Drivers and Barriers of Collaboration in the Value Chain of Paperboard-Packed Consumer Goods

Value chain collaboration has been a prevailing topic for research, and there is a constantly growing interest in developing collaborative models for improved efficiency in logistics. One area of collaboration is demand information management, which enables improved visibility and decrease of inventories in the value chain. Outsourcing of non-core competencies has changed the nature of collaboration from intra-enterprise to cross-enterprise activity, and this together with increasing competition in the globalizing markets have created a need for methods and tools for collaborative work. The retailer part in the value chain of consumer packaged goods (CPG) has been studied relatively widely, proven models have been defined, and there exist several best practice collaboration cases. The information and communications technology has developed rapidly, offering efficient solutions and applications to exchange information between value chain partners. However, the majority of CPG industry still works with traditional business models and practices. This concerns especially companies operating in the upstream of the CPG value chain. Demand information for consumer packaged goods originates at retailers’ counters, based on consumers’ buying decisions. As this information does not get transferred along the value chain towards the upstream parties, each player needs to optimize their part, causing safety margins for inventories and speculation in purchasing decisions. The safety margins increase with each player, resulting in a phenomenon known as the bullwhip effect. The further the company is from the original demand information source, the more distorted the information is. This thesis concentrates on the upstream parts of the value chain of consumer packaged goods, and more precisely the packaging value chain. Packaging is becoming a part of the product with informative and interactive features, andtherefore is not just a cost item needed to protect the product. The upstream part of the CPG value chain is distinctive, as the product changes after each involved party, and therefore the original demand information from the retailers cannot be utilized as such – even if it were transferred seamlessly. The objective of this thesis is to examine the main drivers for collaboration, and barriers causing the moderate adaptation level of collaborative models. Another objective is to define a collaborative demand information management model and test it in a pilot business situation in order to see if the barriers can be eliminated. The empirical part of this thesis contains three parts, all related to the research objective, but involving different target groups, viewpoints and research approaches. The study shows evidence that the main barriers for collaboration are very similar to the barriers in the lower part of the same value chain; lack of trust, lack of business case and lack of senior management commitment. Eliminating one of them – the lack of business case – is not enough to eliminate the two other barriers, as the operational model in this thesis shows. The uncertainty of the future, fear of losing an independent position in purchasing decision making and lack of commitment remain strong enough barriers to prevent the implementation of the proposed collaborative business model. The study proposes a new way of defining the value chain processes: it divides the contracting and planning process into two processes, one managing the commercial parts and the other managing the quantity and specification related issues. This model can reduce the resistance to collaboration, as the commercial part of the contracting process would remain the same as in the traditional model. The quantity/specification-related issues would be managed by the parties with the best capabilities and resources, as well as access to the original demand information. The parties in between would be involved in the planning process as well, as their impact for the next party upstream is significant. The study also highlights the future challenges for companies operating in the CPG value chain. The markets are becoming global, with toughening competition. Also, the technology development will most likely continue with a speed exceeding the adaptation capabilities of the industry. Value chains are also becoming increasingly dynamic, which means shorter and more agile business relationships, and at the same time the predictability of consumer demand is getting more difficult due to shorter product life cycles and trends. These changes will certainly have an effect on companies’ operational models, but it is very difficult to estimate when and how the proven methods will gain wide enough adaptation to become standards.

[1]  R. Chapman,et al.  Innovation in logistic services and the new business model : a conceptual framework , 2003 .

[2]  John T. Gardner,et al.  Developing and Implementing Supply Chain Partnerships , 1996 .

[3]  J. Holmström,et al.  The impact of increasing demand visibility on production and inventory control efficiency , 2003 .

[4]  K. Pramatari Collaborative supply chain practices and evolving technological approaches , 2007 .

[5]  Danny Samson,et al.  Effective case research in operations management: a process perspective , 2002 .

[6]  R. Shankar,et al.  On‐line trust building in e‐enabled supply chain , 2003 .

[7]  Niklas Aldin,et al.  Electronic commerce, marketing channels and logistics platforms--a wholesaler perspective , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Göran Svensson,et al.  Efficient consumer response – its origin and evolution in the history of marketing , 2002 .

[9]  David Taylor,et al.  Global Cases in Logistics and Supply Chain Management , 1996 .

[10]  B. S. Sahay Supply chain collaboration: the key to value creation , 2003 .

[11]  N. Ravichandran Managing bullwhip effect: two case studies , 2008 .

[12]  M. Kärkkäinen,et al.  Increasing efficiency in the supply chain for short shelf life goods using RFID tagging , 2003 .

[13]  Rachel Croson,et al.  IMPACT OF POS DATA SHARING ON SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY , 2003 .

[14]  Herbert Kotzab,et al.  Value-adding partnerships and co-opetition models in the grocery industry , 2003 .

[15]  Yanfeng Ouyang,et al.  Counteracting the bullwhip effect with decentralized negotiations and advance demand information , 2005 .

[16]  Kit L. Yam Intelligent packaging for the future smart kitchen , 2000 .

[17]  M. Lambrecht,et al.  Dampening Variability by Using Smoothing Replenishment Rules , 2006 .

[18]  Charles H. Fine Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control In The Age Of Temporary Advantage , 1998 .

[19]  Teck-Hua Ho,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Forecast Sharing in the Semiconductor Equipment Supply Chain , 2005 .

[20]  Kary Främling,et al.  Collaborative planning forecasting and replenishment: new solutions needed for mass collaboration , 2002 .

[21]  Rohit Bhatnagar,et al.  Re‐engineering global supply chains: Alliances between manufacturing firms and global logistics services providers , 2000 .

[22]  M. Barratt,et al.  Exploring the experiences of collaborative planning initiatives , 2001 .

[23]  Hans Wortmann,et al.  RECONSTRUCTING THE SALES AND FULFILLMENT CYCLE TO CREATE SUPPLY CHAIN DIFFERENTIATION , 1999 .

[24]  Helena Forslund,et al.  The impact of forecast information quality on supply chain performance , 2007 .

[25]  Hisao Fujimoto Collaborative networking in a multi‐stage industrial channel , 2003 .

[26]  S. Disney,et al.  Vendor-managed inventory and bullwhip reduction in a two-level supply chain , 2003 .

[27]  Ricky W. Griffin,et al.  International Business: A Managerial Perspective , 1995 .

[28]  Vineet Padmanabhan,et al.  Comments on "Information Distortion in a Supply Chain: The Bullwhip Effect" , 1997, Manag. Sci..

[29]  Călin Gurău,et al.  Business modelling with UML: the implementation of CRM systems for online retailing , 2003 .

[30]  Göran Svensson,et al.  Holistic and cross‐disciplinary deficiencies in the theory generation of supply chain management , 2003 .

[31]  Sanjit Sengupta,et al.  Effectiveness of horizontal strategic alliances in technologically uncertain environments: are trust and commitment enough? , 2004 .

[32]  You Xiao,et al.  A web‐based logistics management system for agile supply demand network design , 2006 .

[33]  Elena Katok,et al.  Learning, communication, and the bullwhip effect , 2006 .

[34]  Michael Hugos,et al.  Essentials of Supply Chain Management , 2002 .

[35]  G. Svensson Consumer driven and bi‐directional value chain diffusion models , 2003 .

[36]  P. K. Bagchi,et al.  Understanding the causes of the bullwhip effect in a supply chain , 2007 .

[37]  K. Goffin,et al.  Investigating the meaning of supplier-manufacturer partnerships : an exploratory study , 2003 .

[38]  Donald J. Bowersox,et al.  HOW TO MASTER CROSS-ENTERPRISE COLLABORATION , 2003 .

[39]  Timo Kärri,et al.  Timing of Capacity Change: Models for Capital Intensive Industry , 2007 .

[40]  Arch G. Woodside,et al.  Case study research methods for theory building , 2003 .

[41]  Chris. Miller,et al.  Collaboration and partnership: an effective response to complexity and fragmentation or solution built on sand? , 2000 .

[42]  D. Macbeth,et al.  Improving supply chain relations: an empirical case study , 2002 .

[43]  A. Vereecke,et al.  Performance improvement through supply chain collaboration in Europe , 2006 .

[44]  Jeong-eun Park,et al.  Organizational memory: a new perspective on the organizational buying process , 2003 .

[45]  Yufei Yuan,et al.  Supply chain collaboration alternatives: understanding the expected costs and benefits , 2002, Internet Res..

[46]  E. Christiaanse,et al.  Supply chain partnering: a temporal multidisciplinary approach , 2007 .