Using the social system of a supply chain to improve a focal organization’s operating performance

At the time of the study, the Transport Provider and the Railway Company were in a legal dispute over possession of a freight terminal which included the transshipment area for the steel rail. Both firms had also become competitors. In this sense, the two firms were engaged in co-opetition (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 1996), where competitors also cooperate with each other. The view was taken that even if subjects from the Transport Provider agreed to participate in this study, there was a risk that the strained context would affect their responses; therefore no subjects from the Transport Provider were interviewed. Fortunately, from this study’s perspective, the Railway Company’s direct relationship in this chain was with the Steel Manufacturer. The Transport Provider had contracted directly with the Steel Manufacturer and had no direct contractual obligations with the Railway Company regarding this commodity. However, all the transport performance information was available to the Steel Manufacturer and staff from the Railway Company were able to discuss their dealings with the Transport Provider’s staff. Secondary sources of information such as annual reports and legal documents were also examined in depth to gain a fuller appreciation of the Transport Provider. While the Transport Provider’s lack of participation was a potential weakness to the study, this situation itself helped raise interesting issues about the reality in which supply chain members have to work, and just how far collaboration and trust can be taken.