Information support for alliances: Performance implications

Strategic alliances - cooperative agreements between trading partners - became commonplace, even fashionable, during the 1990s. Firms actively sought closer relationships because of potential economic benefits and the fact that alliances frequently provide a flexible way to deal with turbulence and market uncertainty (Day 1995). Adoption of supply chain management concepts has further served to increase the popularity of alliances. Close collaborative linkages, characteristic of effective supply chain integration, are necessary throughout the entire supply chain in order to achieve cost reductions and revenue enhancements, increase quality, and create loyalty. Another principal tenet of supply chain management is a willingness to share information (Spekman, Kamauff, and Myhr 1998).

Communications and the exchange of information have long been recognized as critical to marketing channel performance. Information sharing between trading partners, for example between a manufacturer and distributor, is essential for the proper functioning of the channel. As El-Ansary (1992) noted:

"Manufacturers and distributors alike have a stake in simultaneously managing customer and supplier relationships to ensure the delivery of the desired service level and service quality. The channel communication and information system is the spinal cord of ambitious interorganizational management strategies designed to effectively manage these relations." (p. 4)

Alliances require a reasonably open exchange of information, over an extended period, to maintain the relationship and promote success for both sides of the exchange dyad (Mentzer, Min, and Zacharia 2000; Weitz and Jap 1995). The current research focuses on the connection between alliance performance and the role of information support by empirically testing the proposed relationship. Following a brief review of relevant literature, the research design is described, results are analyzed, and managerial implications and conclusions are drawn from the research.

COOPERATIVE BUYER(SELLER RELATIONSHIPS: ALLIANCES AND PARTNERSHIPS

Cooperative buyer/seller relationships have received a great deal of press in recent years. A number of different terms are used to capture what is essentially the same concept. For example, strategic alliances, value-adding partnerships, relational exchanges, just-in-time exchanges, and partnerships are commonly used to designate situations in which trading partners work together to modify traditional adversarial approaches and achieve system-wide improvements. Partnering firms jointly own/manage channel processes and resources. Cost reductions are realized (and may be shared). Other benefits are achieved by firms on an individual basis as well as by partners on a combined basis. In essence, supply chain efficiency and effectiveness are improved through elimination of waste and duplication throughout the channel. The current research used the term alliances to capture such a philosophy. For research purposes, an alliance was defined as "a process wherein participants willingly modify their basic business practices to reduce duplication and waste while facilitating improved performance" (Schmitz, Frankel, and Frayer 1995).

Managing interorganizational relationships to create closer linkages and greater cooperation is generally viewed as offering significant potential for contributing to corporate success (Landeros and Monczka 1989). Moore (1998) found that alliances allow firms to transfer/share financial risk, improve service quality, increase productivity, and/or reduce costs. Such relationships may also ease market entry and provide market positioning, provide better/new product offerings, allow for learning and/or enhanced new skills, and dissuade competition (Varadarajan and Cunningham 1995). Alliances typically evolve over a long period of time (Gardner and Cooper 1988) as the parties seek to manage risk and uncertainty through cooperation and working jointly to create synergy (Bowersox et al. 1989). Ellram and Cooper (1990) indicated that successful alliances have a longterm orientation requiring trust, loyalty, and a sharing of information, risks, and rewards. In spite of this, alliance partners do not always completely agree regarding achieving a long-term orientation as each party enters the alliance with different goals, expectations, and resource commitments.

Previous research has identified critical success factors for alliance relationships (Bowersox et al. 1992; Gardner, Joseph, and Thach 1993; La Londe and Cooper 1989). While differences can be found as to the basic "ingredients" necessary for success, sharing of information seems to be common across the lists. Lambert, Emmelhainz, and Gardner (1999) discussed how balanced, two-way, multilevel communications are indicative of a strong partnership or alliance.

INFORMATION SUPPORT AND PERFORMANCE

Information technology's true value is achieved by improving the speed and quality of decision making within organizations (Day and Glazer 1994). Information capabilities can give a firm an advantage through the ability to collect and disseminate competitive and market-related data in a timely manner (Gopal and Cypress 1993). In fact, the impact of information technology is so great that information is frequently referred to as a "competitive weapon" or a "competitive advantage" (Deeter-Schmelz 1997; Parsons 1983; Porter and Millar 1985; Rayport and Sviokla 1995).

Effective adoption and implementation of information technology is necessary for logistics success. World Class Logistics: The Challenge of Managing Continuous Change, a research project conducted at Michigan State University, identified information technology as one of seven capabilities that combine to create logistics process integration and world class performance (Global Logistics Research Team 1995). More recent work has served to provide further empirical documentation and quantification of the magnitude of the relationship between "logistics competence and logistics information system capabilities and characteristics" (Closs, Goldsby, and Clinton 1997).

Information and information technology are widely believed to be related to performance (Glazer 1991; Planning for Information as a Corporate Resource: The Best of Long Range Planning, No. 4 1990; Stank, Daugherty, and Ellinger 1996). For example, within a supply chain context, information technology has been used to increase integration (internally and externally). Lewis and Talalayevsky (1997) found increased integration typically yields significant benefits including lower inventories and improved financial performance.

Yet information technology, in and of itself, is not a guarantee for supply chain integration. In order for information technology to create a tighter linkage among supply chain partners, it has been suggested the following are necessary: (1) appropriate and accurate information is available; (2) the information moves across the supply chain in a timely fashion; and (3) the business process supports and is capable of using the information in making decisions (ECR Technology Guide: An ECR Best Practices Report 1995). In other words, technology assists in transferring data more accurately as well as in a "real time" manner so that the information collected can be readily used to make better decisions. Hence, the ability to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace is linked to timeliness of exchange, accuracy of the information, and relevancy of the information to decision-making capability. Formalized measures of these information exchanges are limited in the literature. Where measures exist, they have been addressed primarily in case study research or with preliminary empirical development. Thus, creating and testing measurement scales for these elements are as important as understanding how the elements of information exchange impact alliance relationships. Moreover, understanding to what extent these elements contribute to alliance satisfaction and influence each channel member's perspective on the alliance also becomes important. Given these issues, the objectives of this research are to:

1. identify the elements of information exchange that have a significant impact on alliance satisfaction;

2. develop initial measures of the elements of information exchange and conduct preliminary tests of their validity;

3. determine whether the elements of information exchange affecting alliance satisfaction vary based on channel position of the alliance partner; and

4. develop conclusions as to the value of using information exchange to predict alliance satisfaction.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The research examined alliance practice in the food and health and personal care (HPC) industries in North America to identify how firms are managing the alliance process to support long-term, successful relationships. These industries were chosen based on their current involvement in alliance activity. For example, alliances play a critical role in the success of Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) in the food industry. The overall goal of ECR is enhanced performance through supply chain integration. While much of the initial focus of ECR has been between manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, many manufacturers are applying the knowledge and tools gained by collaborative outbound efforts to their inbound operations. The inclusion of the inbound side of the supply chain enables economies of scale to develop such that the supply chain integration costs are applied over a larger number of relationships providing critical mass. In fact, Collaborative Planning, Forecasting, and Replenishment (CPFR) is a recent attempt to extend the ECR initiative to the inbound supply chain by encouraging manufacturers to share their forecasts and production schedules (that are developed jointly with retail customers) with their manufacturing and logistical suppliers (see www.cpfr.org for further information). The ECR agenda and subsequent supply chain management initiatives specifically address issues of partnership effectiveness, information sharing, performance measurement, and change management. Manufacturers in the HPC industry also serve food industry retailers that expect more exacting performance levels. As such, HPC is also intently focused on supply chain integration through partnership arrangements.

Given that alliances represent the efforts of two (or more) firms, it is imperative that alliance researchers consider the perceptions and practices of both parties. The importance of examining marketing channel performance in this manner is well-established (Achrol, Reve, and Stem 1983; Reve and Stem 1986). Thus, the research was unique in that both partners in an alliance were studied. Leading manufacturers in the food and HPC industries were contacted to discuss their involvement in successful alliances and to determine their willingness to participate in this research. Contact was typically made with the Vice President or Director of Purchasing. Once the firm elected to participate, the key individual responsible for the alliance was identified and contacted. The identified participant was asked to complete an extensive, eight-page questionnaire by focusing on a specific supplier relationship of his/her choice. A contact name and address for the alliance counterpart at the chosen supplier was requested. The supplying firms were then mailed an identical questionnaire to complete. All identified participants were called in advance to advise them that a questionnaire had been mailed. Follow-up telephone calls and reminder postcards were used approximating procedures suggested by Dillman (1978). Because these alliance relationships were self-selected by the buyers, they were likely to be the buyers' most successful relationships.

Forty-one buying firms participated in the research: 22 primarily operate in the food industry and 19 primarily operate in the HPC industry. The companies included Fortune 100 companies, Fortune 500 companies, and several smaller companies. One hundred and four questionnaires were mailed to buyers at the 41 firms (some buying firms contributed multiple participants). Ninety-seven completed questionnaires were received, providing a 93% response rate. The titles of the buying firm participants ranged from Buyer, Purchasing Agent, and Director of Purchasing to Vice President of Purchasing.

Ninety-six buyers provided a supplier contact name and address for their alliance counterpart. The one buyer who did not provide a contact person was eliminated from the sample. Ninety-six supplier questionnaires were mailed to 63 supplying firms (again reflecting firms with multiple participants). Ninety-two completed supplier questionnaires were returned, providing a 96% response rate. Four buyer questionnaires, where no matched supplier questionnaire was returned, were eliminated from the sample. Thus, questionnaires from 92 complete alliance "pairs" (where both the buyer and supplier completed a questionnaire) were collected. The supplier participants' titles ranged from Sales Manager, Account Manager, Sales Representative, General Manager, and Vice President to President. The product/industry scope for the supplier firms varied from packaging supplies/processes (62% of respondents), food products/additives (11 %), chemicals (9%), MRO supplies (9%), and miscellaneous products and third party services (9%).

The majority of alliances in the research evolved from existing business relationships. The average length of time the firms had been in a business relationship was 15 years while the average length of the alliance relationship was six years. Since the buyers self-selected the alliance relationships, it was important to ask each respondent (buyer and supplier) to evaluate the success of the partnership arrangement. On a scale of 1 to 7, where I = unsuccessful and 7 = successful, the mean response for buyers was 5.66 and the mean response for suppliers was 5.95 (no statistical significant differences existed in these means), indicating that the alliance relationships were successful from both parties' perspectives.

Non-response bias was assessed by comparing late respondents to early respondents on all the variables in the questionnaire. Independent sample t-tests were conducted to determine if differences existed (Armstrong and Overton 1977). No statistically significant differences were identified; indicating non-response bias was not an issue. Further tests of non-response bias were not conducted given that non-response levels were so low (7% for buyers; 4% for suppliers).

The questionnaire examined a broad range of alliance issues including alliance satisfaction, alliance benefits, managerial and behavioral issues, and information exchange. The questionnaire was developed after an extensive literature review and was pretested with researchers familiar with alliance/relationship marketing literature as well as industry representatives. All items were pretested for content, clarity, relevancy, and face validity.

This paper focuses on the alliance satisfaction and information exchange areas. Two questionnaires had missing data on one or more measures in the two areas examined. As such, the overall number of alliance pairs examined in this paper is 90; this equates to 90 buyer and 90 supplier questionnaires. It is important to note that the data were analyzed comparing two groups: buyer versus supplier participants, where each group included 90 respondents.

Specifically, the research is investigating various measures of information exchange and their impact on alliance satisfaction. The goal of the research is to develop initial measures of information exchange as well as to examine their impact on alliance satisfaction. It is expected that as more information exchange occurs, alliance partners will be better satisfied with the outcomes of the relationship. Further, the similarities or differences in perceptions between buyers and suppliers are also important to understand. As such, the research hypotheses are as follows:

H1: Information exchange is positively related to alliance satisfaction.

H2: The evaluation of information exchange will not vary significantly by channel position.

Table 1 highlights the questions evaluating information exchange and alliance satisfaction and their descriptive statistics. A seven-point Likert scale was used (where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree). The questions pertaining to information exchange focused on operational issues where operational was defined as "decisions and actions that affect both partners' short-term planning and day-to-day performance."

Table 1 shows a close similarity in the mean values for buyer and supplier responses. The table also strongly supports our supposition that successful alliances were examined given the high levels of performance satisfaction reported in the first two questions. T-tests were used to determine if the mean responses for buyers and suppliers were significantly different from each other. Only three questions (#5, #6, and #7) revealed a statistically significant difference where suppliers more strongly agreed with the question than did buyers. These differences are most likely explained by the channel position of suppliers as sellers of products and services. The selling perspective in a channel relationship suggests that suppliers must be more responsive (than buyers) to making changes in the relationship. The position of dependency has, in effect, forced suppliers to develop alliances as "selling tools" to provide their firms with a competitive advantage in today's marketplace.

DATA ANAYLSIS

Regression analysis was used to evaluate the hypotheses. Regression analysis estimates the relationship between the independent factors (information exchange) and the dependent variable (alliance satisfaction) for both buyer and supplier groups. The analysis evaluates the ability of the independent factors to predict the dependent variable. Since only one dependent variable can be used, the two questions (#1 and #2) shown in Table 1 that relate to alliance satisfaction were combined through the use of a summated scale. Prior to summating the scales, a factor analysis was run on each group (i.e., buyer data then supplier data). The factor analysis indicated both questions load onto one factor. The coefficient alpha for the summated scale was .8971 for buyers and .8545 for suppliers. This analysis illustrates scale reliability and supports combining the two scales into one. The mean value for the summated scale ("alliance satisfaction") was 5.54 for buyers and 5.63 for suppliers with no statistically significant difference in mean scores.

Stepwise regression procedures were used to determine which of the seven information exchange variables (questions #3 through #9) to include in the final regression equation. Stepwise estimation examines the contribution of each predictor variable before adding it into the equation, thus, providing an objective method for selecting variables that make significant contributions (Hair et al. 1995). Full regression procedures were conducted initially, but not all information exchange variables provided a significant contribution (based on t-values) and the R2 value was only minimally higher than the stepwise procedures reported here. Therefore, stepwise regression was conducted to ensure that the maximum prediction level was achieved given that the variables included offered significant contributions. The stepwise regression was completed first for the buyer group and then for the supplier group. The final regression equation, shown in Table 2, was different for each group.

RESEARCH RESULTS

For buyers, the two predictor variables selected (questions #3 and #9) account for 42% of the variation in satisfaction; for suppliers, the two predictor variables selected (questions #4 and #9) account for 34% of the variation in satisfaction based on the adjusted R2 value. For both groups, the fact that "the level of operational information shared since the alliance began had increased" (question #9) was important in explaining variations in satisfaction.

However, the other information exchange variables that contributed to alliance satisfaction differed between buyers and suppliers. For buyers, the accuracy of the partner's information exchange (question #3) was important, while timeliness of the partner's information exchange (question #4) was important to suppliers. In both instances, the regression coefficient for accuracy and timeliness was considerably larger than the coefficient for the increased sharing of operational information. In all cases, the impact of the variable was positive and significantly related to alliance satisfaction. As such, an increase in any of these variables should raise the level of alliance satisfaction with firms in the respective channel position.

While these results have examined the issue of explained variance, it is also necessary to consider the amount of variance that is unexplained. In this research, the independent variables (information exchange) failed to explain 58% (for buyers) and 66% (for suppliers) of the variation in alliance satisfaction. The extent of unexplained variance is not surprising given the multi-faceted, complex variables which are proposed to lead to alliance satisfaction such as trust, performance, senior management support, compatibility, common goals, etc. The results indicate that information exchange variables are significant predictors of satisfaction, although the predictors vary based on the channel position of the alliance partner. This lends support for the first research hypothesis that information exchange has a positive impact on alliance satisfaction. The second hypothesis is not supported since the perceptions of information exchange measures differ by channel participant - buyers' and sellers' perceptions of alliance satisfaction are influenced by different measures of information exchange.

Since these measures are exploratory in nature and one of the objectives of this research was to develop initial measures of information exchange, only single item measures were used. As such, construct validity cannot be addressed. However, face validity was assessed and provided for these measures based on the pre-testing of the questionnaire as well as on discussions that occurred between the researchers and random respondents after the surveys were received. The conversations indicated that alliance partners recognize a difference between timely and accurate information (suggesting that convergent and divergent validity may exist with multiple item scales). The initial results of this exploratory study highlight the importance of conducting further scale development research with respect to these constructs.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The research identified patterns of similarity as well as differences between buyers' and suppliers' evaluations of alliance satisfaction and information exchange. For both groups, an increase in the amount of operational information exchanged had a significant, positive impact on alliance satisfaction. This result appears intuitive, given that one of the motives for entering into an alliance is to share more information and thereby create the benefits of closer, more highly coordinated buyersupplier linkages. The value of exchanging operational information may sometimes be overlooked due to a focus on issues such as performance measurement, behavioral concerns or strategic goals even though such information provides a critical foundation for the day-to-day work of alliance activity. As such, if a firm enters an alliance without increasing the amount of operational information shared, one or both partners may quickly recognize that the same inefficiencies in the relationship still exist just under a different name. In order for alliances to be mutually viewed as satisfactory, firms should include a discussion of how to enhance the exchange of operational information during the alliance implementation stage. This discussion could include the following: (1) what type of information should be exchanged (e.g., forecasts, build dates, etc.); (2) how frequently information should be exchanged (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly); and (3) in what format the exchange should occur (e.g., fax, e-mail, EDI, or through common systems development).

The research illustrated that alliance satisfaction differed by channel position. For buyers, the accuracy of the information exchanged represented an additional critical factor impacting satisfaction. For suppliers, the additional critical factor impacting satisfaction was the timeliness of information exchange. The explanation for this difference may be that buyers often adjust decisions based on supplier information (e.g., such as when product/prototypes will be available, quality of production, when shipment is made, what shipment quantities are, what is the likelihood for delays in production and/or expedited shipment, etc.). Therefore, the accuracy of partner information is very important to the buyer. For example, if the supplier indicates a quality problem exists, the buyer wants to know when the problem will be resolved and when new product will be available. The buying firm may be able to adjust its manufacturing plans based on this information. If the supplier's information is inaccurate, such as an ASN (advance shipment notification), multiple problems may occur. First, if established delivery time or order quantity is incorrect, delays may occur which lead to a production shutdown. Second, the buying firm's ability to develop an alternative plan is greatly minimized or eliminated. Solutions to situations, such as product quantity problems (e.g., finding a back-up supplier) or late delivery (e.g., expedite the shipment), are severely limited when accurate information is not provided.

The supplier views information exchange and alliance satisfaction differently. The supplier often requires a buyer's information (e.g., purchase order, delivery/dock appointment, new product changes, anticipated promotions, changes in quantity demanded) prior to formulating its internal production planning. The earlier the information is provided, the better the supplier can incorporate that information into its planning processes. For transportation suppliers, if a buyer does not provide a carrier with advance information on dock scheduling procedures, the carrier may prematurely load the trailer and proceed to the destination point only to wait hours (or longer) until a delivery time is available and may face demurrage/detention penalties. This situation is further complicated in crossdocking operations where timely information is critical to prevent costly inefficiencies and/or delays with regard to product movement and equipment utilization that can occur if specific product mix/delivery destination information is untimely.

The issue is easily extended to product suppliers. Suppose a buyer has committed to a production run of 100,000 units of a supplier's product, but recognizes several months into the agreement that only 80,000 units will actually be needed because the buyer will be pulling the finished product from the market sooner than expected. The sooner the buyer confirms this information, the better it is for the supplier's planning process. First, the supplier may produce the units in large batches to create economies of scale (e.g., four batches of 25,000 units at the beginning of each quarter). If the buyer withholds or is untimely regarding the necessary information, the supplier may overproduce and be left with 20,000 units that become obsolete. Second, the supplier may be operating at full capacity at the 100,000 unit volume and may turn away new business that could easily be added given the reduced volume.

The differences regarding accuracy and timeliness of information exchange to buyer-supplier satisfaction has important implications for alliance managers. In order for a "win-win" relationship to result, both parties must be satisfied. We tend to "treat people as we want to be treated" when, in fact, we should really treat people how they want to be treated. In other words, since accuracy is more important to the buyer, it may be assumed that it is also more important to the supplier. This may mean that the buyer delays the sharing of information until greater accuracy can be obtained. In reality, the supplier would prefer timely information. This is not to imply that the supplier wants inaccurate informarion - rather, the supplier is likely to prefer to have an immediate update of the potential situation, understanding the specifics may not be as accurate. This allows the supplier to begin contingency planning scenarios that can be adjusted as accuracy is increased. The opposite is also true in that the supplier may provide very timely information to the buyer without the necessary details or level of accuracy that allows the buyer to react to the information. In this case, the buyer may prefer to learn about the information a little later given that the accuracy may be greater at that point in time.

Finally, the research points to the need for firms to spend significant time in the development and implementation stages of an alliance discussing their expectations, capabilities, and resources and how these factors can impact information exchange. The partners need to discuss how they can increase the accuracy and timeliness of their own information exchange as well as their expectations of the partner's accuracy and timeliness regarding the information exchange process. This discussion may lead to each party providing examples of historical problem areas as well as enabling the partners to view the relationship from the other party's perspective. This is critical since it is each individual firm's perspective that will ultimately drive the satisfaction (or dissatisfaction) with the alliance. This point is particularly underscored by the fact that satisfaction in both buyer and supplier groups was influenced by the partner firm's exchange of information (questions #3 and #4), not by their own firm's exchange of information (questions #5 and #6).

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

While this paper represents an important step forward in the investigation of dyadic alliance research, it is limited by several factors. First, the firms involved in the research are specific to one particular inbound aspect of the supply chain (e.g., manufacturers and their upstream product or service suppliers). Whether or not the same or similar results would be generated if the strategic alliances involved combinations of manufacturers and distributors, retailers, and logistical service suppliers is open to question. One obvious future avenue of investigation is to replicate this two-group analysis between firms at different levels of the supply chain. In particular, manufacturer relationships with downstream distributors and retailers would be of considerable interest.

A second limitation exists with respect to the fact that the research results are specific to the food and personal health care industries in North America. Both of these industries have been involved in significant supply chain integration initiatives in recent years, and participant firms' perspectives and practices may differ from other industries both within and outside of North America. Examining the research issues in this paper within other industries would be beneficial. Of particular interest might be industries where supply chain strategies are rapidly evolving: the automotive industry, telecommunications and electronics, or medical supply. Perhaps most importantly, given the global nature of today's supply chains and markets, it would be beneficial to replicate this research in Europe, Asia, and/or South America both within and across those geographic regions.

Third, the research is exploratory in nature and uses dual and single item measures. The research does provide a significant contribution through its illustration of the discrepancies that may exist with respect to buyers' and suppliers' evaluations of the impact that information exchange has on determining alliance satisfaction. This important issue warrants further research to more clearly identify potential problem areas as well as to develop more complete measurement scales. The scales developed here represent an important first step toward full measurement development, but further research is required using multiple item scales where advanced measures of validity can be assessed.

Finally, while this research is one of a relatively small number of dyadic quantitative investigations of alliance practice, the body of knowledge concerning alliance practice would benefit if the study's sample size of participating alliance dyads was larger in number. It is a well-established fact that conducting research of this nature is extremely difficult; the number of firms (and their partners) willing to participate is limited due to personnel restrictions and resources, time commitments, confidentiality issues, etc. This makes the researchers' task expensive in terms of both time and financial resources. However, the results generated by dyadic alliance research (given the sample size limitations) provide far more realistic results than only research that examines one partner's perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this research provide a number of insights regarding the often-discussed relationship between information exchange and alliance satisfaction. First, several elements of information exchange clearly have a significant impact on alliance satisfaction. Providing and sharing an increased amount of operational information with a partner firm drives alliance satisfaction; both buyers and suppliers hold that perspective. Secondly, the additional elements of information exchange, which impact alliance satisfaction, vary based upon the channel position of the alliance partner. More specifically, buyers more highly value partner firm (e.g., supplier) accuracy with respect to information exchange while suppliers more highly value partner firm (e.g., buyer) timeliness with respect to information exchange. Third, the value of using information exchange to predict alliance satisfaction can be documented; however, it is imperative when conducting such an exercise to recognize and understand that similarities and differences exist in each firms' perceptions of alliance satisfaction. In simpler terminology, different firms have different motivations and thereby will derive different levels of satisfaction from alliance activities. Alliance partners are encouraged to tailor information exchange to meet their alliance partners' priorities.

NOTES

Achrol, Ravi S., Torger Reve, and Louis Stem (1983), "The Environment of Marketing Channel Dyads: A Framework for Comparative Analysis," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 55-67.

Armstrong, I Scott and Terry S. Overton (1977), "Estimating Non-Response Bias in Mail Surveys," Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 396-402.

Bowersox, Donald J., Patricia J. Daugherty, Cornelia L. Dr6ge, Richard N. Germain, and Dale S. Rogers (1992), Logistics Excellence: It's Not Business as Usual, Burlington, MA: Digital Press.

Bowersox, Donald J., Patricia J. Daugherty, Cornelia L. Droge, Dale S. Rogers, and Daniel L. Wardlow (1989), Leading Edge Logistics: Competitive Positioning for the 1990s, Oak Brook, IL: Council of Logistics Management.

Closs, David J., Thomas J. Goldsby, and Steven R. Clinton (1997), "Information Technology Influences on World Class Logistics Capability," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 4-18.

Day, George S. (1995), "Advantageous Alliances," Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 297-300.

Day, George S. and Rashi Glazer (1994), "Harnessing the Marketing Information Revolution: Toward the Market-Driven Learning Organization," in The Marketing Information Revolution, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 270-288.

Deeter-Schmelz, Dawn R. (1997), "Applying Teams to Logistics Processes: Information Acquisition and the Impact of Team Role Clarity and Norms," Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 159-178.

Dillman, Don A. (1978), Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

ECR Technology Guide: An ECR Best Practices Report (1995), Infrastructure Core Technologies Subcommittee, ECR Technology Operating Committee, and Andersen Consulting (1995), Washington, D.C.: Joint Industry Project on Efficient Consumer Response.

El-Ansary, Adel I. (1992), "A Strategic Perspective of Communication and Information Systems in Marketing Channels," Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 3-16.

Ellram, Lisa M. and Martha C. Cooper (1990), "Supply Chain Management, Partnerships, and the Shipper-Third Party Relationship," International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 1-10.

Gardner, John and Martha C. Cooper (1988), "Elements of Strategic Partnership," in Partnerships: A Natural Evolution in Logistics, Joseph E. McKeon ed., Cleveland, OH: Logistics Research, Inc., pp. 15-32.

Gardner, John T., W. Benoy Joseph, and Sharon Thach (1993), "Modeling the Continuum of Relationship Styles between Distributors and Suppliers," Journal of Marketing Channels, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 1-28.

Glazer, Rashi (1991), "Marketing in an Information-Intensive Environment: Strategic Implications of Knowledge as an Asset," Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 1-19.

Global Logistics Research Team at Michigan State University (1995), World Class Logistics: The Challenge of Managing Continuous Change, Oak Brook, IL: Council of Logistics Management.

Gopal, Christopher and Harold Cypress (1993), Integrated Distribution Management- Competing on Customer Service, Time, and Cost, Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin Professional Publishing.

Hair, Joseph F. Jr., Rolph E. Anderson, Ronald L. Tatham, and William C. Black (1995), Multivariate Data Analysis, 41h Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 116.

La Londe, Bernard J. and Martha C. Cooper (1989), Partnerships in Providing Customer Service: A Third-Party Perspective, Oak Brook, IL: Council of Logistics Management.

Lambert, Douglas M., MargaretA. Emmelhainz, and John T. Gardner (1999), "Building Successful Logistics Partnerships," Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 165-181.

Landeros, Robert and Robert M. Monczka (1989), "Cooperative Buyer/Seller Relationships and a Firm's Competitive Posture," Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 9-18.

Lewis, Ira and Alexander Talalayevsky (1997), "Logistics and Information Technology: A Coordination Perspective," Journal ofBusiness Logistics, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 141-156.

Mentzer, John T., Soonhong Min, and Zack G. Zacharia (2000), "The Nature of Interfirm Partnering in Supply Chain Management," Journal of Retailing, Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 549-568.

Moore, Kevin R. (1998), "Trust and Relationship Commitment in Logistics Alliances: A Buyer Perspective," International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 24-37.

Parsons, Gregory L. (1983), "Information Technology: A New Competitive Weapon," Sloan Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 3-13.

Planning for Information as a Corporate Resource: The Best of Long Range Planning No. 4 (1990), Alfred Collins ed., New York: Pergamon Press.

Porter, Michael E. and Victor E. Millar (1985), "How Information Gives You Competitive Advantage," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 149-160.

Rayport, Jeffrey E. and John J. Sviokla (1995), "Exploiting the Virtual Value Chain," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, No. 6, pp. 75-85.

Reve, Torger and Louis Stem (1986), "The Relationship Between Interorganizational Form, Transaction Climate and Economic Performance in Vertical Interfirm Dyads," in Marketing Challenges: Relationships and Performance, Luca Pelligrini and Srivinas K. Reddy eds., Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Schmitz, Judith M., Robert Frankel, and David J. Frayer (1995), ECR Alliances: A Best Practices Model, Washington, D. C.: Joint Industry Project on Efficient Consumer Response, p 3.

Spekman, Robert E., John W. Kamauff, Jr., and Niklas Myhr (1998), "An Empirical Investigation into Supply Chain Management: A Perspective on Partnerships," International Journal of Physical Distribution and Materials Management, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 630-650.

Stank, Theodore P., Patricia J. Daugherty, and Alexander E. Ellinger (1996), "Information Exchange, Responsiveness and Logistics Provider Performance," The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 43-57.

Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Margaret Cunningham (1995), "Strategic Alliances: A Synthesis of Conceptual Foundations," Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 282-296.

Weitz, Barton A. and Sandy D. Jap (1995), "Relationship Marketing and Distribution Channels," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 305-320.

Judith M. Whipple Michigan State University

Robert Frankel East Carolina University and

Patricia J. Daugherty The University of Oklahoma

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Judith M. Whipple is an Associate Professor of Food Industry Management at Michigan State University. She received her Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Dr. Whipple has published in a number of academic journals including Industrial Marketing Management, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics, and Journal of Business Research.

Robert Frankel is an Associate Professor of Marketing at East Carolina University. He received his Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Dr. Frankel has published in a number of academic journals including International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, and Journal of Business Logistics.

Patricia J. Daugherty is Division Director and Siegfried Chair in Marketing at The University of Oklahoma. She received her Ph.D. from Michigan State University. Dr. Daugherty has published in a number of academic journals including International Journal of Logistics Management, International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, Journal of Business Logistics, and Journal ofMarketing Research, and has co-authored two books.

Copyright Council of Logistics Management 2002
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved