COLLABORATION WITHIN THE
WHOLESALING, CONSTRUCTION
AND INDUSTRY SECTORS
by
STEFAN VAN DER VAART
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
Pre-MSc Supply Chain Management
June 2020
ABSTRACT
The wholesaling, construction and industry sectors are some of the largest sectors. Meanwhile, they are incredibly vulnerable to disruptions. This research paper investigates how these sectors participate in supply chain collaboration to become more resilient with the following research question: “How do companies differ in the way they collaborate to create resilience between the wholesaling, construction and industry sectors?” A multiple case study with eight companies was conducted to gain more insights in this matter. The wholesaling sector turned out to share information well and harmonize goals with other supply chain members. Companies in the construction sector lack the information sharing, this can be explained by trust issues. This lacking aspect seems to be very costly when disruptions occur. Lastly, in the industry sector, information is available but not actively shared, companies must specifically ask for information. They perform well in joint decision making, they make for example joint decisions about stock levels. The contributions of this research paper to the ongoing resilience research is that collaborative activities differ across sectors, but are mainly the same within the sector. This impacts how resilient companies are.
1. INTRODUCTION
There are currently 570,989 companies active in the wholesaling sector, the construction sector and the industry sector combined in the Netherlands. Companies within these sectors work for example on trading goods like food or technical products, building houses or utility buildings and manufacturing cars. Together they account for 23.8 percent of the total amount of active companies and are consequently some of the greatest industries in the Dutch economy (Graydon, 2019). However, these sectors are also incredibly vulnerable to disruptions within the supply chain. A recent example that stresses this vulnerability for the construction sector was the stricter law regarding the poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These human-made substances are used in a lot of different products and they end up in e.g. soil, while in most cases these PFAS are dangerous for the environment (RIVM, n.d.). The stricter law forbade moving soil that contained a certain level of PFAS to soil that had lower levels of PFAS, to prevent further contamination. Excavation companies had to perform a lot of expensive tests and were barely allowed to move soil. Therefore, construction companies had to postpone projects, with enormous consequences (Het Parool, 2019; NU.nl, 2019). Within a month after enforcing the stricter law, already 38 percent of the construction companies indicated to experience longer project lead times, 49 percent experienced fewer tenders and in total 18,027 FTE jobs were under pressure (Bouwend Nederland, 2019).
To deal with disruptions, companies should strive for supply chain resilience (Scholten & Schilder, 2015). Resilience is the concept of reducing the impact of disruptions by proactively searching for and implementing strategies to let the supply chain quickly react to and recover from disruptions (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). The most important aspect of resilience is collaboration (Hartley et al., 2014; Pettit et al., 2013; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). An example of collaboration is sharing information as soon as possible with other supply chain members.
& Ellis, 2005). In the industry sector, participating in supply chain collaboration is important to achieve better quality, less cost and more flexibility (Singhry et al., 2015). Collaboration in this sector should be done with responsive and efficient members within the supply chain to enact upon supply chain opportunities (Wu et al., 2014).
There is plenty of theory known about reasons why companies in the three focal sectors should participate in supply chain collaboration. As discussed, every sector experience different benefits from collaborating. However, it should be noted that collaboration is not always wanted because of (potential) drawbacks (Despoudi et al., 2018; Kraljic, 1983). For example, collaboration is often time consuming, because supply chains are usually widespread and consists out of numerous companies. To communicate with all members is therefore a timely process and the cost of coordination could increase (Lambert & Cooper, 2000). Furthermore, collaborating is considered to be resource consuming, because for example resources are being shared among members (Harris et al, 2012). It is unknown which downsides are evident in the focal sectors and how it impacts the way that companies collaborate in practice. For example, what resources are being shared and to what extent goals are shared. To contribute to this matter, the following research question is designed: “How do companies differ in the way they collaborate to create resilience between the wholesaling, construction and industry sectors?”
This research paper investigates how companies within the three focal sectors set up their collaboration process and this is compared across the sectors. Companies could learn from other sectors and managers can implement new collaboration strategies, with the attached positive effects and a better resilience to disruptions as a result. These effects also have a positive societal impact, because for example the quality of products can improve for customers. Furthermore, if companies are more resilient, the flow of end products will be more consistent and customers experience less lead times when they are for example looking for a new apartment (construction sector).
2. LITERATURE REVIEW Supply chain resilience
Disruptions can occur in various forms, e.g. natural disasters, pandemics or new governmental regulations and laws. Often, they are even seen as something inevitable. Every disruption has in common that it restricts the flow of resources through the supply chain, unless the company is highly resilient (Craigheid et al., 2007; Scholten & Schilder, 2015; Skipper & Hanna, 2009). To appropriately prepare for, react to and recover from these inevitable events, resilience should be strived for. Building and maintaining resilience is considered to be an ongoing process (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Pettit et al., 2013; Ponomarov & Holcomb, 2009). Supply chain resilience is examined by Jüttner & Maklan (2011) and they state that it consists out of multiple constructs, namely flexibility, velocity, visibility and collaboration. These capabilities regarding resilience are deemed to be well accepted (Johnson et al., 2013).
The flexibility is about how easily the supply chain can influence their range number (the amount of options) and their range heterogeneity (the difference between options) with the intention of handling (unforeseen) changes or events in the market. Flexible supply chains can adapt to these changes or events more effectively, i.e. these supply chains can deal with uncertainty better (Manuj & Mentzer, 2008; Tummala et al., 2006).
The velocity is defined as how quickly the whole supply chain can respond to (unforeseen) changes or events in the market. Supply chains with a high velocity can respond to these changes or events quicker and recover from disruptions faster (Christopher & Peck, 2004; Jüttner & Maklan, 2011; Wieland & Wallenburg, 2012).
Visible supply chains share or have timely access to important information (Jüttner & Maklan, 2011). The visibility is about the degree in which the members of the supply chain can timely share or have access to information of other members and supply chain operations, which they deem useful and valuable to their own operations.
Supply chain collaboration
Collaboration is essentially defined as activities between close companies to achieve better results by harmonizing supply chain operations than when they are acting solely (Cao et al., 2010). Thus, collaboration results in harmonized goals, planning, information et cetera, which in turn will lead to a better preparation for, responding to and recovery from disruptions, i.e. resilience (Scholten & Schilder, 2015). The early foundation of collaborating with other supply chain members is based on exchanging information, the equal distribution of benefits and sharing risks or rewards (Barratt & Oliveria, 2001; Barratt, 2004; Stank et al., 1999). Numerous authors used this foundation to conceptualize collaboration, which proves its relevance (Daugherty et al, 2006; Soosay et al., 2008). Recent research by Cao et al. (2010) intricately conceptualized supply chain collaboration, based on the foundation. They indicated that collaboration consists out of information sharing, goal congruence, joint decision making, incentive alignment, resource sharing, collaborative communication and joint knowledge creation. In table 1 on the following page, all aspects are defined and operationalized.
TABLE 1
Definitions of the aspects of supply chain collaboration
Aspect Definition
(source: Cao et al., 2010)
Information sharing To what degree a company timely shares their plans, procedures and ideas with other members in the supply chain, based on relevance, accuracy, completeness and confidentiality (Min et al., 2005).
Goal congruence How much a company perceives their own goals to be accomplished if supply chain objectives are satisfied (Angeles & Nath, 2001).
Joint decision making The extent to how much members in the supply chain harmonize the making of decisions in supply chain planning and operations, e.g. management of inventory, forecasting of demand and assortment of products (Simatupang & Sridharan, 2005).
Incentive alignment Developing methods to share benefits, risks and costs among the members in the supply chain to evaluate each member their performance (Manthou et al., 2004;
Simatupang & Sridharan, 2005).
Resource sharing Investing in and leveraging resources, assets and capabilities with members in the supply chain.
Collaborative communication The strategy of contact regarding direction, frequency, type and mode between members of the supply chain (Goffin et al., 2006).
Presumed relationship
Recent studies show that collaboration has a positive effect on obtaining or improving supply chain resilience (Hartley et al., 2014; Pettit et al., 2013; Scholten & Schilder, 2015). For example, the joint knowledge creation aspect of collaboration will especially result in both more visibility and velocity and if companies lack the sharing of information it will reduce flexibility. In figure 1 below the conceptual model for this relationship is shown.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
Collaboration
(source: Cao et al., 2010)
Resilience
(source: Jüttner & Maklan, 2011)
Information sharing Flexibility
Goal congruence Velocity
Joint decision making Visibility
Incentive alignment Resource sharing
Collaborative communication Joint knowledge creation
This research report further investigates the relationship described in figure 1 for all three focal sectors. Corsten & Kumar (2015) state that in the wholesaling sector collaboration leads to shorter delivery times and greater market shares. Thus, the supply chain probably focuses on information sharing, creating better understandings of the market (joint knowledge creation) and incentive alignment. Also, with shorter delivery times, the velocity increases.
3. METHODOLOGY Research design and research setting
The differences in how the three focal sectors handle disturbances by collaborating with their supply chain were empirically investigated through a multiple case study design (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). The collaboration is a real-life complex, unique and exploratory phenomenon and was explored in depth, which means a case study was especially suited in this situation (Yin, 2009). To perform this case study, eight companies were interviewed. In this research, it was specifically chosen not to have the three focal sectors as the unit of analysis, but the eight companies. This is because it is interesting to delve into the differences between organizations even within the sectors, so an individual analysis was needed.
All eight companies are active in one of the three focal sectors. Each company added unique insights to the research. For example, company E and F are both active in the construction sector. These two companies were purposely chosen to have as many differences from each other, this is known as stratified sampling. This way it was possible to see if there were differences in collaboration between sectors, but also if there were differences between companies in the same sector with different organizational characteristics. The differences between company E and F are e.g. the number of employees and the way they collaborate with supply chain members. In table 2 below, the eight companies are further elaborated.
TABLE 2
Overview of all eight interviewed companies
Case Empl. Sector Description
M 360 Wholesaling This company is active in the food industry. They have an annual turnover of about 100 million Euros and export about 70 percent of their products. The respondent is responsible for the management of logistics.
N 6,400 Wholesaling This company produces packaging, mostly for food. In this food sector, they have a market share of about 80 percent. The function of the respondent is a supply chain director. O 100 Industry This company is active in the industry sector, it processes
P 7,000 Wholesaling This originally Japanese company produces food products, namely soy sauce. Their European headquarter is located in the Netherlands and this is also one of their production locations. The company has an annual turnover of about 3.7 billion Euros. The respondent is responsible for the planning of transport in this company.
Q 1,900 Construction This construction company is active in residential
development, renovation and property management. They invest a lot in innovative and special projects and focus on sustainability, for example by using circular construction materials. They are actively building and maintaining relationships within their supply chain. The position of the respondent is the cost engineer and procurer.
R 60 Construction Compared to the previous construction company Q, this construction company has significantly fewer employees. However, this company is quite the competitor in this sector. They are considered to be the most efficient construction company and relatively the most profitable. The profit per employee is three times more than the previously mentioned construction company. This company is known to purchase wherever the price is the lowest and does not necessarily focus on building relationships in the supply chain. The function of the respondent is a project manager.
S 800 Industry This company produces machinery that is used in the
automotive industry. The annual turnover of this company is about 100 million Euros. For this company, the respondent is the manager of operations.
Data collection
For this research report, the main data collection method are the interviews with eight companies. All interviews took place in April and May of 2020. The strategy was to interview the companies face-to-face, but because of the outbreak of a coronavirus the interviews took place digitally. Since this research paper is focused on the way companies collaborate, especially during disruptions, every company and respondent was carefully chosen based on the enactments of these companies during historical disruptions in the supply chain.
To be able to compare answers between the companies and to increase reliability, one general interview protocol was designed for all eight interviews (Yin, 2009), see the appendix. This interview protocol contains questions that the respondent had to answer, but they had much freedom in the way they answered. This means that it is a semi-structured interview. Every interview started with asking the respondent questions about the background information of the company, the function of the respondent and the specific disruption that happened in the supply chain. This was followed up by asking how they handled this disruption, how their supply chain members handled it and how they worked together to come up with and implement solutions. All interviews were recorded and thereafter transcribed within 24 hours, this makes the results more reliable (Eisenhardt, 1989). The transcriptions were sent to the respondents to allow them to give feedback, clarification or approval to increase reliability (Yin, 2009).
Data analysis
TABLE 3
Excerpt of data analysis
Resilience First-order Sector Description Second-order Third-order
Flexibility “…invest together with other members in machines? R: No, not necessarily with suppliers.” (Company M)
Wholesaling Investing together Investing in machines Resource sharing “If I notice already in the beginning phase, with this
project I expect so much cubic meters ground, then I could discuss with the subcontractor about how they think about is, maybe a closed ground balance is possible, how would you resolve this?” (Company Q)
Construction Coming up with solutions
together
Create solutions for resolving the disruption
Joint knowledge creation
Velocity “For example with the excavation companies, they immediately felt the effects, they did demonstrate. We did not go there, no.” (Company Q)
Construction Being proactive and helping
Proactivity in demonstrating
Goal congruence
Visibility “Sometimes you see a proposal where there is another proposal added that they requested. So, in that case you basically have insights in the supplier of your supplier.” (Company Q) Construction Sharing information and transparency Information of suppliers their suppliers Information sharing
“Did you share information with the supplier to resolve the problem? R: Not very much.” (Company M)
Wholesaling Sharing information Information for disruptions Information sharing “E-mail, by phone, Skype, yes.” (Company S) Industry Way of
communication
Communicating digitally
4. FINDINGS
After analyzing the data gathered from the interviews, certain details were discovered about the differences and similarities of how companies in the three focal sectors collaborate to create resilience. In the next paragraphs, these details will be further explained for each collaboration dimension, except for collaborative communication. This aspect did not shine light on any new insights. The aspects joint decision making, incentive alignment, resource sharing and joint knowledge creation are bundled together under joint relationship efforts.
Information sharing
The sectors differ significantly into what extent they share information with other supply chain members. However, within the sector, the companies act quite the same. First of all, the wholesaling sector values the sharing of information the most, especially with regard to building resilience. For example, company M said that the activities of coming together and sharing of information were the most important aspects in resolving the disruption. Sharing information leads to a higher visibility, because information is more (timely) available. This visibility leads to a higher resilience, since companies can make better decisions with all information available. Company N supports this: “… so we can give our suppliers an accurate demand forecast, you pass on all the information, this works best in the total supply chain.”
Lastly, the industry sector, in which the information sharing process is not optimal. All information is available, except it is not visible for all members in the supply chain, i.e. the visibility is low. If companies lack information, they can not always make the right decision and therefore resilience will decrease. Company O mentions that they deem information very important. However, to obtain their information, they must approach their suppliers themselves. Company S support this by saying:
We do not get that information from our suppliers, it is more about how fast we ourselves are able to timely obtain our information from our supplier. - Company S
Goal congruence
Companies within the wholesaling sector have some similarities as well as some differences in the way they synchronize goals with other supply chain members. Every wholesaling company mentions that goals regarding sustainability, long-term relationships and organizational growth are well accepted in their supply chain. Company M specifically mentions that other members have the urge to take over other companies, while they want to grow on their own. Company N state that they want to grow, even by taking over other companies, and help suppliers to grow as well. Since the goals are mainly shared, the velocity increases. This is because it is easier and faster to come up with fitting solutions and decisions if everyone thinks alike and therefore companies can enact upon disruptions quicker, which in turn equals a higher resilience.
The industry sector is mostly concerned about growing. Company S says: “We do have the objective to become active in other segments. If it somewhat fits and it is innovative, you will always have [organization S] on board. It is quite an entrepreneurial company in that regard.” Company O also explains that growth is one of their main organizational objectives. However, the goal congruence with supply chain members lacks in this sector. Because goals are not harmonized, companies have fewer fitting solutions and thus fewer options available, i.e. flexibility decreases. This has a negative impact on their resilience, since there are fewer options for dealing with disruptions.
Joint relationship efforts
The companies in the construction sector are performing quite well in this collaboration aspect. When company Q was asked if they invest in machinery with other members in the supply chain, they mentioned that they leverage resources and heavy machinery, e.g. cranes, from suppliers. What occasionally happens, is that with enormous projects they purchase heavy machinery together with suppliers that they can write off entirely on that project. Because of this, company Q has more resources available to deal with disruptions and thus their amount of options rise, i.e. their flexibility increases. Company R mentions that they focus on joint knowledge creation by looking at forecasts with suppliers and company T says the following about supplier development:
Interviewer: Do you invest from the consortium in suppliers?
Respondent: Absolutely, and I am convinced that it is mutual. Our suppliers know the most about whatever happens in the world and what developments there are. - Company T
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In the introduction, the following research question was designed: “How do companies differ in the way they collaborate to create resilience between the wholesaling, construction and industry sectors?” Due to changes in how supply chains are designed in the last years, e.g. reducing stock levels, companies are ever so vulnerable to disruptions (Bode et al., 2011). Because of this, resilience becomes of even greater importance (Christopher & Peck, 2004). In this research paper, useful empirical information is described about how companies in the three focal sectors perform in collaboration and their resilience to disruptions. In the first paragraph these insights will be discussed and the research question will be answered. The second paragraph describes the theoretical implications and the third paragraph the managerial implications. Lastly, the fourth paragraph will elaborate on limitations of the research.
Interpreting and discussion
Companies in the wholesaling sector harmonize goals, while the construction and industry sector lack this part. The wholesaling sector has close relationships and short lines with customers. In the last years, more and more customers consider sustainability in products as added value, especially in the wholesaling sector (Wiese et al., 2011). This pushes wholesaling sectors to align goals within the supply chain to produce more sustainable products. Because every company thinks alike, solutions and decisions are made quicker, i.e. velocity increases. This has a positive effect on resilience. In the construction sector, the companies have less to none interaction with the customers themselves. The construction companies usually work in coalitions and have a principal they work for (Venselaar et al., 2015), which already makes it difficult and time consuming to synchronize goals. Furthermore, the construction companies tend to work according to contracts as a way of aligning goals. Company R buys wherever the price is lowest and therefore the buyer-supplier relationship is transactional (Burt et al., 2002). This means trust is purely based on the contract, which explains why this company focusses on agreements. By firmly sticking to agreements, the flexibility decreases and companies are less resilient. Since the industry sector is considered to be very competitive (Giannoccaro, 2015), it makes sense for companies to strive for growth to survive. However, the companies seem to mostly care about their own growth and not necessarily about the growth of other members. Because goals are not harmonized, decision making and solution developing might take long and thus velocity decreases, which leads to a lower resilience.
All with all, the sectors behave significantly different than each other with regard to the collaboration aspects. In table 4 below, the results are summarized. The companies in the wholesaling sector should work on the joint relationship efforts more. This would increase flexibility and velocity, comparable to the other sectors. The construction sector should particularly focus on building trust with other members in the supply chain and thereafter share more information. This could heavily reduce the amount of costs companies make during times of disruptions in this sector, because the visibility will increase. The industry sector should share information in a more active manner, this will improve visibility and therefore resilience. Moreover, they should set goals together with other members, e.g. about growing, to achieve more velocity.
TABLE 4
Overview of collaboration results per sector
Collaboration aspect Wholesaling Construction Industry
Information sharing x
Goal congruence x contractually
Joint relationship efforts (joint decision making, incentive alignment, resource sharing, joint knowledge creation)
x x
Theoretical implications
Building resilience in supply chains is a contemporary ongoing research subject. This research paper contributes to this topic and discovered interesting information about how three of the largest sectors collaborate to create resilience. It turns out that the type of collaborative activities that companies participate in, differs across sectors. Within the sectors, companies mostly behave in the same manner. This also impacts the resilience per sector. For instance, because the information sharing lacks in the construction sector, during times of disruptions these companies incur a lot of extra costs. Further research is needed in how construction companies can increase trust between members, this enables information sharing. For the industry sector, research is needed in how companies can make information more visible.
Managerial implications
This research paper sheds light on how sectors and even specific companies behave regarding collaboration aspects. For managers active in these sectors, it is very interesting to compare their sector to the other sectors. Managers in the wholesaling sector can conclude that their sector is performing quite well in the information sharing and goal congruence aspect. They can improve in joint relationship efforts, by for example sharing risks and rewards between supply chain members. Construction managers should focus on why there is little trust between members and how they can improve in this matter. If the trust increases, it becomes easier to share information and therefore resilience will increase. Lastly, the managers in the industry sector can improve their supply chain resilience by investigating why information is not shared actively and thereafter enabling this. Also, they should set goals together with other members. If done properly, this will make their companies more resilient.
Limitations
REFERENCE LIST
Akintoye, A., McIntosh, G. & Fitzgerald, E. 2000. A survey of supply chain collaboration and management in the UK construction industry. European Journal of
Purchasing & Supply Management, 6: 159-168.
Angeles, R. & Nath, R. 2001. Partner congruence in electronic data interchange (EDI) enabled relationships. Journal of Business Logistics, 22(2): 109-127.
Barratt, M.A. & Oliveira, A. 2001. Exploring the experiences of collaborative planning: the enablers and inhibitors. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 31(2): 266-289.
Barratt, M.A. 2004. Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(1): 30-42.
Bode, C., Wagner, S.M., Petersen, K.J., & Ellram, L.M. 2011. Understanding responses to supply chain disruptions: Insights from information processing and resource dependence perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4): 833-856.
Bouwend Nederland. 2019. Voorlopige resultaten enquête onder leden Bouwend
Nederland inzake gevolgen PFAS-beleid.
Bresnen, M. & Marshall, N. 2000. Partnering in construction: a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas. Construction Management and Economics, 18(2): 229-237.
Burt, D.N., Dobler, D.W. & Starling, S.L. 2002. World Class Supply Management.
The Key To Supply Chain Management (7th revised edition). Europe: Mcgraw-Hill
Education.
Bygballe, L. E., Jahre, M. & Swärd, A. 2010. Partnering relationships in construction: A literature review. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 16(4): 239-253.
Cao, M. & Zhang, Q. 2011. Supply chain collaboration: Impact on collaborative advantage and firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 29(3): 163-180. Cao, M., Vonderembse, M., Zhang, Q. & Ragu-Nathan, T.S. 2010. Supply chain collaboration: conceptualisation and instrument development. International Journal of
Production Research, 48(22): 6613-6635.
Christopher, M. & Peck, H. 2004. Building the Resilient Supply Chain. International
Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2): 1-13.
Corsten, D. & Kumar, N. 2005. Do suppliers benefit from collaborative relationships with large retailers? An empirical investigation of efficient consumer response adoption.
Craighead, C.W., Blackhurst, J., Rungtusanatham, M.J. & Handfield, R.B. 2007. The Severity of Supply Chain Disruptions: Design Characteristics and Mitigation Capabilities.
Decision Sciences, 38(1): 131-156.
Daugherty, P.J., Richey, R.G., Roath, A.S., Min, S., Chen, H., Arndt, A.D. &
Genchev, S.E. 2006. Is collaboration paying off for firms? Business Horizons, 49(1): 61-70. Despoudi, S., Papaioannou, G., Saridakis, G. & Dani, S. 2018. Does collaboration pay in agricultural supply chain? An empirical approach. International Journal of Production
Research, 56(13): 4396-4417.
Dunne, P.M., Lusch, R.F. & Carver, J.R. 2013. Retailing (8th edition). Mason: Thompson South-Western.
Eisenhardt, K.M. & Graebner, M.E. 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management, 50(1): 25-32.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Journal, Academy of Management, 14(4): 532-550.
Giannoccaro, I. 2015. Adaptive supply chains in industrial districts: A complexity science approach focused on learning. International Journal of Production Economics, 170: 576-589.
Goffin, K., Lemke, F. & Szwejczewski, M. 2006. An exploratory study of close supplier-manufacturer relationships. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2): 189-209.
Graydon. 2019. Grootste branches van Nederland. Viewed 16 March 2020, available at: https://www.graydon.nl/blog/grootste-branches-van-nederland
Harris, J.K., Provan, K.G., Johnson, K.J. & Leischow, S.J. 2012. Drawbacks and benefits associated with inter-organizational collaboration along the discovery-development-delivery continuum: a cancer research network case study. Implementation Science, 7(1).
Hartley, J.L., Brodke, M., Wheeler, J.V., Wu, Z. & Steward, M.D. 2014. Exploring supply management status, internal collaboration and operating performance. Operations
Management Research, 7(1-2): 24-35.
Het Parool. 2019. Waarom zit Pfas overal in de grond en legt het de bouwsector plat?
Viewed 17 March 2020, available at: https://www.parool.nl/nederland/waarom-zit-pfas-overal-in-de-grond-en-legt-het-de-bouwsector-plat~b8c59de0/
Jüttner, U. & Maklan, S. 2011. Supply chain resilience in the global financial crisis: an empirical study. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 16(4): 246-259.
Kraljic, P. 1983. Purchasing must become supply management. Harvard Business
Review, 61(5): 109-117.
Lambert, D.M. & Cooper, M.C. 2000. Issues in Supply Chain Management. Industrial
Marketing Management, 29(1): 65-83.
Malhotra, A., Gasain, S. & Sawy, O. 2005. Absorptive capacity configurations in supply chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1): 145-187.
Manthou, V., Vlachopoulou, M. & Folinas, D. 2004. Virtual e-Chain (VeC) model for supply chain collaboration. International Journal of Production Economics, 87(3): 241-250.
Manuj, I. & Mentzer, J.T. 2008. Global supply chain risk management strategies.
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3): 192-223.
Maskey, R., Fei, J. & Nguyen, H-O. 2019. Critical factors affecting information sharing in supply chains. Production Planning & Control.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, M.A. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: SAGE Publications.
Min, S., Roath, A.S., Daugherty, P.J., Genchev, S.E., Chen, H., Arndt, A.D. & Glenn Richey, R. 2005. Supply chain collaboration: what’s happening? International Journal of
Logistics Management, 16(2): 237-256.
NU.nl. 2019. De gevolgen van PFAS-regels voor de bouw: 'Er is steeds minder
werk'. Viewed 17 March 2020, available at:
https://www.nu.nl/dvn/6007718/de-gevolgen-van-pfas-regels-voor-de-bouw-er-is-steeds-minder-werk.html
Pettit, T.J., Croxton, K.L. & Fiksel, J. 2013. Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development and Implementation of an Assessment Tool. Journal of Business Logistics, 34(1): 46-76.
Ponomarov, S.Y. & Holcomb, M.C. 2009. Understanding the concept of supply chain resilience. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 20(1): 124-143.
RIVM. No date. PFAS. Viewed 17 March 2020, available at: https://www.rivm.nl/pfas
Scholten, K., & Schilder, S. 2015. The role of collaboration in supply chain resilience.
Supply Chain Management: an International Journal, 20(4): 471-484.
Singhry, H.B., Rahman, A.A. & Siew Imm, N. 2015. Measurement for Supply Chain Collaboration and Supply Chain Performance of Manufacturing Companies. International
Journal of Economics and Management, 9: 1-22.
Skipper, J.B. & Hanna, J.B. 2009. Minimizing supply chain disruption risk through enhanced flexibility. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics
Management, 39(5): 404-427.
Soosay, C.A., Hyland, P.W. & Ferrer, M. 2008. Supply chain collaboration: capabilities for continuous innovation. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 13(2): 160-169.
Stank, T.P., Crum, M. & Arango, M. 1999. Benefits of inter-firm co-ordination in food industry supply chains. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(2): 21-41.
Tazelaar, F. & Snijders, C. 2010. Dispute resolution and litigation in the construction industry. Evidence and conflict resolution in the Netherlands and Germany. Journal of
Purchasing and Supply Management, 16: 221-229.
Tummala, V.M.R., Phillips, C.L.M. & Johnson, M. 2006. Assessing supply chain management success factors: a case study. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 11(2): 179-192.
Venselaar, M., Gruis, V. & Verhoeven, F. 2015. Implementing supply chain partnering in the construction industry: Work floor experiences within a Dutch housing association. Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 21(1): 1-8.
Vidalakis, C., Tookey, J.E., Sommerville, J. 2013. Demand uncertainty in construction supply chains: a discrete event simulation study. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 64(8): 1194-1204.
Voss, V., Tsikriktsis, N. & Frohlich, M. 2002. Case research in operations
management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22(2): 195-219.
Wieland, A. & Wallenburg, C.M. 2012. Dealing with supply chain risks: Linking risk management practices and strategies to performance. International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, 42(10): 887-905.
Wiese, A., Kellner, J., Lietke, B., Toporowski, W. & Zielke, S. 2011. Sustainability in retailing - a summative content analysis. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Wood, G.D. & Ellis, R.D.T. 2005. Main contractor experiences of partnering
relationships on UK construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 23: 317-325.
Wu, I-L., Chuang, C-H., & Hsu, C-H. 2014. Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in enabling supply chain performance: A social exchange perspective.
International Journal of Production Economics, 148: 122-132.
Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research: design and methods. Essential Guide to
APPENDIX - INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Interview protocol
We will start with some general introductory questions on your organization, followed by questions focused on the supply chain. More specifically, questions will be asked on disruptions that have happened, how you dealt with them, and collaboration in the supply chain. Do you have any questions before we start?
1 General Questions (about 10 min)
1.1 Could you please give a brief overview of your organization and its supply chain (upstream and downstream)?
- Core activities and/or products - Organizational goals
- Key aspects (organization size, turnover, number of employees) - Number of suppliers (upstream) and customers (downstream)
1.2 Could you please introduce yourself and your role in the organization? - Function
- Team - Department
- Brief overview of background, education, and experience
2 Main part (about 45 min)
2.1 Please recall a recent disruption/problem in your supply chain.
2.1.1 Could you outline the event in detail: What was the cause, what was the impact, who was involved, was it foreseeable? (situation-task-action-result)
- Cause
- Impact (financial/operational) - Affected suppliers/customers - Indications/warnings of disruption
- In general, how did you react to solve this disruption?
- Did you first make a (good) analysis before enacting upon the disruption? If yes, how did you analyze this?
- Did you look at earlier, historical disruptions to gain insights in how to act? 2.1.2 With who did your organization work together to solve this disruption? - Why did you choose for this specific partner?
- Did you experience any disadvantages from this relationship? - Who initiated the relationship?
- Why didn’t you work together with other companies, possibly outside your supply chain (for example unions)?
- Did you work together with competitors?
2.1.3 Were the other partners ok with working together with you? - Why?
- Did you immediately act upon the disruption together, or did you first analyze the situation? And why?
- Were there any limitations in working together?
- Which actions did you undertake to reduce the limitations or to persuade partners to work together?
2.1.4 How did your organization work together with the partners? - Did you share information?
- How did you communicate during the disruption?
- If your company is successful, do you share these successes with partners? And what if you make losses?
- And if you want to undertake something that is very risky, do you share this risk with partner?
- Do you look at the market together with partners? For example, forecasts or looking at competitors.
2.1.5 By whom where the decisions made in your organization during the disruption? - Was this done by managers or more the employees?
- Did your organization make these decisions, or was this more done by the partners? 2.1.6 Did the relationship change during the different phases of the disruption?
- Did you work together more, during, directly after or after a long time period after the disruption?
- Why and how?
2.2 The next questions focus on the clients and suppliers that you worked together with during the disruption.
2.2.1 How would you define the relationship between these organization, in terms of trust? - How did that influence the intensity of the relationship?
- Were there differences in the relationship between different partners? 2.2.2 How dependent is and was your organization of these partners? - How did that influence the intensity of the relationship?
2.2.3 Do you work together with these companies in the same intensity if there is no disruption going on at all?
- What are the differences?
- Do you have the same goals/objectives as the other members in the supply chain? 2.2.4 (Only if suppliers are concerned) Are u concerned with supplier development (generating new capabilities with suppliers) with these partners?
- Why (not)?
- Do you invest in new machinery together?
- If yes, what effects does this have in the intensity of the relationship during a disruption? 2.2.5 (Only if suppliers are concerned) How much information do you have available about the suppliers of your supplier?
- How did that impact the disruption?
- Do you look with your partners on how to collectively reduce e.g. inventory levels or what the forecasts are going to be for the next year?
2.2.6 (Only if suppliers of suppliers are concerned) Do you coordinate strategies with suppliers their suppliers to prevent disruptions?
- Why (not)?
- Do you look with your partners on how to collectively reduce e.g. inventory levels or what the forecasts are going to be for the next year?
2.3 The next questions focus on the competitors (e.g. joint venture, strategic alliance) and other parties outside your supply chain that you worked with.
2.3.1 How would you describe the relationship between these organizations and you regarding trust?
- How did that impact the intensity of the relationship?
- Were there any differences in relationship in between the different partners? 2.3.2 How dependent is your organization on these partners?
2.3.3 Do you work together to the same extent with these organization in times where there is no disruption?
- What are the differences?
- Do you have the same goals as these partners?
2.3.4 (Only if external partners) How much information do you get from these partners? - How did that impact the disruption?
2.4 Did working together help to resolve the disruption and to reduce the impact? 2.4.1 Why (not)?
- Did the relationship not last?
- Could you not work together for some reason?
- Was working together time and resource consuming? If yes, what did you do to reduce this? - What activities were most important to resolve the disruption?
- Are there any things that you would have done differently? - What did you learn from this? And how was this implemented?
2.4.2 Is there a boundary with regard to the intensity of the relationship? - For example, sharing information?
- Why is the boundary there?
2.4.3 Do you think you could have reduced the impact more by collaborating less and to focus more on internal processes?
- Why (not)?
2.4.4 Did working together have any disadvantages?
- If yes, how does this influence the flexibility of your organization?
2.4.5 Were there any cases in which your organization decided not to work together? - When and why? Would it be too time consuming? Would it make the situation more complex?
2.5 Characteristics of disruptions and how this would influence the decision making process. 2.5.1 Do the characteristics of a specific disruption have impact on the extent of the
relationship? If yes, why these characteristics? - Closer partnership with a certain disruption?
- Effect of historical relationship with regard to information, alternative or flexibility? 2.5.2 What characteristic of the disruption, for example
internal/external/cause/impact/location has specifically lead to an other way of working together?
- Exchanging information?
- More alternative choices in suppliers? - A higher flexibility?
2.5.3 Do you monitor the relationship with other companies? - How? Why? When?
- According to what aspects of monitoring do you undertake action? 3. Closing questions (about 5 min)
3.1. Are there topics about the supply chain, disruptions, and collaboration that have not been covered in this interview but that you had expected or that you would like to share your thoughts about?
