4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The impact of forecast information quality on supply chain performance

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/01443570710714556

关键词

forecasting; information; quality; supply chain management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - This paper aims to describe the extent of supplier access to customer forecast information and the perceived quality of such information and also to explain the impact of forecast information access and forecast information quality (FIQ) on supply chain performance. Design/methodology/approach - FIQ is defined, and a measurement instrument is developed from theory. The analysis is based on a survey of the most important suppliers of 136 Swedish companies. Findings - Findings show that a large proportion of the suppliers receive customer forecasts, but that the FIQ is lower further upstream in the supply chain and, in some variables, lower for make-to-order suppliers. The greatest information quality deficiency of the forecast was that it was considered unreliable. The only significant difference in supply chain performance found between make-to-stock suppliers with and without access to forecast was related to the use of safety stock in finished goods inventory. Research limitations/implications - The study contains two types of conclusions: those developed from the conceptual discussion in the theoretical framework and those of the empirical study. In the theoretical framework, measurement instruments for FIQ and supply chain performance (corrective actions, preventive actions and customer service performance) were developed. The study identified several empirical relationships, but it was conducted on a sample with a lot of variation. Practical implications - The understanding of the performance impact of FIQ. FIQ shows quality deficiencies on all variables, which indicates room for improvement. Originality/value - Research on supply chain information quality as well as dyadic research approaches are rare.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据