effect. International
Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 4:3, 1-17. [Crossref]
100. Huiping Lin, Xuwei Zhu, Pengfei Wang, Xiaohui Dong, Weiping Li. A service oriented supply chain collaboration system
for SMEs 590-595. [Crossref]
101. Shiou-Yu Chen. 2011. Exploring digital capital of automated cargo clearance business websites. Expert Systems with Applications
38:4, 3590-3599. [Crossref]
102. Adrienn Molnár, Xavier Gellynck, Filiep Vanhonacker, Taras Gagalyuk, Wim Verbeke. 2011. Do chain goals match consumer
perceptions? the case of the traditional food sector in selected European Union countries. Agribusiness 27:2, 221-243. [Crossref]
103. Pamela Danese. 2011. Towards a contingency theory of collaborative planning initiatives in supply networks. International
Journal of Production Research 49:4, 1081-1103. [Crossref]
104. Mohammad Reza Khaji, Rasoul Shafaei. 2011. A system dynamics approach for strategic partnering in supply networks.
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 24:2, 106-125. [Crossref]
105. Markus Eurich, Nina Oertel, Roman Boutellier. 2010. The impact of perceived privacy risks on organizations’ willingness to
share item-level event data across the supply chain. Electronic Commerce Research 10:3-4, 423-440. [Crossref]
106. Sara Campo, Natalia Rubio, María Jesús Yagüe. 2010. Information Technology Use and Firm's Perceived Performance in
Supply Chain Management. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 17:4, 336-364. [Crossref]
107. Maria Caridi, Luca Crippa, Alessandro Perego, Andrea Sianesi, Angela Tumino. 2010. Do virtuality and complexity affect
supply chain visibility?. International Journal of Production Economics 127:2, 372-383. [Crossref]
108. Festus O. Olorunniwo, Xiaoming Li. 2010. Information sharing and collaboration practices in reverse logistics. Supply Chain
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)

Management: An International Journal 15:6, 454-462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

109. Dimitris Papakiriakopoulos, Katerina Pramatari. 2010. Collaborative performance measurement in supply chain. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 110:9, 1297-1318. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
110. Maria Caridi, Luca Crippa, Alessandro Perego, Andrea Sianesi, Angela Tumino. 2010. Measuring visibility to improve supply
chain performance: a quantitative approach. Benchmarking: An International Journal 17:4, 593-615. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
111. Jing Zhang, Kai Kang. Coordination mechanisms in logistics integration and their impact on green logistics performance
666-670. [Crossref]
112. Cheng Jao-Hong, Chih-Ming Lee, Fu Ya-Chi. Degree of boundary integration and strategic resource path affect information
sharing in supply chain flexibility under relational phase 1-6. [Crossref]
113. Dong‐Young Kim, Vinod Kumar, Uma Kumar. 2010. Performance assessment framework for supply chain partnership. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal 15:3, 187-195. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
114. Daniel Rief, Clemens van Dinther. 2010. Negotiation for Cooperation in Logistics Networks: An Experimental Study. Group
Decision and Negotiation 19:3, 211-226. [Crossref]
115. V.C. Pandey, S.K. Garg, Ravi Shankar. 2010. Impact of information sharing on competitive strength of Indian manufacturing
enterprises. Business Process Management Journal 16:2, 226-243. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
116. Harry Bremmers, Bernd van der Meulen, Krijn Poppe, Jo Wijnands. 2010. Managerial responses to transaction cost
disequilibrium in food supply chains and networks. Journal on Chain and Network Science 10:1, 51-58. [Crossref]
117. Adrienn Molnár, Xavier Gellynck, Robert Weaver. 2010. Chain member perception of chain performance: the role of
relationship quality. Journal on Chain and Network Science 10:1, 27-49. [Crossref]
118. Subhash Wadhwa, Madhawanand Mishra, Felix T.S. Chan, Y. Ducq. 2010. Effects of information transparency and
cooperation on supply chain performance: a simulation study. International Journal of Production Research 48:1, 145-166.
[Crossref]
119. 英英英. 2009. A Study about Influence of SCM Activities on Supply Chain Operations Reference. Productivity Review 23:4,
199-221. [Crossref]
120. Pekka Koskinen, Olli-Pekka Hilmola. 2009. Production Lots as Determinant of Paper Production Lead Time Performance.
International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management 2:4, 63-79. [Crossref]
121. Premkumar Rajagopal, Suhaiza Zailani, Mohamed Sulaiman. 2009. Benchmarking on supply chain partnering effectiveness
in two semiconductor companies. Benchmarking: An International Journal 16:5, 671-701. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
122. Siri-on Setamanit. Exploring the effect of vendor managed inventory on the supply chain partner using simulation 1642-1648.
[Crossref]
123. G M Magableh, S J Mason. 2009. An integrated supply chain model with dynamic flow and replenishment requirements.
Journal of Simulation 3:2, 84-94. [Crossref]
124. Craig A. Hill, G. Peter Zhang, Gary D. Scudder. 2009. An Empirical Investigation of EDI Usage and Performance
Improvement in Food Supply Chains. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 56:1, 61-75. [Crossref]
 125. . Chapter 1 177-197. [Crossref]
126. Mehdi Fasanghari, Isa Nakhai Kamalabadi, Ali Hossein Mirzaei. IT Based Supply Chain Agility Evaluation Using a New
TOPSIS with Interval Data 743-747. [Crossref]
127. Xiao-Yan Qi, Han-Hui Hu, Xiao-Man Wang. Enterprise Integrated Knowledge Management System Conceptual Model: An
Empirical Research 1-6. [Crossref]
128. Arshinder, Arun Kanda, S.G. Deshmukh. 2008. Supply chain coordination: Perspectives, empirical studies and research
directions. International Journal of Production Economics 115:2, 316-335. [Crossref]
129. Weihong Yue, Qingying Zhang. Research on the shipbuilding supply chain risk control 2205-2208. [Crossref]
130. Davide Zanetti, Srdjan Capkun. Protecting Sensitive Business Information While Sharing Serial-Level Data 183-191.
[Crossref]
131. Anupam Ghosh, Jane Fedorowicz. 2008. The role of trust in supply chain governance. Business Process Management Journal
14:4, 453-470. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
132. Göran Svensson, Göran Svensson. 2008. 英 英/英英英 英英英英 英 英英英英英. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science 18:2, 1-18.
[Crossref]
133. Kazim Sari. 2008. On the benefits of CPFR and VMI: A comparative simulation study. International Journal of Production
Economics 113:2, 575-586. [Crossref]
134. Vipul Jain, Lyes Benyoucef. 2008. Managing long supply chain networks: some emerging issues and challenges. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 19:4, 469-496. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)

135. Selçuk Perçin. 2008. Use of fuzzy AHP for evaluating the benefits of information‐sharing decisions in a supply chain. Journal
of Enterprise Information Management 21:3, 263-284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
136. César Martínez-Olvera. 2008. Entropy as an assessment tool of supply chain information sharing. European Journal of
Operational Research 185:1, 405-417. [Crossref]
137. Mehdi Fasanghari. Assessing the Impact of Information Technology on Supply Chain Management 726-730. [Crossref]
138. Seokwoo Kang, 英英英. 2007. Analysis of Relationship between Supply Chain Management and Food Production Strategies for
Food Supplies in Hotel Restaurants. Culinary Science & Hospitality Research 13:4, 107-118. [Crossref]
139. Mehdi Fasanghari, Shooresh Mohammadi, Mehdi Khodaei, Ali Abdollahi, Farzad Habibipour Roudsari. A Conceptual
Framework for Impact of Information Technology on Supply Chain Management 72-76. [Crossref]
140. Erik Sandberg. 2007. Logistics collaboration in supply chains: practice vs. theory. The International Journal of Logistics
Management 18:2, 274-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
141. Kazim Sari. 2007. Exploring the benefits of vendor managed inventory. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management 37:7, 529-545. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
142. Huang Meng-xing, Pan Quan, Cheng Yong-mei. An Incentive Mechanism of Information Sharing in Supply Chain 711-716.
[Crossref]
143. Richard Pibernik, Eric Sucky. 2007. An approach to inter-domain master planning in supply chains. International Journal
of Production Economics 108:1-2, 200-212. [Crossref]
144. C V Trappey, A J C Trappey, G Y P Lin, C S Liu, W T Lee. 2007. Business and logistics hub integration to facilitate
global supply chain linkage. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture
221:7, 1221-1233. [Crossref]
145. Mohd Nishat Faisal. 2007. An Empirical Study of Corporate Social Responsibility in Supply Chains. Asia Pacific Business
Review 3:2, 77-83. [Crossref]
146. Martin Müller, Stefan Seuring. 2007. Reducing information technology‐based transaction costs in supply chains. Industrial
Management & Data Systems 107:4, 484-500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
147. Dan L. Shunk, Joseph R. Carter, John Hovis, Aditya Talwar. 2007. Electronics industry drivers of intermediation and
disintermediation. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 37:3, 248-261. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
148. Astrid Vigtil. 2007. Information exchange in vendor managed inventory. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 37:2, 131-147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
149. Issam Dhahri, Habib Chabchoub. 2007. Nonlinear goal programming models quantifying the bullwhip effect in supply chain
based on ARIMA parameters. European Journal of Operational Research 177:3, 1800-1810. [Crossref]
150. Suhong Li, Binshan Lin. 2006. Accessing information sharing and information quality in supply chain management. Decision
Support Systems 42:3, 1641-1656. [Crossref]
151. Subhashish Samaddar, Satish Nargundkar, Marcia Daley. 2006. Inter-organizational information sharing: The role of supply
network configuration and partner goal congruence. European Journal of Operational Research 174:2, 744-765. [Crossref]
 152. Riikka Kaipia, Helena Hartiala. 2006. Information‐sharing in supply chains: five proposals on how to proceed. The
International Journal of Logistics Management 17:3, 377-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
153. Mohd Nishat Faisal, D.K. Banwet, Ravi Shankar. 2006. Mapping supply chains on risk and customer sensitivity dimensions.
Industrial Management & Data Systems 106:6, 878-895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
154. Laith Abuhilal, Ghaith Rabadi, Andres Sousa-Poza. 2006. Supply Chain Inventory Control: A Comparison Among JIT,
MRP, and MRP With Information Sharing Using Simulation. Engineering Management Journal 18:2, 51-57. [Crossref]
155. T. O’donnell, L. Maguire, R. McIvor, P. Humphreys. 2006. Minimizing the bullwhip effect in a supply chain using genetic
algorithms. International Journal of Production Research 44:8, 1523-1543. [Crossref]
156. F. T. S. Chan, H. K. Chan. 2006. A simulation study with quantity flexibility in a supply chain subjected to uncertainties.
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 19:2, 148-160. [Crossref]
157. Riikka Kaipia, Hille Korhonen, Helena Hartiala. 2006. Planning nervousness in a demand supply network: an empirical study.
The International Journal of Logistics Management 17:1, 95-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
158. Göran Svensson. 2005. The multiple facets of the bullwhip effect: refined and re‐defined. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management 35:10, 762-777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
159. Suhaiza Zailani, Premkumar Rajagopal. 2005. Supply chain integration and performance: US versus East Asian companies.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 10:5, 379-393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
160. Wayne G. Bremser, Q.B. Chung. 2005. A framework for performance measurement in the e-business environment. Electronic
Commerce Research and Applications 4:4, 395-412. [Crossref]
161. Li‐Ling Hsu. 2005. SCM system effects on performance for interaction between suppliers and buyers. Industrial Management
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)

& Data Systems 105:7, 857-875. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

162. Maria Inês Tomaél, Adriana Rosecler Alcará, Ivone Guerreiro Di Chiara. 2005. Das redes sociais à inovação. Ciência da
Informação 34:2, 93-104. [Crossref]
163. June Dong, Ding Zhang, Hong Yan, Anna Nagurney. 2005. Multitiered Supply Chain Networks: Multicriteria Decision—
Making Under Uncertainty. Annals of Operations Research 135:1, 155-178. [Crossref]
164. A Gunasekaran, E.W.T Ngai. 2004. Information systems in supply chain integration and management. European Journal of
Operational Research 159:2, 269-295. [Crossref]
165. Samuel Vieira Conceição, Ronan Torres Quintão. 2004. Avaliação do desenpenho logístico da cadeia brasileira de suprimentos
de refrigerantes. Gestão & Produção 11:3, 441-453. [Crossref]
166. Vincent Hughes, Peter E.D. Love. 2004. Toward cyber‐centric management of policing: back to the future with information
and communication technology. Industrial Management & Data Systems 104:7, 604-612. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
167. Choy Leong Yee, Kim Hua Tan. 2004. A process and tool for supply network analysis. Industrial Management & Data Systems
104:4, 355-363. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
168. Wann‐Yih Wu, Chwan‐Yi Chiag, Ya‐Jung Wu, Hui‐Ju Tu. 2004. The influencing factors of commitment and business
integration on supply chain management. Industrial Management & Data Systems 104:4, 322-333. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
169. 2003. Erratum. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103:9, 693-702. [Abstract] [PDF]
170. Herbert Kotzab, Niels Skjoldager, Thorkil Vinum. 2003. The development and empirical validation of an e‐based supply
chain strategy optimization model. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103:5, 347-360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
171. S.M. Disney, D.R. Towill. 2003. Vendor‐managed inventory and bullwhip reduction in a two‐level supply chain. International
Journal of Operations & Production Management 23:6, 625-651. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
172. K.L. Choy, Kenny K.H. Fan, Victor Lo. 2003. Development of an intelligent customer‐supplier relationship management
system: the application of case‐based reasoning. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103:4, 263-274. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
173. Johanna Småros, Juha‐Matti Lehtonen, Patrik Appelqvist, Jan Holmström. 2003. The impact of increasing demand visibility
on production and inventory control efficiency. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 33:4,
336-354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
174. Paul Childerhouse, Ramzi Hermiz, Rachel Mason‐Jones, Andrew Popp, Denis R. Towill. 2003. Information flow in
automotive supply chains – present industrial practice. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103:3, 137-149. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
175. Göran Svensson. 2003. The bullwhip effect in intra‐organisational echelons. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management 33:2, 103-131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
176. Tony Kinder. 2003. Go with the flow—a conceptual framework for supply relations in the era of the extended enterprise.
Research Policy 32:3, 503-523. [Crossref]
 177. Gene Fliedner. 2003. CPFR: an emerging supply chain tool. Industrial Management & Data Systems 103:1, 14-21. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
178. Yan Tu, P.B. Luh, Weidong Feng, K. Narimatsu. Supply chain performance evaluation: a simulation study 1749-1755.
[Crossref]
179. Elke Perl-Vorbach. Communicating Environmental Information on a Company and Inter-Organizational Level 914-932.
[Crossref]
180. M. Fayez, L. Rabelo, M. Mollaghasemi. Ontologies for Supply Chain Simulation Modeling 2364-2370. [Crossref]
181. Kijpokin Kasemsap. Advocating Information System, Information Integration, and Information Sharing in Global Supply
Chain 1536-1559. [Crossref]
182. Munira Halili, Latifah Naina Mohamed, Yudi Fernando. Reflections of the 1Malaysia Supply Chain (1MSC) 5527-5537.
[Crossref]
183. InduShobha Chengalur-Smith, Peter Duchessi. An Empirical Investigation of Extensible Information Sharing in Supply
Chains 1625-1649. [Crossref]
184. Chandra Sekhar Patro, K. Madhu Kishore Raghunath. Information Technology Paraphernalia for Supply Chain Management
Decisions 294-320. [Crossref]
185. Atour Taghipour. A Contemporary Approach to Plan Independent Logistics Actors 337-364. [Crossref]
186. Dario Messina, Cláudio Santos, António Lucas Soares, Ana Cristina Barros. Risk and Visibility in Supply Chains 34-57.
[Crossref]
Downloaded by University of Manchester At 03:05 27 February 2018 (PT)

187. Kijpokin Kasemsap. Advocating Information System, Information Integration, and Information Sharing in Global Supply
Chain 107-130. [Crossref]
188. Qiannong Gu, Xiuli He, Satyajit Saravane. Advance Information Sharing in Supply Chains 46-56. [Crossref]
189. Fereshteh Ghahremani, Mohammad Jafar Tarokh. IT-Based Classification for Supply Chain Coordination Mechanisms
148-162. [Crossref]
190. Susanne Hohmann, Stephan Zelewski. Effects of Vendor-Managed Inventory on the Bullwhip Effect 167-183. [Crossref]
191. Yasanur Kayikci. Value Creation in Electronic Supply Chains by Adoption of a Vendor Managed Inventory System 229-240.
[Crossref]
192. Yanjun Zuo, Wen-Chen Hu. Trust-Based Information Risk Management in a Supply Chain Network 181-196. [Crossref]
193. Clay Posey. Using Organizational Information Processing Theory to Examine the Relationship between Information Sharing
and Supply Chain Performance 230-240. [Crossref]
194. Pekka Koskinen, Olli-Pekka Hilmola. Production Lots as Determinant of Paper Production Lead Time Performance 310-325.
[Crossref]
195. Johan Scholliers, Sirra Toivonen, Antti Permala, Timo Lahtinen. Improving Security and Efficiency of Multimodal Supply
Chains Using Monitoring Technology 38-52. [Crossref]
196. Antti Permala, Karri Rantasila, Eetu Pilli-Sihvola, Ville Hinkka. RFID 53-64. [Crossref]