walmart supply chain

A critical analysis of Supply Chain Collaboration Techniques

By

Arun

Table of ContentsIntroduction.................................................................................................................................................3

Supply chain Management and Drivers of supply chain performance........................................................3

Retail Industry supply chain overview.........................................................................................................4

Bullwhip Effect.............................................................................................................................................5

Reducing the “Bullwhip Effect”....................................................................................................................6

Mitigating Bullwhip Effect by Improving Information Accuracy..................................................................7

Collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR)...............................................................8

Drawbacks of CPFR..................................................................................................................................9

Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI)...........................................................................................................9

Drawbacks of VMI..................................................................................................................................10

Mitigating Bullwhip Effect by Improving Operational Performance..........................................................10

Vendor consolidation............................................................................................................................11

Risk in using 3PL for vendor consolidation............................................................................................13

Reducing Replenishment Lead time using Cross docking......................................................................14

Supplier selection for cross-docking......................................................................................................15

Benefits of Cross-docking......................................................................................................................16

Disadvantages of Cross-docking............................................................................................................17

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................18

Appendix...................................................................................................................................................19

Appendix A............................................................................................................................................19

Products suitable for cross-docking.......................................................................................................19

Types of cross-docking..........................................................................................................................19

References.................................................................................................................................................21

of 23

IntroductionA Supply chain consists of all the participants and processes which are involved in satisfying the

customer demand. The large amount of participants, variety of processes, dynamics and uncertainty in

materials and information flow prove that the supply chain as a complex system in which coordination is

considered as a key element for success. The lack of supply chain coordination between the participants

results in a “Bullwhip Effect”. This report analyzes different techniques followed by Wal-Mart to improve

coordination for reducing the bullwhip effect. Wal-Mart’s use of CPFR, VMI to mitigate the bullwhip

effect by improving information accuracy is explained and the drawbacks of those systems are

discussed. Wal-Mart’s revolutionary use of cross-docking and vendor consolidation programs to achieve

coordination by improving operational efficiency is analyzed. Based on these analyses the requirement

for efficient coordination and the important points to be considered for reduction in bullwhip effect are

emphasized.

Supply chain Management and Drivers of supply chain performanceA Supply Chain is dynamic and involves constant flow of product, information and funds between

different stages. Hugos(2006) defined supply chain management as “the coordination of production,

inventory, location and transportation among the participants in supply chain to achieve the best mix of

responsiveness and efficiency for the market being involved”. The major concept of supply chain

literature is the alignment of supply chain initiatives with the overall business strategy of a firm. Thus,

the objective of every supply chain is to maximize the overall value regenerated. This value is referred as

“supply chain surplus” which is the difference between what the final product is worth to the customer

and the costs that incurs in filling the customer’s need. The success of the supply chain heavily relies on

the design and management of supply chain flows (product, information and funds). Wal-Mart has been

a leader at using its supply chain design, planning and operation to achieve success. The company has

heavily invested in information infrastructure and transportation to facilitate effective flow of

information and goods.

Chopra and Meindl(2007) provided the framework of supply chain drivers which determines the

performance of the supply chain as shown in Figure.1. The drivers include three cross-functional drivers

of 23

(information, sourcing and pricing) and three logistical drivers (facilities, inventory and transportation).

Wal-Mart uses all these drivers to achieve its supply chain performance. With inventory driver, Wal-mart

pioneered cross-docking which significantly reduces stored inventory. On transportation front, Wal-Mart

runs its own fleet to keep responsiveness high. For facilities, Wal-Mart uses centrally located DCs within

its network of stores to decrease facilities. The company has invested more in information driver(like IT)

to decrease inventory investment and to improve responsiveness. With regard to sourcing driver, Wal-

Mart identifies efficient sources and makes huge orders allowing the suppliers to be efficient by

exploiting economics of scale. Finally for pricing driver, Wal-Mart practices EDLP (“every day low pricing”

for its products.

Figure.1. Supply chain Decision-making Framework (Source: Chopra & Meindl, 2007)

Retail Industry supply chain overviewThe network of retail supply chain consists of many suppliers that serve multiple retailers which involves

intermediates who provide link between retailers and suppliers (e.g. Wholesalers, 3PLs etc.,). Mass

merchandise are creating retail stores that provide all merchandise that a customer’s needs in one

convenient location. Consumers are shopping in retail stores which appeal to consumer convenience

of 23

and price sensitivity. The time spend by consumers in the retail store is declining and therefore retailers

are realizing the on-time shelf availability as crucial factor. Due to these changes in customer spending,

the focus in retail supply chain has changed from handling demand through inventory levels to handling

customer demand through changes in trading partner relationship and use of technology.

In traditional retail supply chains, the risk of stock-outs are mitigated through carrying buffer inventory

but for the past few years the retailers have realized the additional cost of holding inventory and moved

on to deal with fast moving inventory. The change in demand variability has helped the collaborative

efforts between suppliers and retailers to respond to the demand fluctuations.

Bullwhip EffectThe key feature of supply chain management is close collaboration between the business partners. The

lack of coordination within the supply chain will result in “Bullwhip Effect”. Skjott-Larsen (et al, 2007)

states Bullwhip effect as a “swing’ in the supply chain which describes the fluctuations caused by

demand distortion (i.e, the variance between actual orders downstream and upstream members of

supply chain) and variance propagation (i.e variance of orders as they move upstream). Dyckhoff(et al,

2004) states that bullwhip effect occurs when there is a gap between order and demand and it can be

suppressed by avoiding or reducing the gap. Chopra (et al, 2007) describes that the lack of coordination

in which the order fluctuations increase as they move up from retailers to manufactures will result in a

bullwhip effect as shown in a figure.2.

of 23

Figure.2. Demand fluctuations at different stages of supply chain (Source: Chopra and Meindl, 2007)

The main obstacles to coordination of supply chain which results in bullwhip effect include price

fluctuations, long lead times, inflated orders due to lack of information sharing and ordering/batching

large lot size as shown in fugure.3.

of 23

Figure.3. Main Causes for ‘Bullwhip Effect’

Reducing the “Bullwhip Effect”Simchi-Levi (et al, 2003) suggest various methods for coping with the bullwhip effect which includes

reducing uncertainty, reducing variability of customer demand process, reducing lead times and

engaging in strategic partnerships. Goyal (2002) states that bullwhip effects can be mitigated by

combination of information sharing, channel alignment and operational efficiency measures. This is

illustrated in below Table.1.

of 23

Table.1. Mitigation of Bullwhip Effect. (Source: Goyal, 2003)

Mitigating Bullwhip Effect by Improving Information AccuracyInformation integration refers to the sharing of information among the members involved in the supply

chain. The supply chain partners could exchange demand data, inventory status, promotion plans,

capacity plans, production schedule and shipment schedules to improve the information accuracy to

of 23

mitigate the disruption. Wal-Mart has been leader in sharing information and collaborating with

suppliers to bring down the cost to improve product availability.

Collaborative planning, forecasting and replenishment (CPFR)CPFR is a practice which combines the intelligence of multiple partners in efficient planning and

fulfillment of customer demand. By using data from all sides, the production, warehousing, delivery and

promotion get aligned between the trading partners and helps to improves availability to customer

while reducing logistics and inventory costs (SCRC, 2006). The CPFR process model is given in figure.4.

Figure.4. CPFR Process Model (source: Supply chain Digest, 2008)

The model shows three stages in which the collaborative planning stage establishes and updates the

relationship; the collaborative forecasting and replenishment occur more frequently. The accuracy in

forecast can be improved by participating supplier and customer in the forecast. The retailer can

compare its demand forecast with the suppliers order forecast and if there is any discrepancies the

partners get together to decide on the replenishment quantity which rectifies the discrepancies. This

allows the supplier to build inventory well in advance of a promotional order and carry only safety stock

at the other times.

of 23

In 1995, Wal-Mart found that the product of pharmaceutical company Warner-Lambert’s in stock

averages are lower when compared with other vendors. Wal-Mart with its partners Warner-lambert,

surgency and software companies like Manugistics and SAP defined a process which links the customer

demand with the replenishment needs through its supply chain. They focused on the in-stock average of

‘Listerine mouthwash’ kept in the stores. By testing the collaborative concept and using the internet for

information exchange they managed to improve Warner-lambert’s in-stock average from 87% to 98%

and the lead time dropped from 21 days to 11 days (Businessweek, 2010).

Drawbacks of CPFRThe survey conducted by Crum and Palmatier (2004) reveals that only 41% of the consumer goods

supplier and 25% of the retailers have positive indication on the implementation of CPFR. The reason for

this high level rejection is because the suppliers found they incur more risk even when they have the

demand information from the retailers. This is due to the fact that the retailers at the time of order

placement do not place the orders in the same pattern as the indicated demand. This difference

between the actual orders from retailers and demand information forces suppliers to fulfill the orders

that are not expected. The CPFR to be successful both suppliers and retailers should agree on the

demand management process and open communication. Crum and Palmatier(2004) suggest that the

coordination and trust between partners should be made to belief that what is forecasted will be same

as what will be ordered to fulfill demand. Chopra and Meindl(2007) describes other risks including the

risk of information misuse and if one of the partner changes its technology or scale then the other party

is forced to follow the suit or end the partnership.

Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI)VMI is one method by which the supplier manages the inventory of its product at the retail outlet and

decides how much to ship to the retailer in each period. Hence, in VMI suppliers don’t rely on the orders

from retailers this helps in lessening the bullwhip effect. Waller (et al 1999) states that VMI helps in

cutting cost for both retailers and suppliers and also increase the customer service level. For retailers

benefits include getting frequent replenishment due to supply chain flexibility to respond to consumer

demand and ensure on-shelf availability. For suppliers, they know in advance the amount of products

they need to replenishment which helps in better planning that results in reduction to inventory levels

and transportation cost.

of 23

Wal-Mart and P&G established successful VMI program by which P&G gets access to Wal-Mart’s daily

warehouse shipment data of ‘pampers’ in order to manage flow into Wal-Mart’s DCs. The retailer went

on to provide P&G with the Point-of-sale (POS) data which enables P&G to reduce cost and make just-in-

time deliveries. To stabilize the demand and to make Just-in-time deliveries, the promotionally-induced

fluctuations are eliminated by adopting ‘Every day low pricing’ (EDLP) strategy (Christopher et al 2003).

This helps in mitigating bullwhip effect and the partners are benefited by continuous replenishment of

nappies with reduced cost and increased on-shelf availability.

Drawbacks of VMI The main disadvantage for the supplier arises due to the transfer of retailers cost to the supplier. This

includes the cost of carrying inventory and administration cost as a result of increased inventory to meet

retailer’s demand. Coyle(et al 2009) describes another drawback of VMI is that the supplier may push

excess inventory to the retailer distribution center at end of month to meet their monthly sales quotas.

This will result in increase in inventory holding cost for the retailers. Other risks involve sharing of

sensitive information and this can be mitigated only through high trust and communication present in

the partnership.

Mitigating Bullwhip Effect by Improving Operational PerformanceFactory gate pricing (FGP) is one of concept in which the retailer takes control of the delivery of the

goods that gives the retailer single point of control. Potter (et al, 2007) states FGP is a use of ‘ex-works

price’ for a product plus the optimization of transport by purchaser to the point of delivery. Mangan(et

al, 2008) states that in addition to this FGP, the retailers are looking to increasing the back loading of

store delivery vehicles and using consolidation centers to consolidate smaller truck loads(LTLs) into full

truck loads(FTLs).

Bullwhip effect can also be reduced by improving the operational performance. This includes reducing

lot sizes and reducing replenishment lead time. Reduction in lot size will help in decreasing the amount

of fluctuations than can accumulate between the suppliers and retailers thus decreasing distortion. Lot

size reduction can be done by combining multiple shipments from suppliers into on a single truck. In

1990’s, consolidation centers(CCs) are added into the retail supply chain network which are used to

consolidate deliveries from multiple suppliers into full truck loads which could be delivered to the

Distribution centers(DCs). of 23

Vendor consolidationA consolidation by a third party logistics is also considered as an effective method to suppress bullwhip

effect (Dyckhoff et al, 2004). Most retailers focus on getting new products at lowest price possible but

they don’t focus much on how they can help their suppliers by getting products faster and in a cost

effective way. Retail vendor consolidation helps both retailer and its suppliers by reducing high transport

costs associated with logistics to eliminate lost sales due to late deliveries (Hubpages, 2010). According

to Wal-Mart, the solution for suppliers is using a consolidator to handle inbound logistics to the

distribution centers. Wal-Mart has partnered with DSC logistics for a multi-Vendor consolidation

program (MOST) which allows suppliers to maintain inventory at its consolidation centers. DSC

consolidates order from Wal-Mart’s suppliers and delivers full truck loads to Wal-Mart’s 39 DCs as

depicted in figure.5.

Figure.5. Vendor consolidation using 3PL.

Wal-Mart implemented a sustainability program in conjunction with a 3rd party logistics company

Casetack to reduce congestion and carbon footprint. They created 2 vendor consolidation programs to

service their 42 DC’s. By using their optimized consolidation process, Wal-Mart is able to cube out a

trailer to each DC. Instead of getting 20-30 vendors sending different LTLs, everything is consolidated of 23

into one trailer. This consolidation reduces 30-40% of freight cost for vendors and reduces the transit

time by 2-3 days (Hubpages 2010).

Wal-Mart’s report states that by packing the trucks efficiently reduces the food miles and waste. The

recent consolidation center in California replaces the LTL shipments with full truckloads. This saves

almost 5 million food miles per year and reduces the number of trucks required. The decision to

outsource the consolidation to the 3PL makes sense to the retailer only when the third party increases

the supply chain surplus. According to Chopra and Meindl (2007), third party can increase the surplus

effectively if they are able to aggregate supply chain flows or assets to a level higher than the firm itself.

By using the supplier consolidation numerous benefits can be created for both retailer and supplier.

Benefits for retailer includes,

Reduced dock congestion

Reduced inventory on-hand

Greater control of product flow

Sustainability

Benefits for Supplier includes,

Transportation Costs

Fewer product touches

Increased On-Time Performance

Normally consolidation programs are usually one of the three types, 1) hosted by supplier, 2) run by a

third party logistics provider at its facility or 3) run directly by the retailer at its own facility.

Bill (2005) provides the advantages and disadvantages between the three consolidation types as shown

in the table.2. Even though consolidation using 3PL seems to be providing more advantages over the

others it heavily relies on the shipments from different suppliers. If the suppliers provide full truck load

then it is better to send the goods to the DC of the retailer instead of sending it to the consolidation hub.

But incase if the demand for the products is fluctuating or supplier sends goods in the LTL then the 3PL

consolidation can provide added advantages like consolidating the units into FTL based on the retailers

demand.

of 23

Table.2. Advantages and Disadvantage of different consolidation facility. (Source: Bill, 2005)

Risk in using 3PL for vendor consolidationWhen consolidation is outsourced to the 3PL, there are risks which are associated for the retailers. For

smaller retailers which are not of the size of Wal-Mart the negotiation power may be lower with both its

suppliers and hence the suppliers will not be willing to participate in the consolidation program.

Moreover, introduction of 3PL for small retailers who mainly depend on local suppliers will worsen the

of 23

supply chain surplus. Chopra and Meindl (et al 2007) lists additional risk in using a third party as listed

below,

The already broken supply chain will further reduce surplus with introduction of 3PL.

Underestimation of the cost of coordination which includes the effort for coordination.

Reduced customer/supplier contact.

Loss of internal capability and growth in third-party power.

Leakage of sensitive date and information.

Ineffective contracts.

Reducing Replenishment Lead time using Cross dockingCross-docking is a tool for consolidation in logistics in which there is a direct flow of goods from

receiving to shipping with least or no storage in between. Bolten (1997) states that cross-docking

compresses the receive-to-ship time period by reducing handling between receipt and shipment of

goods. In Wal-Mart’s supply chain, distribution centers perform two major functions. One function is to

be a warehouse to store products near the retail stores for flexible and quick replenishment and the

other functions to serve as a cross-docking facility in which the products flow through the stores without

being warehoused. Cross-docking is especially used for efficient consumer response (ECR) and quick

response (QR) shipments to retailers.

By using cross-docking, Wal-Mart facilitates aggregation across multiple supply and delivery points

without storing intermediate inventories. The inbound truck loads from various suppliers are unloaded,

products are cross-docked and loaded into the outbound trucks. By doing this, each truck will have

product aggregated from several suppliers which is destined to one retail store as shown in Figure.6.

This helps in reducing inventory in supply chain without increasing the transportation costs. For a

retailer, it is very important to classify which products should be cross-docked and the type of cross-

docking that is appropriate. The basic cross-docking types and the products considered for cross-docking

in retail industry are given in Appendix A.

of 23

Figure.6. Cross-docking Facility consolidating shipments from multiple Suppliers.

Supplier selection for cross-dockingSupplier selection for cross-docking is very important. Napolitano (2007) states that for retailers it is vital

to choose suppliers who consistently provide with correct quantity and correct product at the precise

time. The best suppliers for cross-docking should include those who consistently comply with the

retailer mandate for ticketing, labeling and packaging and those who effectively share information with

their customers. This is shown in the figure.7.

of 23

Figure.7. Supplier selection for Cross docking.

Benefits of Cross-dockingWalden (2006) states that greatest benefit of cross-docking is improving the velocity of the supply chain

by having fewer touches for the products as it move through the supply chain. The main key for this

cross-docking success relies on the information transformation between the parties involved. This helps

in reduction of inventory within the DCs and to achieve the goal of velocity management (to get

products through the center and to the customer faster) as shown in figure.8.

of 23

Figure.8. Increasing Delivery Frequency using Cross-docking.

Cross-docking also helps in decreasing the labor requirement and inventory damage cost due to less

material handling. It accelerates payments to suppliers which can be used to convince suppliers to

participative in cross-docking. Cross docking have direct effects in reducing cost and indirect effects by

helping the reduction in the bullwhip effects by reducing replenishment lead times. Retailers have the

ability to streamline the supply chain from the point of origin to point of sale through the help of cross-

docking.

Disadvantages of Cross-dockingCross-docking requires high commitment and continuous monitoring at all times by the parties involved

which requires good planning and effective communication. Langevin(et al 2005) states that because of

these requirements many retailers have not been achieved anything close to the real cross-docking

system. The major pre-requisite for the successful cross-docking is timely and accurate flow of

information between the supply chain members. This requires huge investments in information systems

such as advanced shipment notice (ASN); electronic data interchange (EDI) and automatic identification

(auto ID) such as radio-frequency tags and barcodes (Langevin et al, 2005).

of 23

Automated material handling systems are crucial for a successful cross docking facility. For retailers,

suppliers involved in partnership may have to make significant investment on the technology to achieve

the benefits of cross-docking. Moreover, the CDO would prefer that the outbound trucks can wait for

long time so that the flexibility is achieved in scheduling. If the 3PL is used for logistics then they will not

accept to absorb the cost related with the waiting time of the trucks. All these should be considered

while reaching an agreement and signing the contract with supply chain partners. For a huge retailer like

Wal-Mart the negotiating power is high with their suppliers but for the small retailers with less

negotiation power the tradeoff should be made between the cost and efficiency which they get through

cross-docking.

ConclusionSupply Chain Collaboration has been hailed by many as the way to improve the supply chain

performance but more often the supply chain partnerships fail due to the required pre-requisite that

are not being met by the partners involved. In VMI suppliers don’t rely on orders from retailers and in

CPFR, the data from both sides are used to make a perfect forecasting, planning and replenishment.

These features help in reducing the bullwhip effect but in both these methods there is high risk of

information misuse and hence trust should be ensured between the partners involved in it. Since CPFR

and VMI highly rely on technology requirements then the change in technology by one partner will force

the other member to do so which affects the collaborative partnership.

Vendor consolidation helps in reducing replenishment lot size by aggregating deliveries across multiple

suppliers. For implementing the consolidation centers the retailers should have good infrastructure but

this will be more expensive than supplier hosted or 3PL consolidation. Replenishment lead times can be

reduced by using cross-docking but this also puts additional burden on selecting suitable products and

suppliers. Moreover, the huge investment, high commitment, continuous monitoring from all parties are

prerequisite for a successful operational performance.

Improving operational performance and information accuracy will help in reducing the bullwhip effect

only when the parties involved in collaboration ensure commitment, high level of trust and by providing

support to the other parties. Hence the supply chain coordination decision should be made only after

the better understanding of pre-requisite, ensured commitment and trust among the parties involved.

of 23

Appendix

Appendix A

Products suitable for cross-dockingIn retail industry cross-docking can be applicable for range of products that are better suited when

compared with others. Those products include,

Perishable products that require immediate shipment to retail store

Products that are pre-ticketed, pre-tagged(RFID, bar coded) and ready for sale to consumer

High quality products which doesn’t require quality audit

Promotional items, pre-picked or pre-processed consumer orders from other warehouse or

plants

Types of cross-dockingWalden(2006) explains three basic types of cross docking as mentioned below,

Pre-allocated supplier consolidation - the supplier will prepackage and preload the shipments to

the destination. These will be received in DCs and cross docked to the respective retail outlets as

shown in Figure.9.

Figure.9. Pre-allocated Supplier consolidation.

of 23

Pre-allocated cross docking operator (CDO) consolidation - the DCs personnel consolidate the

outbound shipments at the cross dock without storing them in the warehouse as shown in

figure.10. Advanced shipment notification (ASN) from suppliers to DCs is pre-requisite as it is

imperative to know what product is coming in and going out of DC.

Figure.10. Pre-allocated cross docking operator (CDO) consolidation

Post-allocated CDO consolidation - This form of cross-docking also requires ASN and is normally reserved for shipments to fill the back orders or past-due orders. This method is used to expedite shipments to catch up on the back orders. Figure.11.

Figure.11. Post-allocated consolidation.

of 23

ReferencesBill, S.(2005). Direct containers from multi-vendors is attractive option.[Online] Available from:

http://www.globeexpress.com/24.pdf [Accessed on 20th April 2010]

Bolten, E., F.(1997). Managing time and space in the modern warehouse: with ready-to-use forms.NY,

AMACOM.

Businessweek(2010). Supply Chain Collaboration. CPFR Means Process and Practice.[online] Available

From: http://www.businessweek.com/adsections/chain/2.1/cpfrmeans.html [Accessed on 19th April

2010]

Chopra, S. and Meindl, P.(2007).Supply Chain Management. Strategy, Planning, and operation. Fourth

Edition. New Jersey, Pearson Education, Inc.

Christopher, M. and Peck, H.(2003). Marketing logistics.Second Edition. Burlington, Butterworth-

Heinemann.

Cole, J., J., Langley, C., J. and Bardi, E., J. (2009). Supply chain management: a logistics

perspective.Cengage Learning, Inc.

Crum, C. and Palmatier, G. E. (2004). Demand Collaboration: What's Holding Us Back? Supply Chain

Management Review, 8(1), 54-60.

Dyckhoff, H., Lackes, R., and Reese, J.(2004). Supply chain management and reverse logistics.Berlin,

Springer-Verlag.

Goyal, M.(2002). Bullwhip Effect in Supply Chains.[Online] Available from:

http://informist.net/excerpts/bullwhip.html [Accessed on 20th April 2010]

Hubpages(2010). Retail Vendor Consolidation: How It Benefits Both the Retailer and Manufacturer.

[online] Available From: http://hubpages.com/hub/Wal-Mart_Retail_Vendor_Consolidation [Accessed

on 19th April 2010]

Hugos, M., H.(2006). Essentials of supply chain management. Second Edition. New Jersey, John Wiley &

Sons, Inc.

of 23

http://hubpages.com/hub/Wal-Mart_Retail_Vendor_Consolidation

http://informist.net/excerpts/bullwhip.html

http://www.businessweek.com/adsections/chain/2.1/cpfrmeans.html

http://www.globeexpress.com/24.pdf

Langevin, A., and Riopel, D.(2005). Logistics systems: design and optimization.NY, Springer

science+business Media, Inc.

Mangan, J., Lalwani, C. and Butcher, T.(2008). Global Logistics and Supply Chain Management.Wiltshire,

John Wiley & sons, Ltd.

Potter, A., Mason, R., J. and Lalwani, C., S.(2007). Analysis of factory gate pricing in the UK grocery

supply chain, International Journal of Retail and distribution Management, 35, 10, 821-834.

SCRC(2006). Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR): A Tutorial.[Online] available

from: http://scm.ncsu.edu/public/cpfr/index.html#2 [Accessed on 19th April 2010]

Simchi-Levi, D., Kaminsky, P., and Simchi-Levi, E.(2003). Designing and managing the supply chain:

concepts, strategies, and case studies. Second Edition. NY, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Skjott-Larsen, T., Schary, P., B., Mikkola, J., H. and Kotzab, H. (2007). Managing the Global Supply chain.

Third Edition. Malmo, Copenhagen Business School Press.

Supply chain Digest (2008). Original CPFR Process Model.[Online] Available from:

http://www.scdigest.com/assets/on_target/08-03-05-2.php?cid=1529 [Accessed on 21st April 2010]

Walden, J., L.(2006). Velocity management in logistics and distribution: lessons from the military to

secure the speed of business. Boca Raton, Taylor & Francis Group.

of 23

http://www.scdigest.com/assets/on_target/08-03-05-2.php?cid=1529

http://scm.ncsu.edu/public/cpfr/index.html#2

walmart supply chain

Documents