Decision Support Systems 42 (2006) 1641 – 1656

www.elsevier.com/locate/dss

Accessing information sharing and information quality

in supply chain management
Suhong Li a , Binshan Lin b,⁎
a
Computer Information System Department, Bryant University, 1150 Douglas Pike, Smithfield, RI 02917-1284, United States
b
College of Business Administration, Louisiana State University in Shreveport, Shreveport, LA 71115, United States
Received 8 November 2004; received in revised form 1 February 2006; accepted 8 February 2006
Available online 27 March 2006

Abstract

This paper empirically examines the impact of environmental uncertainty, intra-organizational facilitators, and inter-
organizational relationships on information sharing and information quality in supply chain management.
Based on the data collected from 196 organizations, multiple regression analyses are used to test the factor impacting
information sharing and information quality respectively. It is found that both information sharing and information quality are
influenced positively by trust in supply chain partners and shared vision between supply chain partners, but negatively by supplier
uncertainty. Top management has a positive impact on information sharing but has no impact on information quality. The results
also show that information sharing and information quality are not impacted by customer uncertainty, technology uncertainty,
commitment of supply chain partners, and IT enablers.
Moreover, a discriminant analysis reveals that supplier uncertainty, shared vision between supply chain partners and
commitment of supply chain partners are the three most important factors in discriminating between the organizations with high
levels of information sharing and information quality and those with low levels of information sharing and information quality.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Information sharing; Information quality; Supply chain management

1. Introduction essential prerequisite for staying competitive in the

As competition in the 1990s intensified and markets
became global, so did the challenges associated with
getting a product and service to the right place at the right
time at the lowest cost. Organizations began to realize
that it is not enough to improve efficiencies within an
organization, but their whole supply chain has to be
made competitive. The understanding and practicing of
Supply Chain Management (SCM) has become an
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sli@bryant.edu (S. Li), blin@lsus.edu (B. Lin).
0167-9236/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.02.011
global race and for enhancing profitably [12,44,51].
Information sharing is a key ingredient for any SCM
system [37]. Many researchers have suggested that the
key to the seamless supply chain is making available
undistorted and up-to-date marketing data at every node
within the supply chain [12,54]. By taking the data
available and sharing it with other parties within the
supply chain, an organization can speed up the
information flow in the supply chain, improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the supply chain, and
respond to customer changing needs quicker. Therefore,
information sharing will bring the organization compet-
itive advantage in the long run.
 The advantage of information sharing in SCM has
been intensively discussed [10]. Information sharing
improves coordination between supply chain processes
to enable the material flow and reduces inventory costs.
Information sharing leads to high levels of supply chain
integration [24] by enabling organizations to make
dependable delivery and introduce products to the
market quickly. Quality information sharing contributes
positively to customer satisfaction [48] and partnership
quality [30]. Information sharing impacts the supply
chain performance in terms of both total cost and service
level [63]. According to Lin et al. [33], the higher level
of information sharing is associated with the lower total
cost, the higher order fulfillment rate and the shorter
order cycle time.
While information sharing is important, the signifi-
cance of its impact on the performance of a supply chain
depends on what information is shared, when and how it
is shared, and with whom [13,22]. Literature is replete
with example of the dysfunctional effects of inaccurate/
delayed information, as information moves along the
supply chain [35]. Divergent interests and opportunistic
behavior of supply chain partners, and informational
asymmetries across supply chain affect the quality of
information [17]. It has been suggested that organiza-
tions will deliberately distort information that can
potentially reach not only their competitors, but also
their own suppliers and customers [35]. It appears that
there is a built-in reluctance within organizations to give
away more than minimal information [6] since infor-
mation disclosure is perceived as a loss of power and
companies fear that information may leak to potential
rivals.
To facilitate quality information sharing across
supply chains, an understanding of the factors influenc-
ing information sharing is needed so that a strategy may
be developed to overcome the barriers preventing
information sharing and encourage seamless informa-
tion flow in supply chains. Previous studies have
addressed the importance of certain factors in informa-
tion sharing and information quality in SCM but few
studies have considered simultaneously the impact of
environmental factors, intra-organizational factors, and
 This section will discuss each variable in the
framework and the hypothesized relationships briefly.

2.1. Information sharing and information quality

Information sharing refers to the extent to which

critical and proprietary information is communicated to
one's supply chain partner [38]. Many researchers have
emphasized the importance of information sharing in
SCM practice. Lalonde [27] considers sharing of
information as one of five building blocks that
characterize a solid supply chain relationship. Accord-
ing to Ste-11.91empha1eque23.62049([38])Tj00019689.3388051.2(suppl)-7.41ari.5(pa).9(chang)7274-7.6(sSte-113481o.8(of)]7
1644 S. Li, B. Lin / Decision Support Systems 42 (2006) 1641–1656

Table 1
Information sharing and information quality impacts
Independent variables Dependent variables
Information sharing Information quality
Environmental Customer • Increasing unpredictability of the customer's • Increasing unpredictability of the customer's
uncertainty uncertainty demands leads an organization to share more demands leads an organization to share accurate
information with its supply chain partners in information in a timely way [18,56].
order to respond to customers' changing
needs [18,56].
Supplier • Unreliable suppliers will impact the whole supply • Supplier uncertainty makes it necessary to
uncertainty chain and an organization will build partnership share quality information in order to reduce
with a few suppliers to share information in uncertainty from suppliers and the impact
order to reduce supplier uncertainty [41,62]. of such uncertainty on whole supply
chain [41,62].
Technology • The development of IT provides numerous • The development of IT enables organizations
uncertainty opportunities for organizations to increase to share information in a timely and effective
the level of information sharing [13,55]. way [13,55].
• Today's rapid technology change forces
organizations to share information in
order to keep up with such change [26].
Intra-organizational Top management • Top management is needed in providing vision, • Top management needs to understand the
facilitators support guidance, and support in sharing information [36,60]. importance of sharing quality information and
• Top management is needed to overcome the make sure information is shared without any
reluctance of information sharing and create an delay and distortion [17].
organizational culture conducive to
information sharing [30].
IT enablers • IT enables organization to increase the level of • IT enables organization to share information
information sharing [13,24,48]. simultaneously across the supply
chain [13,24,48].
• IT enables organization to open up • IT supports secured information sharing [32].
new possibilities for increasing value • IT enables an organization to share information
through information sharing [9]. timely, accurately and reliably [32,58,43].
Inter-organizational Trust in supply • Lack of trust has been considered as a common • Trust stimulates favorable attitudes and
relationships chain partners cited obstacle to information sharing [39,47]. behaviors to ensure the quality of
• Trust reduces the fear of information disclosure and information shared [45].
loss of power in relation to the information sharing.
• Allowing an outside organization to view
transaction-level data places a premium on trust [45].
Commitment of • Commitment has been identified as the variable that • Commitment “ups the ante” and makes it more
supply chain discriminates between relationships that continue and difficult for partners to act in ways that
partners that break down [59]. might adversely affect the quality
• Commitment can involve trusting the partners with of information shared.
proprietary information and other sensitive
information, an indicator of high level
of information sharing.
Shared vision • The lack of shared vision between supply chain • The lack of shared vision (such as the cultural
between supply partners will lead to less information sharing [7,36]. and other differences between the parties)
chain partners • Collaboration within a supply chain (such as will receive more resistance and encourage
information sharing) can be achieved only to the negative behaviors, thus reducing the quality
extent that trading partners share a common of information sharing.
“world view” of SCM [48].

of new technologies that quickly cause existing products
to be obsolete, 3) changing customer demand needs and
requirements which truncate product life cycles, and 4)
increasing need for involvement of external organiza-
tions such as suppliers and customers. Ettlie and Reza
[15] view perceived environmental uncertainty as
unexpected changes of customers, suppliers, and
technology. Consistent with this perspective, environ-
mental uncertainty in this study is defined as including
the uncertainty from customers, suppliers, and technol-
ogy. The following section will discuss each of these
three uncertainties respectively.
Customer uncertainty is defined as the extent of the
change and unpredictability of the customer's demands
 S. Li, B. Lin / Decision Support Systems 42 (2006) 1641–1656
and tastes. The traditional seller market, where demand
outstripped supply, has been replaced by fast moving,
sophisticated, customer-led competition. The customer
demands for products and services are becoming in-
creasingly volatile and uncertain in terms of volume,
mix, timing, and place. Customers today want more
choice, better service, higher quality, and faster delivery
[9,56]. Moreover, competitive pressure in a global
marketplace has greatly altered the traditional nature of
the customer choice.
Supplier uncertainty is defined as the extent of
change and unpredictability of the suppliers' product
quality and delivery performance. There are many
sources of supplier uncertainties: supplier's engineering
level, supplier's lead-time, supplier's delivery depend-
ability, quality of incoming materials, and so on [29].
Uncertainty caused by suppliers, such as delayed or
broken materials, will postpone or even stop an
organization's production process. Furthermore, these
uncertainties will propagate through the supply chain in
the forms of amplification of ordering variability, which
leads to excess safety stock, increased logistics costs,
and inefficient use of resources [62]. A manufacturer
with key suppliers that have poor quality and delivery
records will find it very difficult to provide high levels
of customer service even in a stable environment. If
placed in a rapidly changing environment, this manu-
facturer will be eliminated from participation in the
competitive game [41].
Technology uncertainty is defined as the extent of
change and unpredictability of technology development
in an organization's industry. The development of IT
provides numerous opportunities for organizations. For
example, the breakthroughs in IT have fueled the
movement toward supply chain and business process
integration [13], brought out many benefits to an organi-
zation and made true supply chain integration possible
[55]. The advanced information systems reduce the tran-
saction costs associated with the control of goods flow
and make a quick response to customer orders.
Technology development provides not only oppor-
tunities, but also threats, for individual organizations.
For example, the development of IT will increase the
competition base through easy access to global
organizations of suppliers; hence, competition is no
longer local but international [16]. Given the quick
obsolescence of components in the computer industry,
organizations need to periodically invest in new systems
[42]. In addition, IT is changing the level of customer
intimacy within the supply chain and increasing
customer and consumer expectations, for example,
from “during business hours with a two to three day
1645
business delivery” has become “24 h by 7 days with
immediate or same day delivery”. Therefore, IT is
accelerating the shift in power from producers to the
consumer's demands for responsiveness and flexibility
[52].
2.2.1. The impact of environmental uncertainty on
information sharing and information quality
Many researchers have considered environmental
uncertainty an important driver for information sharing
and information quality in SCM [2,11]. In a highly
uncertain environment with changing markets, organiza-
tions tend to build strategic partnership with their supply
chain members to share information, increase organiza-
tional flexibility, and reduce the risk associated with the
uncertainty. Lambe and Spekman [28] suggest that
uncertain industry structure and market environment
encourage the formation of strategic supplier part-
nership. Mentzer et al. [36] agree that high technology
uncertainty will drive organizations to form strategic
partnerships with suppliers and to share information with
their trading partners as technology change is largely
uncontrollable by individual organizations. The threat
from competitors will impel organizations to increase
customer satisfactions and loyalty by sharing timely
information with customers. Grover [18] suggests that
environmental uncertainty is an important factor influ-
encing information sharing and cooperation within
supply chain partners. The above arguments lead to:
Hypothesis 1a. The higher the level of environmental
uncertainty (including customer uncertainty, supplier
uncertainty and technology uncertainty), the higher the
level of information sharing in SCM.
Hypothesis 1b. The higher the level of environmental
uncertainty (including customer uncertainty, supplier
uncertainty and technology uncertainty), the higher the
level of information quality in SCM.
2.3. Intra-organizational facilitators
This paper considers top management support and IT
enablers as the intra-organizational facilitators for
information sharing and information quality in SCM.
Top management support is defined as the degree of
top manager's understanding of the specific benefits of
and support for quality information sharing with supply
chain partners. A number of researchers [5,20] have
regarded top management support as the most important
driver for any successful change in the organization. Top
management vision plays a critical role in shaping an
organization's values and orientation. To implement
 information sharing in supply chains, top management
must understand and embrace the significant operational
and market impacts of partnering and develop a good
understanding of their potential partners and their top
management [36].
IT enablers are defined as the information technology
used to facilitate information sharing and information
quality in SCM. Developments in information technol-
ogy have fueled the movement toward supply chain and
business process integration [13]. Organizations cannot
effectively manage cost, provide superior customer
service, and be leaders in SCM without leading-edge
information systems [55]. The transaction cost perspec-
tive can be used to explain the impact of IT on the
creation of inter-organizational information sharing and
coordination [14]. Transaction costs involve costs of
writing, monitoring, and enforcing contracts, as well as
costs of locating potential trading partners. If these
coordination costs are directly influenced by IT
capabilities, actual transaction costs can be significantly
lowered and economies of “outsourcing” can be more
favored over that of “vertical integration”.
The broad adoption of core IT enablers, such as
electronic data interchange (EDI), Internet, and extra-
nets, have helped many organizations achieve opera-
tional excellence and competitive advantage [25]. By
reviewing relevant literature, five IT enablers are iden-
tified as influencing information sharing and informa-
tion quality in SCM and are listed below:

1) Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). The transfer of

data in an agreed upon electronic format from one
organization's computer program to one or more
organizations' programs.
2) Electronic Fund Transfer (EFT). The transfer of a
certain amount of money from one account to
another through value added network (VAN) or
Internet.
3) Internet. A public and global communication net-
work that provides direct connectivity to anyone over
a local area network (LAN)Interne
providr' ISPI).
id7.6546.8(ara7.6560.6(network)]TJ1.2235
copotrnte
Inrarnet. A -1.2007TD[(W)918.1(AN))3204.7(that)-2-6.9usies Internes
organizatio'as
anesThe
and more informa-
tion

extranes A cllabormat ne(work)3759.9(that)-718.1usies Internes

to businessdes
spplu
teies
ths
d0(ne)-7.6agrea
and of
aprovides and fro
comhe
 S. Li, B. Lin / Decision Support Systems 42 (2006) 1641–1656
enablers, the quality information sharing is impossible
in SCM. It is hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 2.a2. The higher the usage of IT enablers,
the higher the level of information sharing in SCM.
Hypothesis 2.b2. The higher the usage of IT enablers,
the higher the level of information quality in SCM.
2.4. Inter-organizational relationships
Inter-organizational relationship refers to the degree
of trust, commitment, and shared vision between
supplier partners. IT can be used to easily link physical
supply chain processes, but not inter-organizational
relationships. Without a foundation of effective inter-
organizational relationship, any effort to manage the
flow of the information or materials across the supply
chain is likely to be unsuccessful [21]. Trust and
commitment are needed to build long-term cooperative
relationships between supply chain partners [48,50].
Achrol et al. [1] identify commitment, trust, group
cohesiveness, and motivation of alliance participants as
critical to inter-organization strategic alliances. Bucklin
and Sengupta [8] consider organizational compatibility
as one of the key predictors of effective inter-
organizational relationships. This study considers
inter-organizational relationship as including three
sub-dimensions: trust in trading partners, commitment
of trading partners, and shared vision between trading
partners.
Trust in trading partners is defined as the willingness
to rely on a trading partner in whom one has confidence
[38,48]. Trust is conveyed through faith, reliance, belief,
or confidence in the supply chain partner, viewed as a
willingness to forego opportunistic behavior [48]. Trust
has been considered by many researchers to be the
essential factor in most productive partner relationships
[59]. Parties who trust one another can find ways to
work out difficulties such as power, conflict, and lower
profitability. Trust stimulates favorable attitudes and
behaviors [45]. Moreover, allowing an outside organi-
zation to view transaction-level data places a premium
on trust between trading partners because of the
competitive risks associated with this type of access
[61].
Commitment of trading partners refers to the
willingness of buyers and suppliers to exert effort on
behalf of the relationship [38,48]. Commitment is an
enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship. It
incorporates each party's intention and expectation of
continuity of the relationship, and willingness to invest
resources in SCM [36]. Commitment has been identified
1647
as the variable that discriminates between relationships
that continue and that break down [59]. Commitment
can involve trusting the suppliers with proprietary
information and other sensitive information. To a large
degree, commitment “ups the ante” and makes it more
difficult for partners to act in ways that might adversely
affect overall supply chain performance.
Shared vision between trading partners is defined as
the degree of similarity of the pattern of shared values
and beliefs between trading partners [1,30]. Shared
vision is therefore the extent to which partners have
beliefs in common about what behaviors, goals, and
policies are important or unimportant, appropriate or
inappropriate, and right or wrong [4]. It is obvious that
supply chain members with similar organizational
cultures should be more willing to trust their partners.
Spekman et al. [48] even suggest that collaboration
within a supply chain can be achieved only to the extent
that trading partners share a common “world view” of
SCM. Organizational incompatibilities between allied
organizations, in terms of reputations, job stability,
strategic horizons, control systems, and goals, will lead
to less information sharing [36].
2.4.1. The impact of inter-organizational relationships
on information sharing and information quality
As pointed out by many researchers, information
technology is only part of the solution to information
sharing and information quality in SCM. Without good
inter-organizational relationships based on such intan-
gibles as trust, commitment, and shared vision,
organizations will be reluctant to share information
with their supply chain partners because of the fear of
information disclosure and the loss of power over
competitor. Lack of trust among suppliers and manu-
facturers has prevented them from establishing partner
relationships [46]. Boddy et al. [7] explore empirically
partnership between suppliers and customers through an
interaction model and find that lack of shared vision
(such as the cultural and other differences between the
parties) causes difficulty in cooperation at first. Actions
are then taken to improve cooperative behaviors that
support further co-operation between the organizations.
The above arguments lead to:
Hypothesis 3a. The higher the level of inter-organiza-
tional relationship (including trust in trading partners,
commitment of supply chain partners, and shared vision
between supply chain partners), the higher the level of
information sharing in SCM.
Hypothesis 3b. The higher the level of inter-organiza-
tional relationship (including trust in trading partners,
commitment of supply chain partners, and shared vision who are at higher managerial levels as respondents for
between supply chain partners), the higher the level of the current study.
information quality in SCM. Mailing lists were obtained from two sources: the
Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) and the at-
3. Research methodology tendees at the Council of Logistics Management (CLM)
conference in New Orleans, 2000. Six SIC codes were
This section describes the research methodology covered in the study: 25 “Furniture and Fixtures”, 30
employed to test the hypothesized framework presented “Rubber and Plastics”, 34 “Fabricated Metal Products”,
in Fig. 1. The background for the empirical study is first 35 “Industrial and Commercial Machinery”, 36 “Elec-
described, followed by a description of the research tronic and Other Electric Equipment”, 37 “Transporta-
instrument used for data analyses. tion Equipment”. The final version of the questionnaire,
Empirical data for testing the research framework measuring all the items on a five point scale, was
was collected via a field survey. Six constructs were
measured in this study: information sharing, information
quality, environmental uncertainty, top management
support, IT enablers, and inter-organizational relation-
ships. All constructs were developed and tested using
four phases: (1) item generation, (2) pre-pilot study, (3)
pilot study, and (4) large-scale data analysis. The items
for each construct were generated through a compre-
hensive literature review. In the pre-pilot study, these
items were reviewed by six academicians and re-
evaluated through structured interviews with three prac-
titioners who were asked to comment on the appro-
priateness of the research constructs. Based on the
feedback from the academicians and practitioners, re-
dundant and ambiguous items were either modified or
eliminated. New items were added wherever deemed
necessary.
In the pilot study stage, the three round Q-sort
method was used to pre-assess the convergent and
discriminant validity of the scales. Purchasing/produc-
tion managers were requested to act as judges and sort
the items into the respective construct. To assess the
reliability of the sorting conducted by the judges, three
different measures were used: the inter-judge raw
agreement scores, Cohen's Kappa, and item placement
ratios. In the third round, the inter-judge raw agreement
scores averaged 0.92, the initial overall placement ratio
of items within the target constructs was 0.97, and the
Cohen's Kappa score averaged 0.90. At this stage the
statistics suggested an excellent level of inter-judge
agreement indicating a high level of reliability and
construct validity.

3.1. Large-scale methods

This study sought to choose respondents who can be

expected to have the best knowledge about the operation
and management of the supply chain in his/her
organization. Based on literature and recommendations
from practitioners, it was decided to choose managers
1650 S. Li, B. Lin / Decision Support Systems 42 (2006) 1641–1656

Table 3 Table 5
Descriptive statistics for influencing factors, information sharing and Regression analysis of information sharing and information quality in
information quality SCM
SCM practice Mean Std. deviation Independent variables Dependent variables
Information sharing 3.31 0.71 IS IQ
Information quality 3.33 0.63
Standardized Sig. Standardized Sig.
Customer uncertainty 3.60 0.95
coefficients coefficients
Supplier uncertainty 2.87 0.81
Technology uncertainty 3.59 0.84 Customer uncertainty 0.027 0.670 −0.070 0.253
Top management support 3.66 0.86 Supplier uncertainty −0.187 0.004 −0.142 0.023
IT enablers 2.47 0.99 Technology uncertainty 0.082 0.205 −0.072 0.249
Trust in supply chain partners 3.65 0.63 Top management 0.140 0.031 0.105 0.094
Commitment of supply chain partners 3.75 0.57 support
Shared vision between supply chain partners 3.60 0.66 IT enablers 0.091 0.153 −0.064 0.300
Trust in supply chain 0.204 0.008 0.240 0.001
partners
top three IT enablers used by organizations are Internet, Commitment of supply 0.116 0.142 0.126 0.100
chain partners
intranet, and EDI, with a mean of 3.24, 3.18, 2.86
Shared vision between 0.178 0.026 0.254 0.001
respectively, while the usage of EFT and extranet supply chain partners
receives the less attention in the organization, indicated R 0.58 0.153
by their low means scores of 1.94 and 1.88 respectively. R2 0.34 0.38
F-statistics 12.05 14.43
4.2. Regression analysis of the factors impacting Significance 0.00 0.00
information sharing and information quality in SCM

To test the factors impacting information sharing and
information quality, two linear regression analyses are
conducted, using the eight influencing factors as
independent variables and information sharing and
information quality as dependent variable respectively.
The results are shown in Table 5.
It can be seen that the level of information sharing
and information quality is influenced positively by trust
in supply chain partners and shared vision between
supply chain partners, but negatively by supplier
uncertainty. The higher the level of trust in supply
chain partners and shared vision between supply chain
partners and the lower the level of supplier uncertainty,
the higher the level of information sharing and
information quality. In one hand, the results indicate
the importance of inter-organizational relationships in
information sharing and information quality. On the
other hand, the results reveal that a low level of supplier
uncertainty is associated with high levels of information
sharing and information quality. This can be true since
organizations may find it too risky to share information
with suppliers with high uncertainty, such as unpredict-
able engineering level, product quality and delivery
time.
The results also show that top management support
positively impact information sharing but has no
significant impact on information quality. This finding
is valuable. Without any doubt, top management support
is important in initiating and implementing information
sharing in SCM. Top management must understand the
importance of information sharing in SCM and provide
vision, guidance, and resources for its implementation.
But top management may not be effective in ensuring
the quality of shared information. A good inter-
organizational relationship is needed in improving
information quality in SCM.
Another finding from Table 5 is that information
sharing and information quality is not influenced by
customer uncertainty, technology uncertainty, commit-
ment of supply chain partners, and IT enablers.

Table 4 4.3. Discriminant analysis of organizations with high

Descriptive statistics for each IT enabler and low levels of information sharing
IT enablers Mean Std. deviation
EDI 2.86 1.38 A discriminant analysis is used to explore the factors
EFT 1.94 1.19 that contribute to the information sharing in SCM. Using
Internet 3.24 1.17 discriminant analysis, a weighted liner combination of all
Intranet 3.18 1.49 the influencing factors is used to classify organizations
Extranet 1.88 1.18
into two groups: the high information sharing group and
 support is less important. Table 7 presents, for each
influencing factor, its mean value within each group and
its overall mean. It can be seen that organizations with
higher information sharing have a lower level of
environmental uncertainty (in terms of customer, supplier,
and technology uncertainty), a higher level of inter-
organizational relationship (indicated by trust, commit-
ment, shared vision) and a higher level of top management

the low information sharing group. First, the mean of

information sharing is calculated by summing up all the
items of information sharing and divided it by the number
of the items. The sample was then classified into the high
and low information sharing group on the basis of high
and low values for the information sharing compared to
the sample mean for the information sharing.
Table 6 presents the results of the discriminant
analysis. The table provides information on (1) stan-
dardized discriminant function coefficients and their
significance, (2) the size of the group, and (3) the sig-
nificance level of the discriminant function. The discri-
minant function developed in this study has a chi-square
value of 50.418 (8 degrees of freedom) which is
significant at p 0.000 level. This provides strong
support for the discriminate function's ability to
discriminate group membership on the basis of the var-
iables used. The results further show that all but two of
the factors (customer uncertainty and technology uncer-
tainty) are significant at the 0.01 level.
The standardized discriminant coefficients provide
useful information on the relative contribution of their
associated variables to the overall discriminate function.
The high the absolute value of the standardized coefficient
the greater is its contribution to the function. On this basis,
supplier uncertainty emerges as the most important
variable in its contribution to the discriminant function,
followed by shared vision between supply chain partners,
commitment of supply chain partners and IT enablers, in
that order. Trust in trading partners and top management
1652 S. Li, B. Lin / Decision Support Systems 42 (2006) 1641–1656

Table 8 uncertainty, top management support and commitment

Discriminant analysis of organization with a high and low level of of trading partners, the discriminant analysis indicates
information quality
those factors are significant in distinguishing between
Variables Standardized F value Significance organizations with high levels of information quality
coefficient
and those with low levels of information quality.
Customer − 0.095 4.359 0.038 In summary, supplier uncertainty, top management
uncertainty
support, trust in supply chain partners, commitment of
Supplier uncertainty − 0.421 18.551 0.000
Technology − 0.203 1.571 0.212 supply chain partners, and shared vision between supply
uncertainty chain partners are important in distinguishing between
Top management 0.030 7.647 0.006 organizations with high levels of information sharing
support and information quality and those with low levels of
IT enablers − 0.176 0.002 0.968
information sharing and information quality. Among all
Trust in supply chain 0.292 31.800 0.000
partners the factors, supplier uncertainty, shared vision between
Commitment of 0.334 39.486 0.000 supply chain partners and commitment of supply chain
supply partners are three most important factors in their con-
chain partners tribution to the discriminant function. It is also found that
Shared vision 0.463 40.866 0.000
IT enablers are able to distinguish between organizations
between
supply chain in terms of the level of information sharing, but not
partners information quality. In contrast, customer uncertainty is
Discriminant function statistics able to distinguish between organization in terms of
Group 1 = Organizations with low levels of information quality, but not information sharing.
information sharing (87 cases)
The study focuses on the impacts of independent
Group 2 = Organizations with high levels
of information sharing (109 cases) variables (environmental uncertainty, inter-organization-
Wilks' Lambda: 0.703, Chi-square: al facilitators and inter-organizational relationships) on
67.036, significance: 0.000 dependent variables (information sharing and informa-
tion quality) and ignores the possible relationship bet-
ween dependent variables. It is possible that there exists a
analysis. The discriminant function has a chi-square strong association between information sharing and in-
value of 67.036 (8 degrees of freedom) which is formation quality. A further analysis found that Pearson
significant at p 0.000 level. The results further show correlation between IS and IQ is 0.48 and significant at
that all but two of the factors (technology uncertainty and 0.0l level. A high level of information quality (repre-
IT enablers) are significant at the 0.05 level. Table 5 also sented by timely and accurate information exchange)
shows that shared vision between trading partners is the may encourage an organization to increase the level of
most important variable in its contribution to the information sharing with its supply chain partners.
discriminant function, followed by supplier uncertainty,
commitment of supply chain partners and trust in supply
chain partners, in that order. Customer uncertainty and Table 9
Group means of organization with a high and a low level of
top management support are less important. From information quality
Table 9, it can be seen that organizations with higher
Group means Low High Overall
information quality have a lower level of environmental
information information
uncertainty (in terms of customer, supplier, and tech- quality group quality group
nology uncertainty), a higher level of inter-organization-
Customer uncertainty 3.76 3.47 3.60
al relationship (indicated by trust, commitment, shared Supplier uncertainty 3.13 2.65 2.87
vision) and a higher level of top management support Technology uncertainty 3.67 3.52 3.59
and IT usage in their organizations. Top management 3.47 3.81 3.66
The classification accuracy of the discriminate model support
IT enablers 2.47 2.47 2.47
is 74.5%, suggesting that the influencing factors are able
Trust in supply chain 3.39 3.86 3.65
to successfully distinguish between organizations hav- partners
ing high levels of information quality and those having Commitment of supply 3.49 3.96 3.75
low levels of information quality. chain partners
Even though previous regression analyses indicate Shared vision between 3.29 3.84 3.60
supply chain partners
that information quality is not impacted by customer
Likewise, increased information sharing activities will
improve the quality of information by encouraging more
complete and frequent information flow.

5. Conclusion and future research

channel partners who participate in trust-creating
behaviors? What is the role of channel conflict in
partner relationship? There are to be addressed in
future research. The future study can also expand the
model by considering the independence between
information sharing and information quality. More-
over, the data for the study consisted of responses
from single respondents in an organization which may
be a cause for possible response bias. The results have
to be interpreted taking this limitation into account.
 S. Li, B. Lin / Decision Support Systems 42 (2006) 1641–1656
Commitment of trading partners (α = 0.78)
Our trading partners have made sacrifices for
us in the past.
We have invested a lot of effort in our rela-
tionship with trading partners.
Our trading partners abide by agreements very
well.
We and our trading partners always try to keep
each others' promises.
Shared vision between trading partners (α = 0.85)
We and our trading partners have a similar
understanding about the aims and objectives of
the supply chain.
We and our trading partners have a similar
understanding about the importance of collab-
oration across the supply chain.
We and our trading partners have a similar
understanding about the importance of
improvements that benefit the supply chain as
a whole.
References
[1] R.S. Achrol, L.K. Scheer, L.W. Stern, Designing Successful
Trans-Organizational Marketing Alliances, Report, vol. 90-118,
Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, 1990.
[2] D. Alvarez, Solving the puzzle of industry's rubic cube-effective
supply chain management, Logistics Focus 2 (4) (1994) 2–4.
[4] R.H. Ballou, S.M. Gillbert, A. Mukherjee, New managerial
challenge from supply chain opportunities, Industrial Marketing
Management 29 (2000) 7–18.
[5] P.W. Balsmeier, W. Voisin, Supply chain management: a time-
based strategy, Industrial Management 38 (5) (1996) 24–27.
[6] D. Berry, D.R. Towill, N. Wadsley, Supply chain management in
the electronics products industry, International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management 24 (10) (1994) 20–32.
[7] D. Boddy, D. MacBeth, B. Wagner, Implementing collaboration
between organizations: an empirical study of supply chain part-
nering, Journal of Management Studies 37 (7) (2000)
1003–1017.
[8] L.P. Bucklin, S. Sengupta, Organizing successful co-marketing
alliances, Journal of Marketing 57 (April 1993) 32–46.
[9] R. Burgess, Avoiding supply chain management failure: lessons
from business process re-engineering, International Journal of
Logistics Management 9 (1) (1998) 15–23.
[10] G.P. Cachon, M. Fisher, Supply chain inventory management and
the value of shared information, Management Science 46 (8)
(2000) 1032–1048.
[11] C. Chandra, S. Kumar, Supply chain management in theory and
practice: a passing fad or a fundamental change, Industrial
Management and Data Systems 100 (3) (2000) 100–113.
[12] P. Childhouse, D.R. Towill, Simplified material flow holds
the key to supply chain integration, OMEGA 31 (1) (2003)
17–27.
[13] S.A. Chizzo, Supply chain strategies: solutions for the customer-
driven enterprise, Software Magazine, Supply Chain Manage-
ment Directions Supplement (January 1998) 4–9.
1655
[14] T.H. Clark, H.G. Lee, Performance, interdependence and coordi-
nation in business-to-business electronic commerce and supply
chain management, Information Technology and Management
1 (2000) 85–105.
[15] J.E. Ettlie, E.M. Reza, Organizational integration and process
innovation, Academy of Management Journal 35 (4) (1992)
795–827.
[16] G.N. Evans, M.M. Naim, D.R. Towill, Dynamic supply chain
performance: assessing the impact of information systems, Lo-
gistics Information Management 6 (4) (1993) 15–25.
[17] M. Feldmann, S. Mrller, An incentive scheme for true informa-
tion providing in supply chains, OMEGA 31 (2) (2003) 63–73.
[18] V. Grover, An empirically derived model for the adoption of
customer-based inter-organizational systems, Decision Sciences
24 (3) (1993) 603–639.
[19] A.K. Gupta, D.L. Wilemon, Accelerating the development of
technology-based new products, California Management Review
32 (2) (1990) 24–44.
[20] G.D. Hamel, C.K. Prahalad, Collaborate with your competitors
and win, Harvard Business Review (January–February 1989).
[21] R.B. Handfield, E.L. Nichols Jr., Introduction to Supply Chain
Management, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddler River, New Jersey,
1999.
[22] S. Holmberg, A systems perspective on supply chain measure-
ments, International Journal of Physical Distribution and
Logistics Management 30 (10) (2000) 847–868.
[23] P.K. Humphreys, M.K. Lai, D. Sculli, An inter-organizational
information system for supply chain management, International
Journal of Production Economics 70 (2001) 245–255.
[24] J.L. Jarrell, Supply chain economics, World Trade 11 (11) (1998)
58–61.
[25] C. Jones, Moving beyond ERP: making the missing link,
Logistics Focus 6 (7) (1998) 2–7.
[26] D.R. Krause, R.B. Handfield, T.V. Scannel, An empirical investi-
gation of supplier development: reactive and strategic processes,
Journal of Operations Management 17 (1) (1998) 39–58.
[27] B.J. Lalonde, Building a supply chain relationship, Supply Chain
Management Review 2 (2) (1998) 7–8.
[28] C.J. Lambe, R.E. Spekman, Alliances, external technology
acquisition and discontinuous technological change, Journal of
Product Innovation Management 14 (2) (1997) 102–116.
[29] H. Lee, C. Billington, Managing supply chain inventories: pit-
falls and opportunities, Sloan Management Review 33 (3) (1992)
65–73.
[30] J. Lee, Y. Kim, Effect of partnership quality on IS outsourcing:
conceptual framework and empirical validation, Journal of
Management Information Systems 15 (4) (1999) 26–61.
[32] D. Lim, P.C. Palvia, EDI in strategic supply chain: impact on
customer service, International Journal of Information Manage-
ment 21 (2001) 193–211.
[33] F. Lin, S. Huang, S. Lin, Effects of information sharing on supply
chain performance in electronic commerce, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management 49 (3) (2002) 258–268.
[34] J. Magretta, The power of virtual integration: an interview with
Dell computers' Michael Dell, Harvard Business Review 76 (2)
(1998) 72–84.
[35] R. Mason-Jones, D.R. Towill, Information enrichment: designing
the supply chain for competitive advantage, Supply Chain
Management 2 (4) (1997) 137–148.
[36] J.T. Mentzer, S. Min, Z.G. Zacharia, The nature of interfirm
partnering in supply chain management, Journal of Retailing 76
(4) (2000) 549–568.
[37] C.R. Moberg, B.D. Cutler, A. Gross, T.W. Speh, Identifying
antecedents of information exchange within supply chains,
International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics
Management 32 (9) (2002) 755–770.
[38] R.M. Monczka, K.J. Petersen, R.B. Handfield, G.L. Ragatz,
Success factors in strategic supplier alliances: the buying
company perspective, Decision Science 29 (3) (1998)
5553–5577.
[39] D. Noble, Purchasing and supplier management as a future
competitive edge, Logistics Focus 5 (5) (1997) 23–27.
[40] J.C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1978.
[41] D.J. Power, A. Sohal, S.U. Rahman, Critical success factors in
agile supply chain management: an empirical study, International
Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 31
(4) (2001) 247–265.
[42] S. Prasad, J. Tata, Information investment in supply chain
management, Logistics Information Management 13 (1) (2000)
33–38.
[43] S. Reda, Internet-EDI initiatives show potential to reinvent
supply chain management, Stores 81 (1) (1999) 26–27.
[44] Z. Rahman, Use of Internet in supply chain management: a study
of Indian companies, Industrial Management and Data Systems
104 (1) (2004) 31–41.
[45] P.H. Schurr, J.L. Ozanne, Influences on exchange processes:
buyers' preconceptions of a seller's trustworthiness and bargain-
ing toughness, Journal of Consumer Research 11 (4) (1985)
939–953.
[46] J. Sheridan, Bonds of trust, Industry Week 246 (6) (1997) 52–62.
[47] J.H. Sheridan, The supply-chain paradox, Industry Week 247 (3)
(1998) 20–29.
[48] R.E. Spekman, J.W. Kamauff, N. Myhr, An empirical
investigation into supply chain management: a perspective
on partnerships, Supply Chain Management 3 (2) (1998)
53–67.
[49] T. Stein, J. Sweat, Killer supply chains, InformationWeek 708 (9)
(1998) 36–46.
[50] K.C. Tan, V.R. Kannan, R.B. Handfield, Supply chain manage-
ment: supplier performance and firm performance, International
Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 34 (3) (1998)
2–9.
[51] K.C. Tan, S.B. Lyman, J.D. Wisner, Supply chain management: a
strategic perspective, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management 22 (6) (2002) 614–631.
[52] L. Tattum, Staying at the cutting edge of supply chain practice,
Chemical Week 161 (11) (1999) s10–s12.
[53] D. Thomas, P.M. Griffin, Coordinated supply chain management,
European Journal of Operational Research 94 (1) (1996) 1–15.
[54] D.R. Towill, The seamless chain the predator's strategic
advantage, International Journal of Technology Management
13 (1) (1997) 37–56.
[55] J.R. Turner, Integrated supply chain management: what's wrong
with this picture, Industrial Engineering 25 (12) (1993) 52–55.
[56] R.I. Van Hoek, Postponement and the reconfiguration challenge
for food supply chains, Supply Chain -845.4(An)-844.8(eu3ustr4.8ict-210.MEngin77B42978998))]TJ0-1.2519TD(53)Tj/F21Tf0.99580TD(…e,)/F11T2759