MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

B2B INTEGRATION FROM SCRATCH: A LONGITUDINAL CASE STUDY Marazzi, Daniele and Perego, Alessandro

Politecnico di Milano, Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering,

Via Lambruschini 4b, 20156 Milano (MI), Italy

Paparelli, Salvatore ANITEC

via Gattamelata 34, 20149 Milano (MI), Italy

daniele.marazzi@polimi.it

Abstract: The integration of the B2B trade process is considered the first necessary step for the implementation of collaborative processes among a company and its supply chain partners. Frequently, companies, as one of the main reasons for the absence of B2B integration projects, lament the lack of either a well-established supply chain association or a strong leading company in the industry. The present paper presents a longitudinal case study, which describes the approach developed in order to fulfil the original idea of enabling a collaborative supply chain initiative, within the Italian Home Appliances and Consumer Electronics industry. The case clearly shows how it is actually possible to disseminate ICT-driven integrating and collaborative practices in almost every supply chain, even if the industry lacks strong supply chain champions.

Keywords: Supply Chain Integration, Collaboration, Case Study, Home Appliances and Consumer Electronics.

INTRODUCTION In the last decades, supply chain collaboration has been extensively studied by academics and its importance in boosting company performances has been widely recognized. Since the early 1990s, there has been a growing understanding regarding the need for supply chain management to be built around the integration of trade partners (Stank et al., 1999), (Barratt and Oliveira, 2001). Integration of the B2B trade process (or order-to-payment cycle) is often considered the first necessary step in the implementation of collaborative processes among a company and its supply chain partners (Lee et al., 2000), (Fawcett et al., 2009). The trade process can be defined as the course of action by which trade partners create, exchange and process documents in a commercial transaction (e.g. purchase orders, purchase order confirmations, delivery notes, notifications of acceptance of goods, invoices, credit/debit notes, notifications of payment (Shin and Leem, 2002)), as well as all the documents exchanged with the banking system (e.g. payment orders and bank statements). The achievable benefits of B2B trade process integration are significant both in terms of efficiency (Boyson et al., 2003) – i.e. reduction of operational costs – and effectiveness (Araujio and Easton, 2003), (Lee and Whang, 2004).

The recent abrupt slowdown in the global economy, however, have prompted many companies in several industries to challenge previously “untouchable” business practices and to boost change processes already ignited by both the evolution of industry systems and the on-going advances in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) (Coughlan et al., 2003). The competitive environment is changing faster and more frequently than ever before. The number of industries in which the key success factors include speed, flexibility and responsiveness indexes is growing relentless. The evolution of the competitive context – increased personalization of the products, reduced life cycle, higher complexity of the supply chains, global sourcing and competition, etc. – is gradually shifting the focus of companies

MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

from internal projects (company-based competition) to the strategic opportunities coming from supply chain integration and collaboration, relying on supply chain-based competition (Christopher, 2000), (Mentzer et al., 2001). Thus, some managers have taken the opportunity to re-discuss their organization’s collaborative strategy. Furthermore, a recent examination of end-to-end business processes spurs companies to place more attention on the organization’s ability to focus on its specific core competences, thereby saving time and resources otherwise wasted in non value-added areas such as inefficient administrative activities (Greenberg et al. 2008). ICT-based trade process integration, in fact, allows companies to focus on their core competencies, squeezing out burdensome costs and non value-added administrative processes.

Frequently, companies lament the lack of either a well-established supply chain association or a strong leading company in the industry as one of the main reasons for not beginning to work more collaboratively. In line with this perspective, companies reject any attempt to offer as a model for them other contexts in which e-commerce practices are currently running and in which supply chain initiatives exist. On the contrary, the presented case clearly shows how it is actually possible to disseminate ICT-driven integrating and collaborative practices in almost every supply chain, even if the industry lacks strong supply chain champions.

In particular, the paper addresses the topic (i.e. B2B integration from scratch) with regard to the Italian Home Appliances and Consumer Electronics (HA&CE) sector. In this area a couple of top managers had the vision to ignite a crucial change process and involved the Observatory on Electronic Invoicing and Dematerialization (OEID) as project partner. The OEID is a broad and continuative research initiative that has been promoted since 2006 by the Politecnico di Milano School of Management, and in which two of the authors have a leading role.

Proceeding from these introductory remarks, the paper is structured in four sections. After the presentation of the objectives and the methodology in Section 2, Section 3 describes the case study developed and then presents the findings that stemmed from it. Finally, Section 4 provides a brief discussion of the findings, whereas Section 5 draws some conclusions and suggests future research paths.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY The present paper aims to describe the approach developed in order to fulfil the original idea of enabling a collaborative supply chain initiative. This approach has been jointly designed by top managers and supply chain management researchers. More precisely, the multiple-methodology framework depicted in Figure 1 has been jointly developed to conduct the research. Accordingly with many authors (Pasmore et al., 2008), the approach tries to operationalize some “collaborative” principles, which imply carrying out research efforts including the active involvement of both practitioners and researchers in: (i) the framing of the research agenda, (ii) the selection and pursuit of method(s), and (iii) the development of a set of implications for both improving the organizations’ performance and adding a scientific contribution to the broader management research field.

MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Figure 1: The multiple-methodology research framework

The paper main objective is to demonstrate that it is possible to overcome the lack of either a well-established supply chain association or a strong leading company, by developing collaboratively an ICT-based project, concerning trade process integration, which is devoted to improving business-to-business transaction relationships for the supply chain as a whole. Thus, the paper aims to answer the following main research question: is it possible to develop a B2B integration project for an industry as a whole without the mandate of a supply chain champion? How can the academia effectively support practitioners in leveraging both expertise and best practices already developed in other contexts? Is it possible to establish a collaborative partnership devoted to jointly achieve both interesting academic insights and sound practical results?

As already pointed out, the study started in response to very practical issues, which have been showed to the OEID researchers by a small group of practitioners. The call for help has been the trigger to the researchers’ active involvement based on a collaborative problem-solving relationship between them and the “client system”, which has as its final goal to both manage change and generate new knowledge (Coghlan, 2000). A situation as such clearly fits into an action research approach, which specifically deals with a planned intervention stage (Davison et al., 2004) and primarily aims to implement an impact-seeking intervention in organizations that face complex problems (Halbesleben et al., 2006), (Reason and Heron, 1986). Expected signs of effective action research are commonly: (i) organizational improvements, (ii) better awareness of members’ potentials and competencies, and, hopefully, (iii) improved performance (Hatchuel and David, 2008).

The paper presents an in-depth, longitudinal case study, lasting over four years. The case study is an empirical inquiry that – through multiple sources of evidence – investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, without clearly evident boundaries between phenomenon and context (Yin, 2003). The distinctive need for case studies mainly arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena, allowing the researcher to retain holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events (Eisenhardt, 1989). During this time, authors have periodically met with the founding team – made up of about twenty CIOs coming from the main manufacturers and specialized retailers in the industry – and also with many other companies in the sector.

Since its onset as a “spin-off” of the B2B Observatory – which has been analysing the impact of ICT on B2B customer-supplier relationships since 2001 – the OEID has been conducting structured and sustainable collaborative researches with multiple investigators. In particular,

MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

the longitudinal OEID approach (Pettigrew, 1990) is framed into the four-year period of this case study. In more detail, the aid provided by the OEID has been three-fold: firstly, it has facilitated knowledge transfer from successful, well-established similar initiatives in different industries, secondly it has provided both the right environment and the supporting tools for the very embryonic stages of the project (i.e. it has played as incubator), and finally, the OEID has provided the methodological tools and high-level competences to develop sound quantitative business cases, which have been crucial in order to achieve full commitment (i.e. the approval of the investments needed for the project to go “live”) from the top-level decision makers in each company.

CASE STUDY The case depicted regards the very recent foundation of a new, successful supply chain initiative from its beginning. In early 2007, a couple of top managers had the vision to ignite a crucial change process, which involved the Italian HA&CE supply chain as a whole, in order to foster the adoption of more efficient and effective practices in a collaborative fashion. In order to actually develop their vision, the founding practitioners asked the OEID to partner the initiative. They knew that the OIED – through its years of research on the field – would have been able to leverage its well-established network of relationships with the players of the most successful supply chain integration and collaboration projects.

After some meetings, pioneering practitioners and researchers shared the same belief about the extreme value of the idea and decided to pull the trigger and ignite the project. The managers provided the involvement of other companies (creating a team, EDIEL technical committee, made up of about twenty CIOs representing the main manufacturers and specialized retailers in the industry), while the OEID played as scientific partner of the project. The founding team, whose companies cover more than 60 per cent of the market in terms of sales, was formed with two goals: (i) to tackle the operational issues necessary for implementation, such as process and document standards and (ii) to drive companies towards adoption, identifying the actions to support change management. The initiative focuses on three main work streams: the master data alignment, the integration of the trade process through the exchange of structured electronic documents (EDI), and the radio frequency identification, with the first two areas considered fundamental and preliminary to the third one. During the four-year period, the authors have periodically met with the founding team and with many other companies belonging to the sector as well. More in detail, the EDIEL technical committee met at least five times per year in order to monitor the evolution of the project and to steer further development and action.

The following four paragraphs are devoted to highlight the principal elements and the main events of each year.

Year 1 | 2007-2008 As stated before, the OEID provided both the right environment and the supporting tools for the very embryonic stages of the project (i.e. it has acted as incubator). During this first year, the OEID arranged meetings between the EDIEL team and the main Italian collaborative supply chain associations such as: (i) DAFNE, the supply chain association of the Italian Pharmaceutical industry, which was conceived in the early 1990’s, and which at present has a total market coverage of more than 98%, involving pharmaceutical companies, pre-wholesalers, wholesalers and pharmacies; (ii) INDICOD-ECR, the GS1 representative for Italy, which since 1978 has been supporting companies of the Fast Moving Consumer Goods industry providing common languages and standards to facilitate dialogue between manufactures and retailers; (iii) METEL, the reference initiative in the Italian Electrical Equipment sector, established in 1993 by FNGDME (National Federation of Electrical

MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Equipment Wholesalers and Distributors) – which also engage ANIE (National Association of Electro-technical companies) and ARAME (National Association of Electrical Equipment Agents and Representatives) in 1999 – in order to support the development of an inter-company communication standard in the field. Moreover, the OEID also arranged meetings with the main B2B integration service providers operating in Italy.

At the same time, OEID members – recognizing that the assessment of potential benefits is the key element for promoting adoption – established a specific stream of research on this issue (Ruppel, 2004). A plan was therefore jointly prepared by the OEID researchers and the technical committee in order to build a business case assessing the benefits of trade process integration for an average manufacturer and an average retailer in the industry. The detailed description of the business case developed, and of its results, can be found in another paper written by one of the authors (Perego and Salgaro, 2010). In Figure 2, a selection of the results stemming from this analysis is shown: the order-to-payment cycle cost is split into the four main phases. The delivery phase is the most expensive, also because in the HA&CE industry there are, on average, two deliveries per order, meaning an increased impact on the costs to manage the trade process initiated by an order.

Figure 2: The trade process costs of three different technological scenarios, split by cycle

phase

In parallel with the business case development, which has been primarily conducted by the OEID researchers, the EDIEL technical committee’s main task was the definition of a common protocol to standardize the electronic transmission of structured data between the industry and the retailer. Thus, starting from the idea that the value lies beyond the syntactic structure of documents (on this specific point, EDIEL decided from the very beginning to adopt the GS1 standard supported by INDICOD-ECR), involving the semantic and process issues, EDIEL practitioners assigned a dedicated task force to cope with it during 10 focused workshops. It is important, in fact, that the documents are “read” according to the process perspective, i.e. activities and players, and contain all the information needed to facilitate integration (e.g. cross-references, links between orders, delivery notes, invoices and payments), and that there is complete agreement on semantics as well (e.g. product and

MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

player identification codes). This is a task which goes a long way beyond the definition of syntactic standards and the use of process modelling languages, demanding the expertise of those who know the actual business processes and dynamics.

Year 2 | 2008-2009 Spurred by the encouraging results stemming from the business case, the practitioners faced the challenge to identify a B2B integration service provider, which should provide the actual implementation of the shared electronic platform, in order to enable trade process integration. The presence of a large number of B2B integration service providers in the market brought up the question about how to choose the best one, recognizing that a mere price comparison was obviously insufficient. The OEID researchers, moving from the outcomes of a broad literature review, developed the opinion that despite the huge number of articles dealing with provider selection criteria, none of them seemed to deal specifically with B2B service provider selection issues. Thus, a new, specific stream of research was established to develop a list of the main criteria that a company – or an industry or supply chain association, such as EDIEL – should follow to assess and select its B2B Integration service provider. The main results of this study is in the process of being formalized by the authors into a dedicated paper, which aims to extend and generalize the work performed with EDIEL companies, in order to provide a structured methodology that can support companies in the selection process of their B2B technology partner.

Finally, in early 2009, three pilot cases in the Italian HA&CE industry were launched, which contributed to ironing out all the kinks encountered when adopting a new operational praxis, setting the stage for the project roll-out, which had been scheduled for January 2010.

Year 3 | 2009-2010 Little more than 2 years after the conception of the EDIEL project, within the HA&CE supply chain, the use of solutions to support the exchange of trade process documents in standard structured electronic format became a reality. Throughout the course of 2009, while pilot cases came to an end, at the same time, 20 manufactures and 12 retailers, generating an overall traffic of more than 115,000 exchanged documents, went “full force ahead” in their adoption. The progressive spread of document exchange in structured electronic format had offered a wealth of information, which if also shared with other intermediaries – such as Logistics Service Providers (LSPs) – would have led to further improvements for the supply chain as a whole. With the concrete roll-out of the project among manufacturers and retailers next to becoming a reality in the short run, the EDIEL team understood the need to extend the scope of the project, involving LSPs in order to achieve the full potential of trade process integration. Following the same successfully-applied approach regarding manufacturers and retailers, EDIEL already knew that a crucial step to increase awareness and boost the adoption of B2B integration technologies was the quantitative assessment of the potential benefits for each player involved. Initial results emerging from an extensive review performed by Fabbe-Costes et al. (2009), in fact, revealed that LSPs seem to be the forgotten actors of Supply Chain Integration projects. Thus, the OEID researchers developed a business case specifically focused on evaluating the additional benefits stemming from the strong involvement of LSPs in the HA&CE industry’s integration project, transforming what was initially just a dyad – manufacturer and retailer – into a logistics triad: a cooperative three-way relationship between a buyer of goods, the supplier of those goods and a logistics service provider which stores and moves the goods between the buyer and the supplier (Stefansson, 2006). A first description of the business case developed, and of its results, can be found in a conference paper written by two of the authors (Marazzi and Perego, 2010). Other benefits – such as improvements on service level, higher flexibility, lower switching costs, increased responsiveness, etc. – have been identified but have been addressed less systematically so far: this is because both OEID researchers and EDIEL practitioners were

MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

more focused on finding an effective way to speed adoption at the fastest pace. Further developments devoted to assess also these benefits are in the process.

Figure 3: The delivery phase costs of two different technological scenarios, split by actor

In Figure 3, a selection of the results stemming from this analysis is shown: the bottom line is an estimated cost of €17.9 per delivery in the reference, paper-based scenario, compared to €6.8 in the target scenario involving the exchange of structured electronic documents and information flows. The potential savings are almost equally shared among the retailer, the manufacturer and the Logistics Service Provider.

Year 4 | 2010-2011 In early 2011, EDIEL published the final balance figures about 2010: 41 manufactures and 29 retailers, which generated an overall traffic of more than 400,000 exchanged documents. The preliminary outlook of the first 3 months of 2011 recorded slightly less than 150,000 exchanged documents, with a 50% increase compared with the same period of 2010.

The main step of Year 4 is the development of a shared Web portal, aiming to enhance integration and visibility on delivery processes, such as the delivery booking process. This project was ignited by the widespread understanding of the additional value stemming from the involvement of LSPs in the EDIEL integration project. In the second half of 2010 three pilot cases were conducted and in early 2011 a first release of the shared Web portal was launched. The portal is now up and running.

Collaboration among EDIEL companies and the OEID researchers will continue: at present, for example, it is under scrutiny the launch of a study devoted to quantitatively assess the value of Vendor Managed Inventory solutions. This opportunity is linked with the very recent

MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

introduction of standard sell-in and sell-out messages, which has triggered the companies’ commitment on this topic.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The paper describes the approach developed in order to realise in concrete terms the original idea of founding a collaborative supply chain initiative. Writing the paper, the authors leverage both their involvement in the OEID’s continuous research program and their partnership with EDIEL, which has been granting them an original, “insider look”. The in-depth, longitudinal case study depicts the creation – and sketches out the first three-year period – of an ICT-based supply chain integration initiative “from scratch”. As insiders, the authors have been able to collect very high-quality data and to develop precious insight regarding how to effectively run projects like the one mentioned.

The case study clearly shows how it is really possible to disseminate ICT-driven integrating and collaborative practices in almost every supply chain. Empirical evidences prove there is no blueprint or set of standard tools which can project the “potential” organization, but rather the enactment of what the organization could be thanks to everyone’s intervention in the organization (Coghlan and Coughlan, 2002), the collaborative approach developed – systematically combining academic and practical perspectives – seems generalizable to fit all industries that lack a well-established sectorial initiative devoted to fostering performance improvement for the supply chain as a whole.

From a practitioners’ point of view, the success of the initiative, which is still growing and further developing, suggests the practical value of the approach described in the paper. The systemic approach described proved able to trigger the adoption of collaborative, ICT-driven integrating practices relatively quickly, even when starting from scratch, such as demonstrated in the chronicle provided: EDIEL started to operate in 2009, approximately 2 years from its conception.

The partnership between EDIEL practitioners and OEID researchers is still in process. As such, there will be clear opportunities over the coming year to explore further opportunities to transcend boundaries between researchers and practitioners. A strong collaboration as such helps OEID researchers to have a real impact on the way companies run their current business. This represents a new way of knowledge dissemination, which has improved the effectiveness as requested by several scholars (Coghlan and Shani, 2008), (Rudolph et al., 2009).

Furthermore, a collaboration as such helps to reduce the increasing sense of distance felt by the practitioners regarding the divergence between the academic debate and their actual needs, which has been highlighted by many scholars (Pasmore et al., 2008). An increasing number of scholars, in fact, since the seminal paper by Susman and Evered (1978), are questioning the effectiveness of management researches of improving current business practices: practitioners complain more and more frequently about (i) the lack of relevance of published research to the problems they face and about (ii) the lack of responsiveness of researchers to meeting their actual needs (Susman and Evered, 1978).

REFERENCES Araujio L., Easton G. (2003). “Evaluating the Impact of B2B E-Commerce”, in Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 431-439.

MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Barratt M.A., Oliveira A. (2001). “Exploring the experiences of collaborative planning: the enablers and inhibitors”, in International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 266-89.

Boyson S., Corsi T., Verbraeck A. (2003). “The E-Supply Chain Portal: A Core Business Model”, in Transportation Research (Part E), Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 175-192.

Christopher M. (2000). “The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets”, in Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 27-44.

Coghlan D. (2000). “Interlevel dynamics in clinical inquiry”, in Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 190-200.

Coghlan, D., Coughlan, P. (2002). “Developing organizational learning capabilities through interorganizational action learning”, in Rahim, M.A., Golembiewski, R.T., MacKenzie, K. (Eds.). Current topics in management, (Vol. 7, pp. 13-46). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Coughlan P., Coghlan D., Lombard F., Brennan L., McNichols T., Nolan R. (2003). “Managing collaborative relationships in a period of discontinuity”, in International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 23, No. 10, pp. 1246-1259.

Coghlan D., Shani A.B. (Rami) (2008). “Collaborative Management Research Through Communities of Inquiry: Challenges and Skills”, in: Shani A.B. (Rami), Mohrman S.A., Pasmore W.A., Stymne B., Adler N. (Eds.), Handbook of Collaborative Management Research, Thousand Oaks (CA): SAGE, pp. 601-614.

Davison R.M., Martinsons M.G., Kock N.F. (2004). “Principles of canonical action research”, in Information Systems Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 65-86.

Eisenhardt K.M. (1989). “Building Theories from Case Study research”, in Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 532–550.

Fabbe-Costes N., Jahre M., Roussat C. (2009). “Supply chain integration: the role of logistics service providers”, in International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2009, pp. 71-91.

Fawcett S.E., Wallin C., Allred C., Magnan G. (2009). “Supply chain information- sharing: benchmarking a proven path”, in Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 222-246.

Greenberg, P.S., Greenberg, R.H., Antonucci, Y.L. (2008). “The role of trust in the governance of business process outsourcing relationships. A transaction cost economics approach”, in Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 593-608.

Halbesleben J. R. B., Osburn H. K., Mumford M. D. (2006). “Action research as a burnout intervention: Reducing burnout in the federal fire service”, in Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 244-266.

Hatchuel A., David, A. (2008). “Collaborating for Management Research: From Action Research to Intervention Research in Management’” in Shani, A.B. (Rami), Mohrman, S., Pasmore, W.A., Stymne, B., Adler, N. (Eds.), Handbook of Collaborative Management Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 143-162.

Lee H.L., So K.C., Tang, C.S. (2000). “The Value of Information Sharing in a Two- Level Supply Chain”, in Management Science, Vol. 46, No. 5, pp. 626-643.

Lee H.L., Whang S. (2000). “Information sharing in a supply chain”, in International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 20, No. 3/4, pp. 373-87.

MITIP 2011, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Marazzi D., Perego A. (2010). "B2b integration with Logistics Service Providers: the case of the Home Appliances supply chain", in Proceedings of the 15th Annual Logistics Research Network Conference, Harrogate, United Kingdom, pp. 444-452.

Mentzer J.T., DeWitt W., Keebler J.S., Min S., Nix N.W., Smith C.D., Zacharia Z.G. (2001). “Defining supply chain management”, in Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22, No.1, pp. 1-25.

Pasmore, W.A., Stymne, B., Shani, A.B. (Rami), Mohrman, S.A., Adler, N. (2008). “The Promise of Collaborative Management Research”, in: Shani, A.B. (Rami), Mohrman, S.A., Pasmore, W.A., Stymne, B., Adler, N. (Eds.), Handbook of Collaborative Management Research, Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.

Perego A., Salgaro A. (2010). “Assessing The Benefits Of B2B Trade Cycle Integration”, in Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 616-631.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1990). “Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice”, in Organization Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 267–292.

Reason P., Heron J. (1986). “Research with people: The paradigm of co-operative experimental inquiry”, in Person Centred Review, Vol. 1, pp. 456-475.

Rudolph, J.W., Morrison, J.B., Carroll, J.S. (2009). “The Dynamics of Action- Oriented Problem Solving: Linking Interpretation and Choice”, in Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 733–756.

Ruppel, C. (2004). “An information systems perspective of supply chain tool compatibility: the roles of technology fit and relationships”, in Business Process Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 311-24.

Shin K., Leem C.S. (2002). “A reference system for Internet based inter-enterprise electronic commerce”, in The Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 60, pp. 195-209.

Stank T.P., Crum M., Arango M. (1999). “Benefits of inter-firm co-ordination in food industry supply chains”, in Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 21-41.

Stefansson G. (2006). “Collaborative logistics management and the role of third-party service providers”, in International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 76-92.

Susman, G.I., Evered, R.D. (1978). “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research”, in Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23, pp. 583-603.

Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research (3rd Ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This paper is based upon researches carried out by the Observatory on Electronic Invoicing and Dematerialization (OEID) of the Politecnico di Milano School of Management in collaboration with EDIEL, the “newborn” supply chain organization for the Italian Home Appliances and Consumer Electronics sector. The authors acknowledge the inputs from all the companies involved (names have been kept confidential) and the assistance of also other three supply chain organizations: Indicod-ECR for Consumer Goods, Consorzio DAFNE for the Pharmaceuticals industry, METEL for Electrical Equipment. The contribution of each of them was invaluable: we are deeply grateful to all.