Enablers and inhibitors of combined distribution networks between competitors: an investigation of Asia pacific supply chains
https://ilokabenneth.blogspot.com/2014/09/enablers-and-inhibitors-in-combined.html
Author: Iloka Benneth Chiemelie
Published: 22-September-2014
Abstract
In
the course of this research, the overall purpose was defined as to gain an
understanding on factors that influences adoption of combined distribution
networks between competing brands in the ASEAN region. Exploring the whole region
was no easy task because of the numerous geographical landscape that needed to
be covered in order to make the research a success. As such, online survey was
gathered in order to allow for easier data gathering. The gathered data where
analyzed and findings from the analysis showed factors that influence adoption
of combined distribution networks amongst competing brands to include –
organizational structure, internal relations behavior, consumers behavior, top
management support, information sharing systems and performance management
system.
Chapter one
Introduction
1.1.
Research background
A
supply chain is made up of networks of suppliers and distributors with a common
aim of making goods and services available to the final consumer. Ensuring that
the elements of the supply chain are perfectly aligned represents an emerging
issues in the business scene. As noted by Gattorna
(1998), it is necessary for firms to align their supply chain strategy
together with their supply chain partners in both the external and internal
sphere. Thus, supply chain alignment is necessary because it helps to create a
fit in terms of objectives, process and structures between different functions
within the supply chain. The need for supply chain alignment cannot be
disputed. Houlihan (1985) supported such notion
by suggesting that SCM is all about tackling imbalances that are created as a
result of conflicting objectives defined in the marketing, manufacturing,
sales, and distribution and this is achieved through proper management of
trade-offs between supply policies, manufacturing economics, and complexity. As
a form of response to this kind of issues, four-stage framework for strategic
alignment has been proposed by Gattorna (Gattorna and
Walters, 1996; Gattorna, 1998, 2009), and this framework is designed to
develop supply chain that meets requirement of customer segments, supported by
right cultural and leadership style, and aligned with the four logics that are
based on Carl Jung’s Theory.
Particular
reference is made on the need to achieve shareholder alignment because it will
aid the adoption of functional strategies and business process to deliver
compactible business strategies capable of meeting the expectations of
shareholders like increase in revenue, working capital efficiency, reduced
operations costs, and fixed capital efficiency (Christopher
and Ryals, 1999). The main reason for this is because poor performance
of businesses are often as a result of the firm’s failure to align its internal
supply chain process with strategic goals (Tamas, 2000).
Just
as the shareholders alignment, it is also important for customers to be equally
aligned in the system. This is because as members in the supply chain move to
optimize their own interest, decisions made by one member in the supply chain
system can effect delivery delays and excesses in terms of recorded inventories
in another supply chain (Lee, 2004). In essence,
it is ideal for all members of the supply chain to have a common objectives
which is to deliver the best level of value to end customers. This implies that
supply chain needs to be aligned in such a way that it is capable of delivering
value to the end users, and value delivered is measured in terms of the
perceived benefits that customers gain for a given product/service when
compared with the actual cost incurred during purchase of such goods (Johnson and Scholes, 1999). The importance of aligning
customers’ needs in the SCM network has been emphasized by customer-oriented
literatures (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Jeong and Hong,
2007) and such literatures highlight the need to align demand creation
process with demand fulfillment process of SCM in order to achieve high level
of customer responsiveness (Godsell et al., 2006).
While the importance of establishing relationship between customers and
shareholders alignment are conflicting in terms of how they aid to reinforce
each other, supply chain literatures have clearly explained that such
understanding is necessary, as well as illustrated how it can be made possible.
On
that ground, it becomes clearly that it is necessary to understand how combined
distribution network can be created in the SCM system in by aligning the needs
of customers with shareholders demands. Such alignment will be made possible
only if the enhancers and inhibitors of such alignment are understood, which is
what this paper aims to do.
1.2.
Statement of research problem
While
it is generally agreed that there is a need for supply chain between
shareholders and customers value, researches and practice of SCM are lacking in
terms of knowledge of how such alignment can be achieved and the implication it
will have on performance (Baier et al., 2008). Tamas (2000) carried a survey and discovered that only
13% of the 80 supply chain executives that were questioned did believe that
their companies’ supply chai system is well integrated with their business
units and strategies. In essence, the ability of a company to establish
seamless or boundary-less connections in a supply chain (Christopher et al., 2004) has been described as very
difficult to achieve.
Many
of the supply chain experts have come to agree that internal alignment is still
an unsolved issue in the context of building external alliance with other
companies in the supply chain network. In reality, if the silos between
sales/marketing and /operations/supply in the supply chain are to be broken, it
can easily be perceived that they will yield pervasive problem (Beth et al., 2003; Pagell, 2004; van Hoek and Mitchell, 2006).
Thus, this is a strong suggestion that it is important to identify and
understanding factors that enable or inhibit supply chain alignment.
Additionally,
a review of relevant literatures in line with the research topic shows that
there are limited studies undertaken to understand how combined distribution
networks can be adopted by competing brands and aligned to ensure that improve
performance through effective distribution networks. As such, this opens a
research gap which this present study aims to fill with reference to SCM in the
Asian Pacific region.
1.3.
Purpose of research
Alignment
and fit have been identified as an antecedent of a firm’s performance in
numerous business and management disciplines, which also include strategy
literature (Powell, 1992; Venkatraman, 1989), literatures
on organization (Nadler and Tushman, 1988; Kathuria et
al., 2007), literatures on information system (Brown
and Magill, 1994; Luftman and Brier, 1999) and manufacturing strategy
literature (Skinner, 1969; Wheelwright, 1984; McAdam
and Brown, 2001). However, literatures that presently exit in the area
of supply chain are fragmented and they are mostly theoretical in nature.
Considering the present emergence and multi-disciplined nature of such
literature, it becomes evident that the developing both theory and practice in
combined distribution networks of competing firms while yield benefits from a
theoretical framework that has possess high level of order on a disorderly
mélange (Starbuck, 2006).
In
order to achieve such exploitation of both literatures and practices in
combined distribution networks, an understanding of SCM as an integral aspect
of the distribution process is needed and this is the main purpose of this
research. This implies that this research aims to understand how combine
distribution networks can be adopted by competing firms in a mutually
beneficial approach and by so doing, highlight factors that “enables” or
“inhibits” such process with reference to the Asian Pacific supply chain.
1.4.
Research objectives
In
line with the identified problems in the context of this research as well as
the main purpose of the research, the following objectives represents overall
aim of this research.
1. To
understand what combined distribution network is all about.
2. To
present an analysis of Asian Pacific supply chain systems.
3. To
highlight factors that enables or inhibits the adoption of combined
distribution networks by competitors in the Asian pacific region as well as how
such factors can be enhanced or mitigated.
1.5.Research
questions
The
research question lays down foundation of how the whole research process will
be conducted in terms of what is to be done, how it will be done, and why it
will be done. The research questions in this context are:
1. What
is combined distribution network all about?
2. How
is the supply chain process undertaken in the Asian Pacific region?
3. What
are the enablers and inhibitors of combined distribution network amongst
competitors in the Asian pacific region and how can these factors be enhanced
or mitigated?
1.6.
Significance of research
In
management literatures, the idea of competitors working together are hardly
conceived. This is because they exist for a common goal of production, sales,
and profitability and since they compete in the same market with the same
products, partnership will have detrimental effect on one of them. As such, this
research is significant for a number of research.
1. It
will help to demonstrate that irrespective of their common goals and mission in
business, competitors can partner together for increased and mutually
beneficial growth.
2. It
will also help to expand existing theories in the area of SCM and distribution
networks.
3. It
will be of good help to managers and management in the sense that it will
provide easy guide to designing and managing effective combined distribution
networks.
1.7.
Organization of study
Figure 1.1:
organization of study
The
figure above shows how the whole research process will be organized and the
first chapter is the introduction which highlights what will be done and the
purpose of doing such. The second chapter presents analysis of relevant
literatures in the areas of the research topic. The third chapter is a
methodology of how the primary research will be conducted, and this is followed
by an analysis of findings from the primary research with conclusion coming in
as the final chapter.
Chapter two
Literature review
2.1. Introduction
In
this section, the focus will be to present a review of relevant literatures in
line with the research topic. In order to overcome the perceived weakness of
narrative review (Tranfield, et al., 2003), this
literature review will be based on systematic or evidence-informed approaches
by adopting five-step approached as outlined by Denyer
and Tranfield (2009). This five-step approach include: question
formulation, locating studies, study selection and evaluation, analysis and synthesis,
and finally reporting and using the results.
2.2. Conceptual framework
Figure 2.1: conceptual
framework
The
above figure 2.1 demonstrates the conceptualized framework for the literature
review, which shows that in order to understand enablers and inhibitors of
combined distribution networks among competitors in the Asian pacific region,
the research will present an overview of SCM in Asian pacific review, an
analysis of the inhibitors and enables, a review of approaches that are adopted
in order to make these factors effective, and discussion of outcomes obtained
from making use of such factors.
2.3. The theory of supply chain
management
Obviously
majority of the literatures that are increasingly focused on supply strategy,
operations strategy and supply chain management seem to be more focused on
making meaning out of these concepts. In most cases, these comprises of
assertions to what it is essentially all about. Presently, the prospects of SCM
are portrayed to be a mixture of three elements as: description, prescription,
and the identification of alleged trends.
2.3.1. Description
Debates
on the description of SCM are related to scope and focus. Some of the
academicians in this have made open declaration that they make use of the terms
“supply chain management” and “purchase” in a synonymous way (Stuart, 1997). From a pragmatic view, much can be used
to commend this, but the identification with one function and process does seem
to drop off some of the ideas about supply chain or distribution network
management. In any case, others does have a more expanded notion in mind. For
instance, lean approach to supply chain management does focus more on the
purchase activities of vehicle assemblers and the supply activities of the
component manufactures (Lamming, 1996, p. 183).
In any case, Lamming have argued for the merits of the broader concept that
supply chain is presently receiving.
Some specialist in purchase does view SCM as the development of
relationships between suppliers (Giunipero and Brand,
1996), but others say that just having a good supplier management is not
sufficient, instead a wider, more integrated, all-encompassing view that covers
all processes from the sourcing down to transportation and final merchandizing
to consumers (Davis, 1993). In the ongoing
battle to define and describe SCM, part of the agenda is also an attempt to
re-position the functions of SCM and quasi-professions like logistics and
operations management. While there are mixed meaning between definitions of
SCM, this research defined SCM as the process of building profitable
relationship between suppliers and customers (Tranfield
and Starkey, 1998; Croom and Romano, 2000; Storey et al., 2005) in order
to ensure sustainability in meeting consumers’ demands.
2.3.2. Prescription
When
the shift from description to prescription is relatively convert, a number of
problems will arise. The beneficial attributes are usually attached to a number
of features. Take for instance, one of the definitions does suggest that:
supply chains or networks that are electronically connected can be viewed as
virtually only when it is capable of facilitating efficient and effective flow
of physical goods and information in a way that is very seamless (Chandrashekar and Schary, 1999, p. 27). A good example
will be the prescription for mass customization and agility (Pine, 1993; Goldman et al., 1995; Meier and Humphreys, 1998)
as practices by companies such as DELL. Prescription can be very useful but
rigorous testing are needed in order for the discipline to advance – with such
testing focusing on serious exploration of the causes of failure.
2.3.3. Identification of trends
Literatures
on supply chain management does tend to move imperceptibly in terms of
established relationship between description, prescription, and identification
of trends. Some of the major trends that have been identified include:
“corporation” rather than competition, a shit from “antagonistic” view to a
more collaborative view (Matthyssens and Van den Bulte,
1994; Carr, 1999), increased adoption of tools for evaluating suppliers (Carr, 1999), a trend in the line of supplier
management, etc. Although these alleged trends seem to be similar, there are
differences in their assessments. This has led to some authors suggesting for
an irresistible trend while other have noted that the take up is relatively
limited up to this moment (Skjoett-Larsen, 1999;
Kemppainen and Vepsalainen, 2003).
Other
trends of SCM are concerned with the “impacts” of SCM on different functions
such as purchasing (Andersen and Rask, 2003; Wisner and
Tan, 2000), the influence of suppliers that are needed when retailer
wants to replenish stocks based on actual sales (Abernathy
et al. 2000), and the rise in use of tools such as “quick response”
(QR), and “efficient consumer response” (ECR). Another trends that is mostly
adopted by the auto-industry is the differentiation strategy of SCM (Senter and Flynn, 1999).
Basically,
the above analysis shows that SCM inception has continued to grow with a
subsequent increase in adoption. However, this growth is of high negative
influence on description because different segments of the business section
make use of different definitions (mostly based on perception) when it comes to
creating meaning of what SCM is. Additionally, increased adoption also means
that SCM trends continue to grow, which broadens the extent to which SCM can be
specifically defined or adopted.
2.4. Combined distribution network
between competitors
The
idea of lean production has become the order of modern supply chain management,
and it is based on the idea of doing more with less resources (Chen and Paulraj, 2004; Giannakis and Croom, 2004; Mills et
al., 2004). By doing more with less resources, brands are encouraged to
adopt third-party distribution networks instead of establishing a new (which is
more expensive than third-party services) distribution networks. In the view of
that, it becomes clear that competing brands can end up making use of the same
distribution network while also maintaining competitiveness in the same market.
In essence, combine distribution between competitors entails a situation in
which the distributors make use of the same distribution network in the course
of undertaking their different corporate objectives.
2.5. Enablers and inhibitors of
combined distribution network between competing brands
Literatures
on SCM have made identification of six main factors that can enable or inhibit
the potential of businesses to adopt combined distribution networks while
competing in the same market and these factors are as discussed below.
2.5.1. Organizational structure
(OS)
Organization
literatures have provided supports that organization literatures in terms how
they are formed, centralized, and ranked need to be aligned with the strategy
and business environment of companies adopting such structure (Thompson, 1976; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1976). However,
these features are generic and they are not suitable for when it comes to
describing the process-oriented organization structure which are necessary for
establishing alignment across different functions of an organization (Lambert et al., 2005). There are five characteristics
of organizational structure as: Control spans (Aldrich
and Herker, 1977; Ettlie and Stoll, 1990; Sussman and Dean, 1992; Clark et al.,
2001; Monczka et al., 2009) Business process owner (Davenport, 1993; Hammer and Champy, 1993; George et al.,
1994; Earl, 2002; Karapetrovic and Willborn, 2002; Lewis and Slack, 2003)
Cross-functional knowledge flow (Fawcett and Magnan,
2002; Eng, 2006; Esper et al. 2010) Process-oriented organization (Kalchschmidt et al., 2003; Lambert et al., 2005), and Inter-departmental
activities (Slater and Narver, 1994; Ellinger, 2000;
Danese and Romano, 2004; Esper et al. 2010).
In
order to ensure effective alignment of distribution functions between
competitors, organizational structure needs to be designed in such a way that
it can accommodate the evolution of interdependence between existing and future
businesses (Burgelman and Doz, 2001). In order
to break existing barriers between functional departments, it is necessary that
businesses assign a business process owner with overall responsibility and
accountability to deliver quality customers values through distribution
networks. Process owners perform the unction of integrating defined roles in
order to stimulate the operational units into pursuing complex strategic
integration process (Burgelman and Doz, 2001).
Recognitions
have also been established on the importance of process owners with the right
authority to influence different functions in operations management, business
re-engineering and quality management, and literatures on information system (Davenport, 1993; Earl, 2002; Karapetrovic and Willborn, 2002;
Hammer and Champy, 1993; Lewis and Slack, 2003). Additionally, it is
important to note that it is impossible to achieve an influence on other
functions without providing process owners with a broadened span of control (Aldrich and Herker, 1977; Ettlie and Stoll, 1990; Sussman
and Dean, 1992) and supply chain (Clark et al.,
2001; Monczka et al., 2009). Also, it is important to improve
cross-functional knowledge in order to create a mutual understanding and a
business process that is capable of delivering value to customers (Eng, 2006; Fawcett and Magnan, 2002). Cross functional
knowledge will help to improve the focus of the firm in order to enable
inter-departmental activities (Danese and Romano, 2004;
Ellinger, 2000; Esper et al., 2010). Finally, a process organizational
structure is needed in order to create consistency between the structures and employ
solutions that are capable of meeting customers’ needs (Kalchschmidt et al., 2003).
From
the above analysis, it is clear that the structure of organization can either
enable or inhibit the potential (and extent) of that organization to adopt
combine distribution. This is because when an organization is structured to
allow for open partnership between existing and new firms, such structure will
enable combined distribution network but a organizational structure that is not
open to partnership with other firms will inhibit the potential to adopt
combined distribution network with other firms (be it a competitor or not).
Thus, it is hypothesized that:
HP1:
An organizational structure that is open
to collaboration will enable combined distribution networks in the Asian
Pacific region, while an organizational structure that is not open to
collaboration will inhibit combined destruction networks between competing
brands in the same region.
2.5.2. Internal relational behavior
(IR)
Internal
relational behavior means activities performed in an organization and the
manner at which these activities are performed in order to facilitate the
process of building and maintaining quality customer relationship. It maintains
similarities with the concept of intra-organizational connections which is used
to reference the extent of formal and informal existing between employees from
different departments (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993).
The characteristics of international organizational relations include: Cross-functional
team (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Pagell, 2004; Yasin
et al., 2005; Fassoula, 2006) Mutual understanding (Kahn and Mentzer, 1996; O’Leary-Kelly and Flores, 2002)
Joint problem solving (Dean, 1992; Khan, 1996;
Ellinger, 2000) Joint planning (Anderson and
Narus, 1990; Chen and Paulraj., 2004).
There
are wide recognitions that cross-functional teams are very important (Fassoula, 2006). Cross-functional teams have been
found to enable strategic alignment of different accounts in a system (Yasin et al., 2005). Cross-departmental reward systems
can be used in order enhance teamwork in cross-functional teams (Yasin et al., 2005). In most cases, cross-functional
activities are used to improve mutual understanding. However, it has been found
that the existence of different goals within an organization does inhibit
collaboration (Sabath and Whipple, 2004). Thus,
in order to align the internal relational behavior, it is important to agree on
outcomes that are mutually accepted (Pagell, 2004; O’Leary-Kelly
and Flores, 2002). Additionally, research have found that the absence of
common terminology for focus on operations and customers oriented activities
will create misunderstanding and inhibit internal collaboration n (Sabath and Whipple, 2004). Highlights have been made
in numerous literatures (Sussman and Dean, 1992)
on the importance of combined problem-solving (Ellinger,
2000) and planning (Chen and Paulraj, 2004;
Anderson and Narus, 1990) across departments and organizations.
From
the above analysis internal relation behavior between organizations can
influence combined distribution networks between competing brands. For
instance, if the organizational system maintain open and friendly relationship
within its internal systems, they can be able to share their distribution
network with other companies, but the lack of such open relation means that
they will be reluctant when it comes to sharing information with other
companies.
HP2:
When employees of a company are open to
sharing information with employees from other companies, combined distribution
network will be enabled but the reverse will mean that combined distribution
networks will be inhibited in the Asian Pacific region.
2.5.3. Customer relational behavior
(CR)
Relational
behavior of customers is used to describe customers’ interaction which are
built to facilitate the process of building and maintaining quality customer
relationships. This philosophy is based on boundary spanning literature. The
boundary spanning capability has the power to allow organizational processes
that focuses on providing high value to external or internal customers (Day, 1994; Tracey et al., 2005). Boundary spanning
activities like sensing of markets, linking customers. Firms that focus
emphasis on spanning of boundary does assign roles such as liaison, task force,
integrating managers and standing committee (Ettlie and
Stoll, 1990; Danese and Romano, 2004; Godsell et al., 2005; George et al., 1994).
Just
like the other variables discussed above, customers’ relationship features five
characteristics as: Goal sharing (Barratt and Oliviera,
2001; Sabath and Wipple, 2004), Cost sharing (Campbell,
1998; Cachon and Lariviere, 2005; Reichhart and Holweg, 2007; Sha et al.2008;
Soosay et al. 2008), Profit sharing (Fawcett and
Cooper, 2001; Simatupang and Sridharan, 2004), Joint problem solving (Ellinger, 2000; Rich and Hines, 1997), Joint planning (Jones
and Riley, 1985; Anderson and Narus, 1990; Auramo et al., 2004; Simatupang and
Sridharan, 2004; Reichhart and Holweg, 2007; Soosay et a. 2008).
Literatures
have also established that corporations between customers and supply chain
members (Campbell, 1998) in the combined
planning process allows for synchronization of decisions and distribution is
one of such decisions (Simatupang and Sridharan, 2004; Reichhart
and Holweg, 2007; Soosay et al, 2008), and it leads to combine value
analysis (Hartley, 2000) and enhance alignment
between companies in the process. Thus, it can be seen that once customers’
needs are aligned in the same market, more competitors will be after them in
order to take advantage of economies of scale from large-scale production and
this will enable adoption of combined distribution networks between competing
brands.
HP3:
combined distribution network will be
enabled in the Asian Pacific region is customers share common goal, taste, and
choice when segmented as companies will seek to take advantage of economics of
scales to increase profitability; but combined distribution network will be
inhibited in the same region if customers’ choices are different when
segmented.
2.5.4. Top management support (TS)
Commitment
form the management has been described as necessary for achieving breakthrough
in collaboration (Akkermans et al., 1999; Lummus and
Vokurka, 1998) and customer responsiveness (Storey
et al., 2005). Fawcett et al. (2006) made
known that the support of top management, broad-based functional support,
support from the government, and channel support are necessary in order to
attain the highest level of success in supply chain. Additionally, it is also
important that the management fully support the internal communication
department by being accessible, serving as role models for communication, and
encouraging other mangers in the company to be open to communication in order
to align the business strategy with supply chain strategy in the business
processes (Powers, 1996). Collaboration in the
business sense involves two-way communication process between management of the
collaborating firms. Thus, it is essential that management should from the
collaborating firms should listen to each other (Heskett
et al., 1994) and this will likely enable change in term of combining
distribution networks with competing brands (Carrilat
et al., 2004). As such, top management does influence combined
distribution network between competing brands in the sense that when the
management of both brands are open to such idea, combined distribution will be
enabled, but if they are not open to such ideas, combined distribution will be
inhibited.
HP4:
the management of competing brands can
enable combined distribution network in the Asian Pacific region if they decide
to partner with their competitors, but decision not to partner with competitors
will inhibit potential of establishing combined distribution networks between
competing brands in the same region.
2.5.5. Information sharing (IS)
Information
sharing has been described as very important enabler for supply chain
management (Frohlich and Westbrook, 2001; Tarn et al.,
2002; Soosay et al., 2008). This is because presence of transparency and
visibility in the supply chain system will enable brands to work together, but
the lack of such is a big obstacle when it
comes to internal and external alignment (Christopher
and Gattorna, 2005) and collaborative planning (Barratt,
2003; Holweg, 2005). Information sharing helps to improve visibility (Lethonen et al., 2005) and as such improve inventory
allocation (Lee et al., 1997), knowledge
transfer and production scheduling in the process (Bagchi
and Skjoett-Larsen, 2003; Barratt and Oliveira, 2001; Simatupang and Sridharan,
2004). Thus, it can be stated that when sufficient, timely, and accurate
information are shared between competing brands (Bourland
et al., 1996; Lee and Whang, 1998; Huang et al., 2003; Li and Lin, 2006;
Lehtonen et al., 2005; Kannan and Tan, 2010), combined distribution
network between these brands can be enabled, but the lack of such will inhibit
combined distribution networks because these brands will be skeptical about
sharing information with their competing brands.
HP5:
combined distribution network will be
enabled between competing brand is they are willing to share information about
their distribution networks, but the lack of information sharing between
competing brands will inhibit the potential of establishing combined
distribution network .
2.5.6. Business performance
management system (PM)
There
are indications from literatures that the performance measurement system of a
given organization enable or inhibit the extent of such organization’s
alignment with its stakeholders. Melnyk et al. (2004)
made the suggestion that is the ultimate tool for sustaining collaboration and
coordination. Performance management can enable alignment by motivating
partners into adopting common goals that are mutually beneficial (Waggoner et al., 1999; Gunasekaran et al., 2001; Holmberg,
2000; Chan et al., 2003; Morgan, 2004). It also helps business decision
makers with an indication of how well a company’ supply chain has performed in
terms of where they currently stand in the market and where they need to be.
Thus, one will expect that highly performing companies will be less keen to
combined distribution networks as they want to retain their markets and ensure
sustainability in performance, while underperforming brands will be more open
to combined distribution network as they seek to penetrate more markets through
an effective distribution network (Neely, 2002; O’Mara
et al., 1998; Toni and Tonchia, 1996; Maskell, 1991).
HP6:
High performing business are less willing
to combine their distribution networks with other company because they want to
maintain sustainability and this inhibits combined distribution networks
between competing brands but low performing brands are more open to combining
distribution networks because they want to increase their performance, which
enables adoption of combined distribution networks between competing brands in
the Asian Pacific region.
2.6 Summary of findings
Irrespective
of whether or not the business is in the Asian Pacific region, a number of
factors have been found to either enable or inhibit (depending on the nature of
such factors and the purpose it is designed to serve) combined distribution
networks between competing brands and these factors are: Organizational
structure (OS), Internal relational behavior (IR), Customer relational behavior
(CR), Top management support (TS), Information sharing (IS), and Business
performance management system (PM).
Chapter three
Research methodology
1.1.
Introduction
As
success has been achieved in the first two chapter with variables already
identified and defined in the chapter two, it is now time to move on with other
parts of the research where the research methodology represents the next stage
of this research. In this section, the focus will be to identified the
independent and dependent variables, determine how to measure data gathered in
terms of the level of influence that the independent variable has on the
dependent variables. Additionally, this section will also provide approaches
that will be used for data gathering and analysis, as well as the limitations of
the research methodology.
1.2.
Variables to be measures
Figure
3.1: variables that will be measured in this research
From
the figure 3 above, it can be seed that the independent variables are Organizational
structure (OS), Internal relational behavior (IR), Customer relational behavior
(CR), Top management support (TS), Information sharing (IS), and Business
performance management system (PM) and their effect on combined distribution
(enabling or inhibiting potential) network amongst competing firms in the Asian
Pacific region will be measured in the primary research.
1.1.
Research design
Considering
that this research revolves around all firms in the Asian pacific region,
quantitative research approach is choose because it is well aligned for such
case. In the past, a number or related researches (such
as Day, 1994; Auramo et al., 2004; Tracey et al., 2005) developed to
explore effective SCM in terms of distribution networks of competing firms have
also adopted quantitative research. Unlike qualitative research, quantitative
research has a number of benefits such as: access to large data gathering and
analysis, faster and more convenient, easy to compress gathered data, easy to
make meaning from gathered data, respondents can easily be traced in terms of
their response pattern, and demographic variables are made easily visible.
Thus, this approach is right because there are numerous firms in the Asian
pacific region and it is important to give all firms equal right to participate
in the research as such will influence the quality of the whole research
positively.
1.2..
Data gathering
Still
in consideration of the vast population for this research, the data was
gathered via online survey because it allowed for respondents to participate at
any given point in time from any region in Asian pacific during the course of
the study. Data used in this research where gathered via a questionnaire rated
with 5-points likert’s scale in which respondents had to choose between “1”
totally disagreeing with a statement and “5” totally agreeing with a statement
and “3” as a neutral stand. The questionnaire was divided into two sections
with the first section designed to gather demographics data of the respondents,
while the second sections tests loaded variables in the research. The
questionnaire was hosted on www.freeonlinsurvey.com
where Facebook and Google advert was used to direct respondents to the site. A
total of 214 responses where gathered but only 200 were analyzed in this
research because the outstanding 14 where deemed unfit due to incomplete data. Once
the data were gathered, they were transferred directly from the collecting
database into the SPSS system for analysis. The reason for direct transfer is
to eliminate any chance of manipulation or spelling error due to writing the
data into the system. This helped improve overall quality of the research. The
whole data collection and analysis took 2 months and 4 days to be completed.
Besides
the primary data that were gathered via onlne survey, other primary data were
sourced from existing case studies of firms that are presently partnering
between each other in the ASEAN region in order to understand the extent at
which discussions entered in this research are applicable in the real-life
setting. In any case, the analysis conducted in case studies focused primarily
on the factors that enable or inhibit combined distribution networks between
competing firms in the region as this is the main purpose of this research.
1.3.Potential
issues and solutions in data gathering
Since
this is an online survey, it is expected that a number of issues will arise in
the course of the research and some of those as identified as well as solutions
used to solve them are discuss below.
1.3.1. Region specific research:
since this research is conducted for firms in the Asian pacific region, it is
important to ensure that all respondents in the research come from this region
or the overall quality of the finding might be affected negatively. This was
solved by coding in an IP blocker to remove access to the survey for users
coming from outside the Asian pacific region.
1.3.2. Elimination of incomplete research:
all incomplete questionnaire were excluded from the main reason and this is to
reduce the negative impact they can have on overall research findings. Thus,
all data analyzed in the course of this research are deemed to be of high value
and reliability and will have positive influence on the quality of the whole
research.
Chapter 4
Results and analysis
Introduction
Following
success with the data gathering phase, this section of the research will
present an analysis of findings gained from the whole research process. Such
analysis will include test of reliability and validity, demographic variable
analysis, and research questionnaire analysis in order to compute overall proof
and validity of tested research hypothesis. Prior to conducting any analysis,
the reliability of gathered data will be tested with Crombach’s alpha.
Reliability test
In
any given research, the test of reliability if very important because it helps
to understand the extent at which gathered data can be trusted. Basically, if
the gathered data can be trusted, then the findings from the data can be
trusted and vice versa. Lee Crombach invented the Alpha test of reliability as
a tool used to measure the reliability of data in 1951. Since the invention, it
has been used and is currently adopted as the major tool for measuring data
reliability in modern researches. As such, this research will be no difference
as it will adopt the same tool.
Table
4.1: Case Processing Summary
|
|||
N
|
%
|
||
Cases
|
Valid
|
200
|
100.0
|
Excludeda
|
0
|
.0
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
|
a. Listwise
deletion based on all variables in the procedure.
|
|||
Table
4.2: Reliability Statistics
|
|
Cronbach's
Alphaa
|
N of
Items
|
.765
|
17
|
The
table 4.1 presents a case summary of all the data gathered and analyzed in this
research. It is important to note that all entered data were successfully
accounted for in the research process and this makes the overall research more
significant. In essence, the fact that no data went missing in the coding
process mean that strong hands were employed in the research process.
Additionally, the crombach’s alpha not only meets but also exceeds the set
standards because the obtained value is 0.765 or 76.5% level of accuracy. Thus,
data gathered and used in this research are proven to be reliable and valid. In
essence, findings from the research can be trusted.
Demographic analysis
The
above reliability test has shown that gathered data in this research are
reliable and can be used to compute further findings. In that case, this
analysis section will proceed with analyzing the demographic variables gathered
in the course of the research.
Table 4.3: Which country are you from?
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
||
Valid
|
Brunei Darussalam
|
6
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
Cambodia
|
8
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
7.0
|
|
Indonesia
|
30
|
15.0
|
15.0
|
23.0
|
|
Lao PDR
|
10
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
28.0
|
|
Malaysia
|
27
|
13.5
|
13.5
|
41.5
|
|
Myanmar
|
12
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
47.5
|
|
Philippines
|
33
|
16.5
|
16.5
|
64.0
|
|
Singapore
|
36
|
18.0
|
18.0
|
82.0
|
|
Thailand
|
20
|
10.0
|
10.0
|
92.0
|
|
Vietnam
|
20
|
10.0
|
8.0
|
100
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The
first demographic analysis is to understand what country the respondents are
from. Although Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia make up the largest top
three countries represented with Brunei, Cambodia and Laos coming in the bottom
three, it is important to note that all ASEAN countries are represented in this
research. The significance of such understanding is that it makes it the
research further reliable because the research is based on the ASEAN region and
having representatives from all countries in the region is very significant.
Figure 4.1: Employment
status
The above figure 4.1 shows that majority of the
respondents are presently employed and this is very significant in this
research because employment level denotes higher chances of respondents being
able to deal with other competing firms across the region of study. Even at
that, unemployment doesn’t mean that respondents can’t contribute in this
research because presently unemployed respondents might have been previously
employed and had the chance of dealing with foreign competing firms. Thus, the
finding in this case can be described as positive because respondents are well
equipped with necessary resources needed to address the questions in this
research positively.
Figure 4.2: Gender of
Respondents
In this research, gender is not expected to have any
significant influence on the research outcome. However, this could be different
when viewed from the cultural sense of ASEAN communities, as they are all high
in masculinity. Thus, a high volume of male respondents as recorded in this
research is significant because males are more likely to head strong management
positions and be in the top ranks of decision making process. Thus, they are
likely to influence decisions on distribution channel partnership between
competing firms in the region being studied.
Figure 4.3: Age of
respondents
Age is another significant factor because the older a
person is, the higher the person’s level of working experience. The above
figure shows that majority of the respondents are aged between 20-40 years,
followed by those aged below 20 years and finally those aged above 40 years.
This age bracket also reflects the common age bracket in the internet world. In
any case, all age groups demonstrate some level of cognitive reasoning and
expressions, further making them relevant in this study.
Figure 4.4: currently
working with competitors in any form?
The interesting discovery from the above analysis is
that majority of the respondents are currently working with competitors in one
way or the other. As such, they are well positioned to understand factors that
influences or mitigates combined distribution networks between competing
brands.
In essence, all the demographic variables analysed in
this section will have positive impacts on the overall research outcome. This
is because the respondents fall well within the category of people and
situation that will provide positive impact on the research outcome. As such,
further direct analysis will be presented in the presiding sections below.
Research variables analysis
The
previous sections focused on the demographic variables, and this section will
focus on analyzing the variables loaded in the questionnaire as a background
process of proving stated research hypothesis.
Table 4.4: The structure of an
organization determines how the company functions in terms of what is to be
done and how it is done.
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
||
Valid
|
totally disagree
|
14
|
7.0
|
7.0
|
7.0
|
Disagree
|
10
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
12.0
|
|
Neutral
|
8
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
16.0
|
|
Agree
|
40
|
20.0
|
20.0
|
36.0
|
|
totally agree
|
128
|
58.0
|
58.0
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
In the past, studies have explored an
understanding of what organizational structure is all about, and they all have
a common consensus that organizational structure is all about the way things
are done within a given system (Davenport,
1993; Hammer and Champy, 1993; George et al., 1994; Earl, 2002; Karapetrovic
and Willborn, 2002; Lewis and Slack, 2003). As such, it is expected that
it can have an influence on the potential of competing brands to partner
together. Thus, it was loaded into this research and the above analysis shows
that 84% of the respondents are of the view that the structure of an influence
on how the company functions in terms of what is done and how it is done. As
such, this research is of the view that the structure of an organization can
influence or mitigate the potential of companies to adopt combined distribution
network with competitors.
Table 4.5: Open organizational
structure will enable combined distribution networks between competitors,
but a bureaucratic organizational system will
inhibit such practice.
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
||
Valid
|
totally disagree
|
18
|
9.0
|
9.0
|
9.0
|
Disagree
|
12
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
15.0
|
|
Neutral
|
12
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
21.0
|
|
Agree
|
64
|
32.0
|
32.0
|
53.0
|
|
totally agree
|
94
|
47.0
|
47.0
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
In
terms of understanding how organizational structure enables combined
distribution network between competing firms, the second question was geared
towards pinpointing different forms of organization in terms of the level of
influence that they have on such organizations. The above analysis shows that
79% of the respondents are of the view that an open form of organizational
structure has the potential of enabling combined distribution networks between
competing brands while a more bureaucratic form of organizational structure
will likely inhibit the chances of such to occur. As such, it is once again
demonstrated that organizational structure does have an influence on the
potential of competing brands to engage in combined distribution networks.
Just
like organizational structure, internal relations in the system also determines
how things are done. Internal organizational relations entails the coordination
of activities in the organization in a streamlined manner in order to ensure
that all departments are co-functional with a common objective of meeting
customers’ needs (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). As
such, is the marketing department is working closely with the administrative
department, they will share information about customers’ needs and how to meet
such needs as well as ensure that the shared information become
cross-functional. Similar with that, the internal relational behavior will also
determine the extent at which the firm will be willing to collaborate with
competing brands because the more the whole system agrees to such ideology, the
higher the chances of competing brands having combined distribution networks
with other brands. As such, this concept was loaded into the primary research.
Table 4.6: Internal organizational
relations such as cross-functionality and harmony between departments will
enhance adoption of combined distribution networks between competing brands.
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
||
Valid
|
totally disagree
|
10
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
disagree
|
8
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
9.0
|
|
neutral
|
8
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
13.0
|
|
agree
|
76
|
38.0
|
38.0
|
51.0
|
|
totally agree
|
98
|
49.0
|
49.0
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
Just
like other variables studied in this research, 87% of the respondents are of
the view that internal organizational behavior influences collaborative
decisions of competing brands to adopt combined distribution networks. In
essence, their consensus is that when a firm has a well-integrated system, it
is better positioned to understand the importance of collaborating with
competing brands to meet customers’ needs and this will eventually give way to
combined distribution networks between competing brands.
Another
variable that was discussed in the review of literatures and also loaded into
the primary research as an influential variable is “consumers’ relational
behavior. Researches (Ettlie and Stoll, 1990; Danese
and Romano, 2004; Godsell et al., 2005; George et al., 1994) made known
that consumers’ relationship behavior deals with the extent that they are
willing to accept brands irrespective of the distribution network used.
Consumers have needs and their overall objectives is that such needs should be
meet. As such, companies have the primary objective of making sure that these
needs are meet. The outcome is that consumers will generally be loyal to brands
that meet such needs more effectively and efficiently with the lowest possible
cost. As such, consumers’ behavior in term so demand and complaints does have
an influence on combined distribution networks established between competing
brands.
Table 4.7: Since the objective of
brands is to meet consumers’ needs, competing brands are likely to adopt
combined distribution network in order to meet such objectives.
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
||
Valid
|
totally disagree
|
16
|
8.0
|
8.0
|
8.0
|
disagree
|
18
|
9.0
|
9.0
|
17.0
|
|
neutral
|
14
|
7.0
|
7.0
|
24.0
|
|
agree
|
50
|
25.0
|
25.0
|
49.0
|
|
totally agree
|
102
|
51.0
|
51.0
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The
above analysis shows that majority (76%) of the respondents agree that in order
to meet the needs of consumers, competing brands are likely to adopt combined
distribution networks in order to meet consumers’ needs and also increase their
overall performance in the process. As such, it is clear that combined
distribution networks is enabled by consumers’ relational behavior in the sense
that when demand for competing brands increase in areas where such brands
maintain low presence, there is always the possibility of such brands to
combine with competing brands in order to meet consumers’ needs ad increase
their overall market share.
Table 4.8: Consumers don’t mind whether
or not the distribution network is combined as they are focused on having
their needs meet their manufacturers.
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
||
Valid
|
totally disagree
|
2
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
disagree
|
12
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
7.0
|
|
agree
|
58
|
29.0
|
29.0
|
36.0
|
|
totally agree
|
128
|
64.0
|
64.0
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
The
above table 4.7 raised issues of stereotyping in the market section and this
resulted in the need to understand consumers’ likely action when their
manufacturers start to combine with competing brands in the course of meeting
their objectives. 98% of the respondents agree that it is not about how
consumers’ needs are meet but the fact that such needs have been meet by
manufacturers that actually matters. In essence, respondents are of the view
that they don’t mind if their brand combine with competing brands to deliver
their goods down to them, instead their focus is in ensuring that such goods
are delivered. Thus, it can be stated at this stage that consumers’ relational
behavior does enable combined distribution network between competing firms
because consumers are always focused on meeting their needs and don’t look much
into how their manufacturers help them to meet such needs.
The
support of top management has been described as pivotal to the success of
combined distribution networks between competing firms (Akkermans et al., 1999; Lummus and Vokurka, 1998). This is because
by providing the team with necessary advantage in terms of what to know and how
to go about their transactional process will give the team needed edge in
understanding competitors and effectively engaging in combined distribution
networks with such competitors.
Table 4.9: The support of top
management is necessary in combined distribution networks because it
provides the team with necessary guidelines and support for effective and
efficient collaboration that will bring about positive outcomes.
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
||
Valid
|
totally disagree
|
14
|
7.0
|
7.0
|
7.0
|
disagree
|
10
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
12.0
|
|
neutral
|
8
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
16.0
|
|
agree
|
52
|
26.0
|
26.0
|
42.0
|
|
totally agree
|
116
|
58.0
|
58.0
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
When
the top management says go, the whole team will go. In masculine society such
as the ASEAN region that is being studied, the whole team will go without much
questioning. This is very important in combined distribution networks because
it will reduce doubts from the side of the team as to how effective such
approach is and the extent at which it will help to bring about success in
their business process. As such, 84% of the respondents agree that such is the
case in the sense that top management support is necessary to ensure effective
and efficient collaboration between competing firms in terms of enabling
combined distribution network between these brands.
Information
sharing systems (Bagchi and Skjoett-Larsen, 2003;
Barratt and Oliveira, 2001; Simatupang and Sridharan, 2004) and business
performance management (Neely, 2002; O’Mara et al.,
1998; Toni and Tonchia, 1996; Maskell, 1991) are the two additional
variables that where studied in this research. Findings are not different from
that of other variables above, and the findings are as illustrated below.
Table 4.10: The higher the level of
information shared within an organization, the higher the potential for
competing brands to adopt combined distribution network with such
organization.
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
||
Valid
|
totally disagree
|
18
|
9.0
|
9.0
|
9.0
|
disagree
|
12
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
15.0
|
|
neutral
|
12
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
21.0
|
|
agree
|
64
|
32.0
|
32.0
|
53.0
|
|
totally agree
|
94
|
47.0
|
47.0
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
There
is no doubt to the fact that information sharing is integral in the
distribution network. This is because companies get to understand consumers’
needs through adequate and available information, while also ensure effective
demand and supply management through the same level of information stream. On
that ground, it becomes obvious that influence of information system on
combined distribution network should be studied as performed in this research.
79% of the total respondents are of the view that high volume of information
sharing between competing firms will enable combined distribution networks
because these companies will develop trust towards each other while maintaining
a common objective of increased profitability and productivity.
The
below analysis is based on understanding what respondents think about the
influence of business management and performance on combined distribution
network between competing firms. From the below table 4.11, it can be seen that
83% of the respondents agree that businesses are likely to adapt combined
distribution network with competing brands in order to sustain or improve their
financial and production performance. For instance, when companies are
underperforming as a result of poor distribution network, such companies can
decide to improve their performance by partnering with competing brands in
order to ensure that their goods are pushed down to consumers and overall
performance increased effectively.
Table 5.10: Businesses are likely to
adopt combined distribution network with competing brands in order to
improve their financial and sales performance.
|
|||||
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Valid Percent
|
Cumulative Percent
|
||
Valid
|
totally disagree
|
10
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
disagree
|
12
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
11.0
|
|
neutral
|
12
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
17.0
|
|
agree
|
40
|
20.0
|
20.0
|
37.0
|
|
totally agree
|
126
|
63.0
|
63.0
|
100.0
|
|
Total
|
200
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
||
One
outstanding element from all the analysis performed in this research is that
all tested variables have been found to influence combined distribution network
between competing brands. On that account, it can be seen that in the ASEAN
region, a number of factors enable combined distribution network between
competing firms, and such factors include the structure of collaborating firms,
their internal relations, consumers relational behaviors, support from top
management, level of information sharing with the systems and their
collaborating partners, and the performance management scheme. In essence,
combined distribution network is an effective way of ensuring that consumers’
needs are meet because it keeps the system of goods and service delivery very
broad and open to meet all consumers from all over the markets.
Another
understanding from this research is that these factors have both the power to
enable and inhibit combined distribution networks between competing brands in
the region studied. In essence, each of the factors studied can either enable
or inhibit the process. Take the case of organizational structure as an
example, when the organizational structure is more of an open system, combined
distribution network is enabled because such a structure will create the right
room for quick decision making that are inherent when dealing with competing
brands. On the same hand, a bureaucratic system of organization will inhibit
the process because of the numerous approaches that competing brands are
mandated to adhere to in the course of ensuring that combined distribution
network is made effective in the system. Thus, each of the factors have two
sided but non-parallel outcomes depending on other influencing factors that
surround them. However, there seems to be no middle case as the factors will
either enable or inhibit combined distribution network between competing
brands.
However,
past studies have made it known that it is necessary to ensure that competitive
information are not shared in the course of such partnership because it will
endanger the effectiveness and efficiency of the whole system, thus allowing
competitors to gain competitive edge in the event of collapse of the combined
distribution networks.
Chapter 5
Conclusion and recommendation
In
the course of undertaking any given research, it is mandatory for the
researcher to have a broad scope of what is to be done, as well as an expanded
understanding and detailed analysis of how such actions will be done. This was
also the case in this research as the researcher started with a clear overview
of what the research is all about and this was communicated in the research
title: Enablers and inhibitors of combined distribution networks between
competing brands in the ASEAN region. In the view of the research topic, the
first chapter started as an introduction of the research topic with a
background understanding of the topic, research problems, and objectives
following as necessary. The most significant highlight from this first chapter
is the objective, which was communicated as to gain an understanding of the
factors that enable or inhibit combined distribution networks between competing
brands in the ASEAN region with the overall essence of understanding how to
enhance the enables while limiting the inhibitors in order to ensure effective
and efficient distribution network in the region.
Following
success with the first chapter, the second chapter proceeded with a review of
relevant literatures in the line of the research topic. Numerous findings were
also made in this section and some of the most significant of such findings is
that distribution network of any given firm is pivotal to the success of the
firm because it bridges the gap between demand and supply by ensuring that
consumers’ demands are always meet effectively. Additionally, a number of
factors were found in this section as capable of enabling or inhibiting
combined distribution network between competing firms. These factors include
the structure of the organization, internal relational behavior, consumers’
relational behavior, supporting from top management, information sharing
systems, and management of organizational performance.
The
third chapter started just like other chapters with the focus still on
understanding how these factors can be applied in the real life setting with
more focus on competing brands in the ASEAN region. As such, the primary
research was drafted to include 200 respondents from the ASEAN region. Since
the region is two broad for such a research, the choice was made to adopt
online survey because it will allow respondents from all around the region as
compared to the idea of visiting the countries in the region. To the delight of
the research, respondents emerged from all the countries in the region and this
further boosted the overall validity and reliability of the research because
since all countries in the region has been accounted for, the findings can be
said to be applicable to the region as a whole. Besides the primary research,
the idea of primary data was also brought in to include gathering of existing
information on distribution partnership between competing brands in the region.
The purpose is to understand the extent at which findings from the primary
research can actually be compared with what is obtainable in the region.
Just
as expected, findings from the primary research confirmed that the variables
loaded into the primary research does influence combined distribution network
between competing brands in the ASEAN region. The influences comes in the form
of enabling or inhibiting the process depending on how the variable is
fashioned out. When the variables are defined to be in the positive wing, they
will enable the process but the process will be inhibited if the variables framed
from the negative wing. For instance, an
increase in consumers’ demand in market where brands have poor distribution network will enable the chances
of such brand adopting combined distribution network with competing brands in
order to meet the demands of consumers while also increasing their overall
performance. However, the opposite of such effect in terms of consumers’ demand
means that competing brands will have no need to adopting such combined
distribution network and they will also benefit from increased information
privacy if they decide not to adopt it.
In
essence, just as effective distribution network is pivotal to the success of
any given brand, combined distribution network can also be effective and
efficient for the same purpose. This is because while they are busy competing
in the market for top market shares, combine distribution networks can provide
competing brands with the right opportunity to meet the demands of their
customers and also increase their overall performance without having to bear
the souring cost of establishing their own distribution network.
From
the above discussion, it is evidently clear that the overall objectives of the
research has been achieved and as such it becomes necessary that
recommendations be based in line with future related researches. For
researchers that will desire to expand this study, it is important to
understand that the region specific approach adopted in this case with
reference to the ASEAN region is very complex and it makes vivid analysis
virtually impossible because it is difficult to attribute specific findings to
specific countries and ethnicities. Thus, the first recommendation is that
future related researchers should try to focus more on specific countries in
order to narrow down findings to specific group of people. This will ensure
that findings can easily be applied to specific group of people as opposed to
the broad application it is being presently accorded.
Still
on recommendation, it is also recommended that future studies should focus on
expanding each variables in terms of the level of influence they exercise on
combined distribution network in the form of how they enable or inhibit such
practices. This is necessary because the present study had combined such
influence with limited understanding of how each variable correlates with
enabling or inhibiting features.
In
conclusion, it can is stated that combined distribution network is an effective
business strategy because it helps competing brands to share common
distribution network while meeting their respective and individual business
objectives.
REFERENCES
Abernathy, F.H., Dunlop, J.T. and Hammond, J.
(2000), “Retailing and supply chains in the information age”, Technology in
Society, Vol. 22, pp. 5-31.
Akkermans, H. Bogerd, P. and Vos, B. (1999),
“Virtuous and vicious cycles on the road towards international supply chain
management”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
vol. 19, iss. 5/6, p. 565.
Andersen, P.H. and Rask, M. (2003), “Supply chain management:
new organisational practices for changing procurement realities”, Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 83-96.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A., (1990), “A model of
distribution firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships”, Journal of
Marketing, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 42-58.
Auramo, J., Tanskanen, K and Smaros, J. (2004),
“Increasing Operational Efficiency Through Improved Customer Service: Process
Maintenance Case”, International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications, vol. 7, no. 3, 167-180.
Bagchi, P. K. and Skjoett-Larsen, T. (2003),
“Integration of information technology and organizations in a supply chain”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 89.
Baier, C., Hartman, E. and Moser, R. (2008),
“Strategic alignment and purchasing efficacy: an exploratory analysis of their
impact on financial performance”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, vol. 44,
no. 4, pp. 36-52.
Barratt, M. and Oliveira, A. (2001), “Exploring the
experiences of collaborative planning initiatives”, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 31, no. 4, p. 266.
Beth, S., Burt, D.N., Capacino, W., Gopal, C., Lee,
H.L., Lynch, R.P., Morris, S., (2003), “Supply chain challenges: building
relationships”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 81, no. 7, pp. 64-73.
Bourland, K.E., Powell, S.G., Pyke, D.F. (1996),
Exploiting timely demand information to reduce inventories, European Journal of
Operational Research, vol. 92, no. 2, 239-253.
Brown, C.V. and Magill, S.L. (1994), “Alignment of
the IS functions with the enterprise: toward a model of antecedents”, MIS
Quarterly, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 371-403.
Cachon, G.P. and Lariviere, M.A. (2005), “Supply
chain coordination with revenue-sharing contracts, Strengths and Limitations”,
Management Science, 51(1), pp. 30-44.
Campbell, A.J. (1998), “Cooperation in international
value chains: comparing an exporter's supplier versus customer relationships”,
The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 22.
Carr, A.S. (1999), “Strategically managed
buyer-supplier relationships and performance outcomes”, Journal of Operations
Management, Vol. 17, pp. 497-519.
Carrillat, F., Jaramillo, F. and Locander, W.
(2004), “Market-driving organisations: a framework”, Academy of Marketing Science
Review, no. 5, pp. 1-14.
Chan, F.T.S., Qi, H.J., Chan, H.K., Lau, H.C.W. and
Ip, R.W.L. (2003), “A conceptual model of performance measurement for supply
chains”, Management Decision, vol. 41, no. 7, p. 635.
Chandrashekar, A. and Schary, P. (1999), “Towards
the virtual supply chain: the convergence of IT and organisation”,
International Journal of Logisitics Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 27-39.
Chen, I.J. and Paulraj, A. (2004), “Towards a theory
of supply chain management: the constructs and measurements”, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 119-51.
Christopher, M. and Gattorna, J. (2005), “Supply
chain cost management and value-based pricing”, Industrial Marketing
Management, vol. 34, no. 2, p. 115.
Christopher, M. and Ryals, L. (1999), “Supply chain
strategy: its impact on shareholder value”, International Journal of Logistics
Management, Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1-10.
Christopher, M., Lowson, R. and Peck, H. (2004),
“Creating agile supply chains in the fashion industry”, International Journal
of Retail and Distribution Management, vol. 31, no. 4, p. 235.
Croom, S. and Romano, P. (2000), “Supply chain
management: an analytical framework for critical literature review”, European
Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Vol. 6, pp. 67-83.
Danese, P. and Romano, P. (2004), Improving
inter-functional coordination to face high product variety and frequent
modifications, International Journal of Operations Management, vol. 24, no.
9/10, pp. 863-885.
Davis, Tom. “Effective Supply Chain Management.”
Sloan Management Review. 34 n.4 (Summer 1993): 35-46.
Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven
organizations”, Journal of Marketing, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 37-52.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, T. (2009), Producing a
systematic review, in Buchanan, D.A. and Bryman, A. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook
of organizational research methods, SAGE, London.
Ellinger, E. (2000), “Improving marketing/logistics
cross-functional collaborations in the supply chain”, Industrial Marketing
Management, vol. 29, no. 1, p85.
Ettlie, J.E., and Reza E. (1992), “Organizational
integration and process innovation” Academy of Management Journal, vol. 34, pp.
795 - 827
Fawcett, S.E. and Cooper, M.B. (2001), “Process
integration for competitive success: Benchmarking barriers and bridges”, Benchmarking,
vol. 8, no. 5, p. 396.
Fawcett, S.E., Odgen, J.A., Magnan, G.M. and Cooper,
M.B. (2006), Organizational commitment and governance for supply chain success,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol.
36, no., 1, pp. 22-35.
Frohlich, M.T. and Westbrook, R. (2001), “Arcs of
integration: an international study of supply chain strategies”, Journal of
Operations Management, vol. 19, no. (2), 185-200.
Tarn, J.M., Yen, D.C. and Beaumont, M. (2002),
“Exploring the rationales for ERP and SCM integration”, Industrial Management +
Data Systems, vol. 102, no. 1/2, p. 26.
Gattorna, J. L. (1998), Strategic Supply Chain
Alignment, Gower, Surrey.
Gattorna, J. L. (2009), Dynamic Supply Chain
Alignment, Gower, Surrey.George, M., Freeling, A. and Court, D. (1994),
“Reinventing the marketing organization”, The McKinsey Quarterly,no. 4, p. 43.
Gattorna, J. L. and Walters, D. W. (1996), Managing
the Supply Chain: A Strategic Perspective, Palgrave.
Giannakis, M. and Croom, S. (2004), “Toward the
development of a supply chain management paradigm: a conceptual framework”,
Journal of Supply Chain Management: A Global Review of Purchasing and Supply,
Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 27-38.
Godsell J., Juttner, J. and Christopher, M. (2005),
Demand chain management: The missing link, in 10th International Symposium on
Logistics, Lisbon.
Godsell, J., Harrison, A., Emberson, C. and Storey,
J. (2006), “Customer Responsive Supply Chain Strategy: An Unnatural Act?”,
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, vol. 9, no. 1,
pp. 47-56.
Goldman, S. and Nagel, R. et al. (1995), Agile
Competitors and Virtual Organizations: Strategies for Enriching the Customer,
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY.
Guinipero, Larry C. and Richard R. Brand.
“Purchasing’s Role in Supply Chain Management.” The International Journal of
Logistics Management. 7 n.1 (1996): 29-37.
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C. and Tirtiroglu, E.
(2001), 'Performance measures and metrics in a supply chain environment',
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 21,
no.1/2, pp. 71-87.
Hartley, J.L. (2000), “Collaborative value analysis:
Experiences from the automotive industry”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
vol. 36, no. 4, p. 27.
Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser,
W.E., Jr and Schlesinger, L.A. (1994), “Putting the service-profit chain to
work”, Harvard Business Review, vol. 72, no. 2, p. 164.
Holmberg, S. (2000), “A systems perspective on
supply chain measurements”, International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 847-868.
Holweg, M. (2005), “An investigation into supplier
responsiveness: Empirical evidence from the automotive industry”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 96.
Houlihan, J.B. (1985) “International Supply Chain
Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials
Management, vol. 15, no. 1 pp. 22-38.
Huang, G. Q., Lau, J. S. K., and Mak, K. L. (2003),
The impacts of sharing production information on supply chain dynamics: A
review of the literature, International Journal of Production Research, 41(7),
pp. 1483-1517.
Jeong, J.S., and Hong, P. (2007), “Customer
orientation and performance outcomes in supply chain management”, Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, 20(5), pp. 578-594.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1999), Exploring
corporate strategy: text and cases, 5th edition, Prentice Hall, Hemel
Hempstead.
Jones, T.C. and Riley, D.W. (1985), “Using Inventory
for Competitive Advantage Through Supply Chain Management”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Materials Management, vol. 15, no. 5, p.
16.
Kannan, V.R. and Tan, K.C. (2010), “Supply chain
integration: cluster analysis of the impact of span of integration”, Supply
Chain Management: an International Journal, vol. 15, iss. 3, pp. 207-215.
Kathuria, R., Joshi, M.P. and Porth, S.J. (2007),
“Organizational alignment and performance: past, present and future”,
Management Decision, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 503-517.
Kemppainen, K. and Vepsalainen, A.P. (2003), “Trends
in industrial supply chains and networks”, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 33 No. 8, pp. 701-20.
Lamming, R.C. (1996), “Squaring lean supply with
supply chain management”, International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 183-96.
Lee, H. (2004), “The Triple-A supply chain”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 82, no. 10, pp. 102-112.
Lee, H. and Whang, S. (1998), “Information sharing
in supply chain”, International Journal of Technology Management, vol. 20, no.
3/4, 373-387.
Lee, H.L., Padmanabham, V., and Whang, S. (1997),
“The bullwhip effect in supply chains”, Sloan Management Review, vol. 38, no.
3, pp. 93-102.
Lehtonen, J., Småros, J. and Holmström, J. (2005),
“The effect of demand visibility in product introductions”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol. 35, no. 2, p.
101.
Li, S. and Lin, B. (2006), “Accessing information
sharing and information quality in supply chain management”, Decision Support
Systems, 42(3), pp. 1641-1656.
Luftman, J. and Brier, T. (1999), “Achieving and
sustaining business-IT alignment”, California Management Review, vol. 42, no.
1, pp. 109-122.
Lummus, R.R. and Vokurka, R.J. (1998), “Managing the
demand chain through managing the information flow: Capturing ‘moments of
information’ ”, Production and Inventory Management Journal, vol. 40, no. 1, p.
16.
Maskell, B.H. (1991), Performance measurement for
world class manufacturing, Cambridge, MA, Productivity Press.
Matthyssens, P. and Van den Bulte, C. (1994),
“Getting closer and nicer: partnerships in the supply chain”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 72-83.
McAdam, R. and Brown, L. (2001), “Strategic
alignment and the supply chain for the steel stockholder sector: an exploratory
case study analysis”, Supply Chain Management: and International Journal, vol.
6, no. 2, pp. 83-94.
Meier, R.L. and Humphreys, M.A. (1998), “The role of
purchasing in the agile enterprise”, International Journal of Purchasing &
Materials Management, Vol. 34, pp. 39-45.
Melnyk, S.A., Stewart, D.M. and Swink, M. (2004),
“Metrics and performance measurement in operations management: dealing with the
metrics maze”, Journal of Operations Management, vol. 22, no. 3, p. 209.
Mills, J., Schmitz, J. and Frizelle, G. (2004), “A
strategic review of ‘supply networks’”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1012-37.
Morgan, C. (2004), “Structure, speed and salience:
performance measurement in the supply chain”, Business Process Management Journal,
vol. 10, no. 5, p. 522.
Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1988), Strategic
organization design: concepts, tools and processes,Scott, Foresman.
Neely, A. (Editor) (2002), Business performance
measurement: theory and practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
O’Mara, C.E., Hyland, P.W. and Chapman, R.L. (1998),
“Performance Measurement and strategic change”, Managing Service Quality, vol.
8, no. 3, pp. 178-182.
Pagell, M. (2004), “Understanding the factors that
enable and inhibit the integration of operations and logistics”, Journal of
Operations Management, vol. 22, iss. 5, p. 459.
Pine, B.J. (1993), Mass Customisation: The New
Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Powell, T.C. (1992), “Organizational alignment as
competitive advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.
119-134.
Powers, V. (1996), “Benchmarking study illustrates
how best-in-class achieve alignment, communicate change”, Communication World,
vol. 14, iss. 1, p. 30.
Reichhart, A, and Holweg, M. (2007), “Creating the
customer-responsive supply chain: a reconciliation of concepts”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, vol. 27, iss. 11, pp.
1144-1172.
Rich, N. and Hines, P. (1997), “Supply-chain
management and time-based competition: the role of the supplier association”,
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, vol.
27, no. 3/4, p. 210.
Sabath, R. and Whipple, J.M. (2004), “Using the
Customer/product Action Matrix to Enhance Internal Collaboration”, Journal of
Business Logistics, vol. 25, no. 2, p. 1.
Senter, R. and Flynn, M. (1999), “Changing
interorganizational patterns in the North American automotive supply chain”,
Applied Behavioral Science Review, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 59-81.
Sha, D.Y., Chen, P.K. and Chen, Y.H. (2008), “The
strategic fit of supply chain integration in the TFT-LCD industry”, Supply
Chain Management: an International Journal, vol. 13, iss. 5, pp. 339-342.
Simatupang, T.M. and Sridharan, R. (2004),
“Benchmarking supply chain collaboration: An empirical study”, Benchmarking,
vol. 11, no. 5, p. 484.
Skinner, W. (1969), “Manufacturing: missing link in
corporate strategy”, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 136-145.
Skjoett-Larsen, T. (1999), “Supply chain management:
a new challenge for researchers and managers in logistics”, International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 41-53.
Soosay, C.A., Hyland, P.W. and Ferrer, M. (2008),
“Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for continuous innovation”, Supply
Chain Management: an International Journal, 13(2), pp. 160-169.
Starbuck, W.H. (2006), The production of knowledge,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Storey, J., Emberson, C. and Reade, D. (2005), “The
barriers to customer responsive supply chain management”, International Journal
of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 3.
Stuart, F.I. (1997), “Supply-chain strategy:
organizational influence through supplier alliances”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 8, pp. 223-36.
Tamas, M. (2000), “Mismatched strategies the weak
link in the supply chain?” Supply Chain Management: and International Journal,
vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 171-175.
Toni, De A. and Tonchia, S. (1996), “Lean
Organization, management by process and performance measurement”, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management vol. 16 (no.2), pp. 221-236.
Tracey, M., Lim, J. and Vonderembse, M.A. (2005),
“The impact of supply-chain management capabilities on business performance”,
Supply Chain Management, vol. 10, no. 3/4, p. 179.
Tranfield, D. and Starkey, K. (1998), “The nature,
social organization and promotion of management research: towards policy”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, pp. 341-53.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003),
Towards a methodology for developing evidence informed management knowledge by
means of systematic review, British Journal of Management, vol. 14, pp.
207-222.
Van Hoek, R.I. and Mitchell, A.J. (2006), “The
challenge of internal misalignment”, International Journal of Logistics:
Research and Applications, vol. 9 no. 3, pp. 269-281.
Venkatraman, N. (1989), “The concept of fit in
strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence”, The Academy
of Management Review, 14(3), pp. 423-444.
Waggoner, D.B., Neely, A.D. and Kennerley, M.P.
(1999), “The forces that shape organizational performance measurement systems:
An interdisciplinary review”, International Journal of Production Economics, vol.
60-61, pp. 53-60.
Wheelwright, S.C. (1984), “Manufacturing strategy:
defining the missing link”, Strategy Management Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp.
77-91.
Wisner, J. and Tan, K.C. (2000), “Supply chain
management and its impact on purchasing”, Journal of Supply Chain Management,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 33-42.
Posts
