A comparative study of datesexport supply chain performance:the case of Oman and Tunisia

Msafiri MbagaNatural Resource Economics Department,

College of Agriculture and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University,Muscat, Oman

Mohammed Suleiman Rashid Al-ShabibiMinistry of Agriculture, Muscat, Oman, and

Houcine Boughanmi and Slim Mohamed ZekriNatural Resource Economics Department,

College of Agriculture and Marine Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University,Muscat, Oman

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, is to apply the benchmarking approach to thedates export supply chain (DESC) in Oman and Tunisia (taking Tunisia as a benchmark) to identifygaps in the organizational and operational structures of the DESC in the two countries. Second, is toutilize the information generated to put forward recommendations to improve Omani DESC.

Design/methodology/approach – Four benchmarking dimensions are developed, each dimensionwith anumber of key performance indicators (KPIs). TheKPIs are thenused in the benchmarking exercise.

Findings – Results show that Tunisia is performing better than Oman in all the four dimensions.

Originality/value – The study enables the readers and the stakeholders to gain some valuableinsights in the subject matter. A careful analysis of the findings should enable Oman policy makersand stakeholders to produce an industry action plan to correct the gaps and take the lead.

Keywords Sultanate of Oman, Tunisia, Exports, Performance criteria, Benchmarking

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThe date industry is an important component of theOman economy and date is a leadingcash crop. According to the 2005 census, there are an estimated 7.8 million date palmtrees grown throughout the Sultanate, occupying about 50 percent of the planted area,employing a significant number of Omani people directly and indirectly. Statisticsshows that in 2006 the Sultanate ranked ninth in the world in date production far behindits neighbors such as Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (Table I).Date production has been declining since 2001, the year date production reached itshighest level in the Sultanate in recent years (FAO, 2008). Export disincentives whichinclude poor quality output, absence of a well-coordinated supply chain and lack ofaggressive export promotion, together with the 2002-2004 drought, have been widelyrecognized as being the reasons behind the decline in date production.

Based on Table I, we see that Oman and Tunisia have consistently ranked ninth andtenth, respectively, among the ten leading date producers in the world. However, even

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-5771.htm

BIJ18,3

386

Benchmarking: An InternationalJournalVol. 18 No. 3, 2011pp. 386-408q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1463-5771DOI 10.1108/14635771111137778

though Tunisia ranked tenth in terms of date production, the country ranked fourth(Table II) in terms of date export volume. Furthermore, Tunisia ranked first and thirdwith regard to date export value and date export unit value, respectively. In 2005, forexample (Table II), while Tunisia exported 50,180 metric tons (40 percent of itsproduction) at a price of US$2,008 per metric ton, Oman managed to export only 4,090metric tons (1.65 percent of its production) at a price of US$290 per metric ton.

It is therefore clear from that Tunisia is performing better than other countries in theregion in terms of export unit value and export value. In addition, even though Tunisiaaccounts for only 2 percent of world dates production, its share of global exports in valueis around 30 percent (FAO and Table I).

Given that an estimated 7.8 million date palm trees are grown throughout theSultanate of Oman, occupying about 50 percent of the planted area, one would haveexpected Oman to be a leading date producer and exporter in the region. Statisticspresented above, however, show that Oman is lagging behind in terms of date exportvolume and export value, while Tunisia is leading (Table II).

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

World 4,966 5,447 5,624 6,172 6,503 6,724 6,653 7,092 6,682 6,7041. Egypt 741 840 906 1,007 1,102 1,090 1,100 1,166 1,170 1,1702. Iran 877 918 908 900 900 879 885 880 997 9973. Saudi Arabia 649 648 712 712 712 830 884 901 970 9704. Iraq 750 913 764 932 907 866 868 875 404 4045. UAE 288 290 535 757 757 757 757 760 859 8596. Pakistan 537 722 580 613 630 625 630 622 497 5077. Algeria 303 387 428 366 370 418 492 470 516 4918. Sudan 180 200 240 332 330 330 330 330 328 3289. Oman 185 236 282 280 298 239 220 231 247 259

10. Tunisia 95 103 103 105 112 115 111 122 125 125

Note: 1,000 tonsSource: FAO Statistics

Table I.Main countriesproducing dates

Country Volume (Mt) Country Value (6,000 US$) Country Unit value (US$)

1. Iran 117,060 Tunisia 100,769 Israel 4,4802. Pakistan 84,060 Iran 68,495 USA 3,1883. Saudia 51,450 Israel 40,836 Tunisia 2,0084. Tunisia 50,180 Saudia 32,456 Algeria 1,7025. UAE 23,880 Pakistan 29,775 Jordan 9426. Algeria 10,860 Algeria 18,492 Saudia 6357. Israel 9,120 USA 13,723 Iran 5858. Egypt 8,880 UAE 8,830 Egypt 5519. USA 4,300 Egypt 4,893 UAE 370

10. Oman 4,090 Jordan 2,155 Pakistan 35411. Jordan 2,290 Oman 1,184 Oman 290

Note: Volume multiplied by unit value may not be exactly equal to total export value because ofroundingSource: FAO Statistics

Table II.Dates export volume,value and unit value

for the main exportingcountries based on 2005

statistics

Dates exportsupply chain

387

Furthermore, for the last nine years (2001-2009) as indicated in Table III, the internalconsumption (IC) of dates in Oman was only 49 percent of total dates production,This leaves 51 percent of dates produced in Oman potentially available for export.Therefore, there is a need for benchmarking so as to find ways to improve the datesexport supply chain (DESC) in Oman. Based on these facts, Tunisia is taken as abenchmark or best practice among date-producing countries.

The purpose of this study is therefore two fold. First, is to apply the benchmarkingapproach employed byGarcia et al. (2004) to the DESC in Oman andTunisia (Tunisia as abenchmark) so as to identify gaps in the organizational and operational structures of theexport supply chain in the two countries. Second, is to utilize the information generated(regarding thegaps) to put forward recommendations to improveOmaniDESC.Thispaperis organized as follows: Section 2 provides a description of theDESC inOman andTunisia.Section 3 reviews the literature on benchmarking and supply chain. Section 4 presents themethodology and includes the various key performance indicators (KPIs) used to identifyand quantify gaps in Oman’s and Tunisia’s DESCs. Section 5 presents the resultsand discussion. Lastly, Section 6 presents the conclusions and policy recommendations.

2. A description of Oman’s and Tunisia’s DESCs2.1 Oman DESCFor the purpose of this paper, dates supply chain (DSC) is defined as the various stagesthrough which dates are channelled starting from farm until it reaches the consumers.Generally, the DSC includes three main stages:

(1) production and harvesting;

(2) initial processing at farm level, processing and packaging at factory level andtransport to the port; and

(3) handling of dates at the international markets by wholesalers, retailers andconsumers.

DESC, therefore, can be defined as steps through which dates undergoes, starting frompost-harvest until dates arrives at the port of the exporting country. Stage two inthe DSC is more or less the DESC itself. Activities in stages one and two of the DSC areperformed in the exporting country – in this case Oman and Tunisia. Stage threeactivities are performed in the importing country.

The marketing channels are a set of interdependent organizations involved in theprocess of making a product or service available for use or consumption. The DESCin Oman is one of the marketing channels that include: initial processing at farm level,

Item 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010a

TP 298 239 220 231 252 259 261 267 273 280IC 123 125 118 120 123 127 132 134 133 135Export 13 9 9 5 5 5 9 7 7 9Excess 162 105 93 106 124 127 120 126 133 136IC as a percentage of TP 41 52 54 52 49 49 51 50 49 48

Note: aIndicate a forecast for 2010 based on a time trendSource: Ministry of Agriculture (Statistics Department)

Table III.Oman dates production,consumption an export,2001-2010

BIJ18,3

388

processing and packaging at factory level and transportation to the port. Generally,it is how the dates are produced, sorted, graded, processed, packaged and transportedthat determines their final export market value. Furthermore, safety and qualitymanagement of dates along theDESC plays a very important role in the determination oftheir final market value. Currently, there are around four dates factories (exporters) inOman beside several small processing units mostly for local consumption.

2.2 Tunisian DESCTunisia is the world-leading producer of Deglet-Nour date variety and most of thedates-producing oases are concentrated in the Southern part of the country. Tunisiapossesses approximately 50 percent of the world’s Deglet-Nour palm trees. The officialproduction figure in 2006 was 125,000 tons for all varieties, of which about two-thirdswere Deglet-Nour. The dates export sector in Tunisia is ranked third at export level afterolive oil and seafood products. Dates production inTunisia is characterised byfive typesof date varieties: Deglet-Nour, Allig, KhouatAllig, Kenta and Farmla. ButDeglet-Nour isthemost popularly produced variety and better appreciated as a noble variety because ofits quality and flavour. Significant investments in modern Deglet-Nour plantations andan aggressivemarketing strategy have led to a steady increase in exports.While exportsranged between 15,000 and 20,000 tons in the first half of the 1990s, exports reached25,000 and 50,180 tons in 2000 and 2005, respectively.

Dates destined for the export market are treated in more than 30 processing factoriesregistered for exports. Dates export account for about 40 percent of total production (TP).Although Tunisia accounts for only 2 percent of world date production, the countryranksfirst in terms of export value and fourth in terms of export quantity (Table III). Thisismainly due to the highmarket value of theDeglet-Nour variety, a good quality product,well appreciated in foreign markets, leading to higher market share. In general, Tunisiais well positioned in high-value markets with high purchasing power. Compared to itsdirect competitors, Tunisia represents 55 percent of EU imports in value. Tunisian datesare mainly exported to European countries accounting for more than 81 percent of totaldate imports and other Arab countries in second position with 15 percent of total dateimports. Around 70 percent of Tunisian dates exports are processed dates. Tunisia’s top20 clients in the international markets during 2005 are as presented in Table IV.

The DESC in Tunisia is organized into somewhat comprehensive and complexmarketing channels. All the agents are involved: producers, collectors, conditioners,exporters, wholesalers, etc. Asmost of thesemarket participants operate individually andindependently, it is difficult tomonitor and control their actions.As a result, it is difficult toprovide an estimate of the exact volumes of dates handled by each one. Date marketingtakes place mostly in the last quarter of the year (October to December), and during theholymonthofRamadan.Given the strong tradition ofdate consumption inTunisia, a largeshare of production is consumedwithin the country and especially in the producing areas.Dates for the domesticmarket are often bought bywholesalers and semi-wholesalers fromthe collectors (Laajimi, 2002). Decisions concerning the distribution of dates betweenexport markets and domestic markets seem to be taken by collectors. They are the mainmarketing agent in the supply chain. They ensure the supply of dates to wholesalers,exporters and conditioning and packaging industries. Exports operations are undertakeneither by foreign trade enterprises (Societes de Commerce International) or by theconditioning and packaging industries – dates factories (Laajimi, 2002).

Dates exportsupply chain

389

3. Literature reviewBenchmarking also known as “best practice benchmarking” is an approach used inmanagement and particularly strategic management, in which organizations evaluatevarious aspects of their processes in relation to best practice, usually within the samesector – for example, in this case, Tunisia and Oman in relation to DESC. This thenallows organizations to develop plans to adopt such best practice, usually with the aimof improving their performance even beyond that of the best practice. Benchmarkingmay be a one-off event, but is often treated as a continuous process in whichorganizations continually seek to challenge their practices. The benchmarking processis, therefore, valuable to producers and or companies in opening up many differentideas about processes, approaches and concerns (Allan, 1997).

The benchmarking approachwas first developed in the USAduring the late 1970s byXerox Corporation. It has since then been an effective way of improving productivityand competitiveness, and in fact today benchmarking has become a widely practicedand generally accepted method of assessing performance. The benchmarking approachis very versatile; it has been applied in many areas, from assessing public policy, as inHelgason (1997); in the food industry, as in the UK Food and Drink National TrainingOrganisation (2001, 1998); in dairy, as in Anon (2005); in strategic planning inagriculture, as in Ronan and Taylor (2004); in food and beverage, as in Deloitte (2009); ingrain supply chain, as in Barnes (2007); in food and drinks, as in Luther andAbdel-Kader(2006); international competitiveness in agriculture, as in Thelwell and Ritson (2006);in analyzing information flow to farmers, as in Verissimo and Woodford (2005); inagriculture performance indicators, as in Wilson et al. (2004); in analyzing goodagricultural practices, as in UNCTAD (2005); in analyzing fruits and vegetable supply

Country Export quantity (tons)

1. France 16,6012. Morocco 9,4053. Italy 6,1794. Spain 4,7945. Germany 4,0956. Belgium 1,7657. UK 1,7008. Russia 1,3889. Switzerland 909

10. Turkey 85511. Indonesia 58812. Senegal 53313. Canada 49214. Holland 47615. Mauritania 40716. Hungary 35517. UAE 34618. Malaysia 29119. Greece 25720. Bosnia and Herzegovina 233

Source: GidF (2005)

Table IV.Tunisia’s clients in theinternational marketsduring 2005

BIJ18,3

390

chain, as in UNCTAD/WTO (2007); in the area of quality management and productivityimprovement, as in UNIDO (2002); in agriculture in relation to fresh produce qualityand safety management, as in Garcia and Poole (2003); in locating and leveragingmanufacturing best practices, as inBrandt andTaninecz (2004); in assessingmicrofinanceinstitutions across countries, as in Stephens (2004); in agriculture in relation to greenhousegas emissions, as in CLAN (2006); in assessing government organizations, as in HowardandKilmartin (2006); in evaluating and comparing the performance of federal agencies, asin USDA (2008); in evaluating the sustainability performance of food supply chains, as inYakovleva et al. (2009) and many more.

The process of benchmarking ismore than just ameans of gathering data on howwella company performs against others. It is also a method of identifying new ideas and newways of improving processes to better meet the expectations of customers. According toOmachonu and Ross (1994), the ultimate objective of benchmarking is processimprovements to meet and whenever possible exceed customer expectations.Benchmarking as a methodological tool has been gaining attention among academicsand practitioners as a means of strengthening the ability to compete (Yasin, 2002). Thebenchmarking approach has an internal dimension whereby an organization criticallyexamines itself in search of the best practice, aswell as an external dimensionwhereby theorganization analyses its industry and other domains in an attempt to identify externaland competitive practices, which may be implemented in its operating environment(Yasin, 2002). In this study, both the internal and external dimensions are implemented.

To date, there is no single benchmarking process that has been universally adopted.The wide appeal and acceptance of benchmarking has led to the emergence of variousbenchmarking methodologies. The most prominent methodology is the 12-stagemethodology by Camp (1989), which consists of the following:

(1) selection of the subject in advance;

(2) clear definition of the process;

(3) identification of the potential partners;

(4) identification of data sources;

(5) data collection from selected partners;

(6) gap analysis;

(7) establish process differences;

(8) target future performance;

(9) communicate;

(10) adjust goal;

(11) implement; and

(12) review/recalibrate.

A shorter version of the methodology as proposed by Camp (1989) includes six steps,namely:

(1) identify problem areas;

(2) identify other industries that have similar processes;

(3) identify organizations that are leaders in these areas;

Dates exportsupply chain

391

(4) survey companies for measures and practices;

(5) visit the “best practice” companies to identify leading edge practices; and

(6) implement new and improved business practices.

Broadly, this shorter version will be adopted in this study.This study seeks to analyze the DESC in Tunisia and Oman in order to identify

gaps in the organizational and operational structures of the DESC in the two countries.The information generated will then be used to put forward recommendations toimprove Omani DESC. Generally, supply chain encompasses all the facilities, functionsand activities performed in the process of producing and delivering a service or aproduct (in this case dates) from suppliers to the final customer (Russell and Taylor,1998; Sparling and van Duren, 2003). More specifically, the concept of supply chainmanagement (SCM) can be defined as collaboration among actors in a supply system,from the primary producer to the final retailer, with the aim of satisfying the consumerat lower costs possible. SCM in relation to agricultural commodities therefore focuseson improving efficiency and effectiveness in the system in order to deliver a wide rangeof safe and desirable agricultural products in a cost-effective manner.

The performance of firms and the industry particularly with respect to food safetyand quality standards is strongly influenced by the structural characteristics of thefood chains, the strategies of individual firms and the level of coordination of the foodsystem (Poole et al., 2002). With recent concerns regarding food-borne diseases, nowfood supply chains must be efficient, transparent and “traceable” as consumers expectto be able to trace each food item back to its earliest production stage. Traceabilityhelps to increase consumer confidence on the product and hence value. Supply chainsthat are less flexible and inefficient, where supply chain processes and procedurescannot be upgraded very quickly, and products are not traceable, become a majorimpediment to trade (Garcia Martinez and Poole, 2003).

Implicit in the benchmarking framework is the notion of gap analysis, namely, thedifference between the level of operations in a given organization and that within a bestpractice company. Comparisons made within benchmarking are often aboutunderstanding the gap. Making comparisons against best practice or stated aimsallows companies to assess the nature of the improvement that they have to make inorder to catch or surpass world-class competitors. Analysis of gaps from base (currentperformance) to benchmark (current performance level of the best companies) helpscompanies to prioritize resource allocation (Balm, 1996).

Identification of critical performance measures (or KPIs) and their comparison withsimilar performance measures of “Best in Class” organizations is at the heart ofbenchmarking (Bhutta and Huq, 1999). Identification of the proper measures is afundamental part of the study as they represent the yardsticks, which tell people howwell they have done, and as such motivates them to achieve higher targets (Zairi, 1994).The information sought in benchmarking usually consists of the following two parts:

(1) qualitative business process descriptions; and

(2) quantitative performance data used to determine the differences in performancelevels among the companies being compared (Andersen et al., 1999).

The next section shows how key benchmarking principles from the literature reviewedabove have been utilized in this study.

BIJ18,3

392

4. Benchmarking methodological frameworkIn businesses today, it is commonplace to benchmark practices and performance againstother companies, both at home and abroad. Typically, firms aspire to best practice as ayardstick, wherever this is feasible. This study applies the benchmarking approachemployed byGarcia et al. (2003) to analyze the DESC in Oman andTunisia. The aim is toidentify gaps in the DESC taking Tunisia as the benchmark or the best practice. Thisstudy, however, adds to the body of literature in that it goes beyond the Garcia et al.(2003) by incorporating some additional simple quantitative indicators to enrich theanalysis.

4.1 Development of benchmark measuresThe identification and development of proper benchmark measures is a fundamentalpart of benchmarking. Benchmark measures focus on dimensions of performance thatreflects a firm’s capabilities to meet current export supply chain demands byinternational customers. In this study, these critical dimensions have been broadlygrouped into qualitative and quantitative groups. The qualitative group has beenfurther sub-divided into three dimensions. The quantitative group, however, has onlyone dimension. Each of the four dimensions has a number of KPIs associatedwith it. TheKPIs for dimensions 1-3 were developed to reflect the characteristics which describeinternal and external business behaviour of the firms in the industry. When comparedwith “the best practice”, the KPIs will lead to the identification of a performance gap.These KPIs will therefore be used to identify and quantify the performance gap betweenTunisia and Oman. Dimension 1 investigates how the export SCM practices arecoordinated in Oman and Tunisia. Table V presents a summary of KPIs that formdimension 1. There are altogether eight KPIs for dimension 1.

Dimension 2 looks at safety and quality orientation of the export supply chain inOman and Tunisia. Safety and quality of exports are very important ingredients as faras the export business is concerned. Table VI presents a summary of KPIs thatrepresents dimension 2. There are altogether six KPIs for dimension 2.

Areas analysed Key performance indicators

Coordination of theexport SCM practices

Exporter-producer information sharing. This reflects the directness of therelationship in terms of communication of requirements, specifications andregulationsExporter-importer information sharing. This reflects the directness of therelationship in terms of communication of the requirements, specificationsand regulationsMarket orientation. This reflects the ability of exporter to predict customerrequirementsProduction flexibility. This reflects the abilities of the exporter to meetchanging customer requirementsCustomer orientation. Involves visits by customers to check and advise onsafety and quality practices throughout the production and export systemVertical integration. Reflects the involvement of exporters in upstream and/or downstream processes in the supply chainVertical coordination. The degree of co-ordination of operations in thesupply chainTraceability systems. The existence of documented traceability systems

Table V.Dimension 1 KPIs

Dates exportsupply chain

393

Dimension 3 analyzes the export operational infrastructures under which Oman andTunisian firms operate. Operational infrastructure for the purpose of this benchmarkingexercise include: processing and packaging quality and technology used; labellingflexibility in processing and packaging in response to customer needs; storagetechnology and storage capacity; and transport quality and technology. A good exportoperational infrastructure is very important for the success of the export business.Table VII presents a summary of KPIs that represents dimension 3. There are altogetherseven KPIs for dimension 3.

Dimension 4 tracks the efficiency of the export supply chain in Oman and Tunisia.For the purpose of this benchmarking exercise, the efficiency of the export supplychain is measured by four KPIs which include: profit per ton (PPT) exported; profitper employee ratio; cost per ton exported and export intensity. Table VIII presents asummary of the four KPIs that represents dimension 4.

4.2 Questionnaire design and data collectionTo implement the benchmarkingmethodological framework presented in Tables V-VIII, aquestionnaire was developed to collect the required data and other relevant information.

Areas analysed Key performance indicators

Safety and quality orientationof the export supply chain

Quality certification. The level of certification obtained by the firm,e.g. ISO, HACCP, etc.Quality control specialists. The availability of specialists with therequired skillsTraining and knowledge. The availability of training for workersSocial responsibility. The exporter’s policies with respect to workerhealth, safety and welfareEnvironmental management. The exporter environmentalmanagement policies and practicesSafety and quality requirements. Safety and quality specifications aspart of exporter-importer contracts or agreements

Table VI.Dimension 2 KPIs

Areas analysed Key performance indicators

Export operationalinfrastructure

Processing and packaging technology. The technology used in processingand packaging operationsProcessing and packaging quality. The quality of processing and packagingmaterials used and the extent of operational flexibility available to meetcustomer requirementsLabelling flexibility in processing and packaging. Flexibility in meetingcustomer labelling requirementsStorage technology. The level of technology or automation the firm uses inits storage facilitiesStorage capacity. The firm’s storage capacityStorage quality. The firm’s storage qualityTransport technology. The level of technology or automation employed bythe firmTransport quality. The availability of transport of required quality and theextent to which problems are encountered en route to the customer

Table VII.Dimension 3 KPIs

BIJ18,3

394

EachKPI in thebenchmarkingmethodological frameworkwasused to formulatequestionsused as a discussion guide during firm visits and interviews with dates exporters. Thequestionnaire was pre-tested for consistency and validity. Data were collected from sevenTunisian and three Omani dates exporters during June-July 2007. Table IX presentsinformation on dates exporters in Oman and Tunisia where data were collected.

The complexity and difficulties in benchmarking performance dimensions tends tobe in assigning quantitative measures to the selected indicators. For dimensions 1-3,a qualitative approach is used to compute each KPI as in other studies as follows(Garcia et al., 2004; Food and Drink National Training Organisation, 2001):

. Level 1. Firm shows little or no capacity in achieving “best practice”.

. Level 2. Firm shows some capacity in achieving “best practice”.

. Level 3. Firm shows “best practice” in this area (e.g. consistent performance,clear and demonstrable systems in place).

This method allows the identification of areas in which firms have room forimprovement (Gilmour, 1999). For dimension 4, descriptive statistics were computedto measure the efficiency and the performance of the export supply chain.

5. Results and discussionResults from the benchmarking exercise are presented below. For clear presentation andcomparison of results, the spiderweb or radar charts have been used (Mosley andMayer,1999). A spiderweb diagram shows at a glancemultiple targets andgaps, and as a result,capture tradeoffs that occur between goals and their achievements (Ahmed and Rafiq,1998). As indicated earlier, in this study, Tunisian exporters are taken as “best practice”.These are the practices which have often been assigned a “level 3” in the benchmarkinganalysis.

Areas analysed Key performance indicators

Efficiency of the exportsupply chain

PPT exported.Measured in US dollars, this is the amount of profit generatedper unit volume of businessProfits per employee ratio. The amount of profit in US dollars generatedper employeeCost per ton exported ðin US$Þ ¼ Cost of Export=Export VolumeExport intensity ¼ Export revenue=Total revenue for the entire output

Table VIII.Dimension 4 KPIs

No. Company name (Tunisian companies) No. Company name (Oman companies)

1 Vacpa (in Beni Khalled – Tunis) 1 Ibn Nasser Al-Siyabi Trading2 Horchani (in Tozeur – Tunis) 2 United Dates Factory Company3 Cap Bon Frigorifique 3 Oman Dates International4 Sages in Tunis5 Jasmine Export6 Profruits7 Medi fruits8 Les Agrumes Du Golse Flus

Table IX.Dates processing

companies in Tunisiaand Oman

Dates exportsupply chain

395

5.1 Qualitative dimensions5.1.1 Dimension 1: coordination of the export SCM practices.

5.1.1.1 Exporter-producer information sharing. Exporter-producer informationsharing is a key to the success of the export supply chain. This is because, it isthrough information-sharing process that feedbacks from consumers in the exportmarket reach producers in exporting country. Through this process, consumer needs andwants can very be incorporated in the production process at farm level in the producingcountry. In many cases, exporters are less likely to have systems in place for providingproducers with information related to market intelligence, crop protection regulation,quality standards, etc. With regard to exporter-producer information sharing, Omanscore is 51.8 percent or 1.55 in the KPI scale of 1-3 indicating a weak exporter-producerrelationship, compared to Tunisia’s score of 68.2 percent or 2.05 (Figure 1). This is largelydue to the lack of information sharing system inOman. InTunisia, somedegree of verticalintegration and contacts with government agencies facilitates communication greatly.

5.1.1.2 Exporter-importer information sharing. In addition to exporter-producerinformation sharing, information sharing between exporters and importers is veryimportant. Exporters need to know the importing countries requirements andspecifications. Importers also need to knowsafety andquality standards in the exportingcountries. Therefore, strong information sharing between exporters and importers leadsto high performance in the production and delivery of the products to importers andultimately to the consumers. With regard to exporter-importer information sharing,Oman’s score is 66.6 percent or 2.00 in KPI scale indicating a relatively weakrelationship, compared to Tunisia’s score of 85.7 percent or 2.57 in KPI scale (Figure 1).This is due to lack of a strong exporter organization in Oman and lack of a strong linkwith importers. In Tunisia, such organizational relationships exist and are strong.

5.1.1.3 Market orientation. Market orientation is another area of export supply chaincoordination in which partners in different regions can share market intelligence.Market orientation plays a role in choosing the varieties to be grown, and this can changeevery year depending on market requirements and the type of agricultural commoditywhether it is an annual crop. For a perennial crop, such as date palm changes take time.Exporters can develop their own information network through visiting trade fairs,getting advice from international organizations and following market trends.

Figure 1.Benchmarking results onthe coordination of theexport SCM practices

0

1

2

3

Exporter-producer informationsharing

Exporter-importerinformation sharing

Market orientation

Production flexibility

Customer orientation

Vertical integration

Vertical coordination

Traceability

OmanTunisia

BIJ18,3

396

Omani dates export sector presents a medium degree of market orientation with a scoreof 77.8 percent or 2.33, as shown in the spider chart (Figure 1). The Omani exportersmonitor demand trends in the international markets. They target mostly the developingcountries in Asia where firms are generally not very well organized in terms of marketresearch and they have inefficient promotion programs. All Omani firms supply threevarieties of dates which are Faradh, Khalas and Khasab. Most of the exports are ofFaradh variety which is in high demand in the traditional low-value Asian markets dueto its intact and non-sticky skins.

On the other hand, Tunisian dates export sector with a score of (100 percent or 3,Figure 1) presents a high degree of market orientation. Tunisia monitors very closelydemand trends in the European market and other international markets and firmsseem to be generally very well organized. Firms have good relationships with otherfirms and organizations in the international markets, enabling them to work togetherefficiently. In this arrangement, information regarding domestic and export marketsrequirements flows efficiently along the export supply chain. This may be one of thereasons why Tunisian export firms have managed to compete successfully for a largershare of the EU market.

5.1.1.4 Production flexibility. Production flexibility can be defined as the ability ofthe exporter to meet changing customer requirements. Production flexibility can beenhanced by the existence of strong communication infrastructure capable of reachingand communicating with importers easily and efficiently. Omani firms score is67 percent or 2.01 implying a limited flexibility in terms of changing varieties suppliedand responding to customer demands. On the other hand, Tunisian firms score is85.7 percent or 2.57 implying that Tunisian firms tend to be more proactively involvedin changing their production processes to meet customer requirements. This is due tobetter communication infrastructure that constantly monitors and forecast consumertrends.

5.1.1.5 Customer orientation. Customer orientation can be measured by the numberof visits from customers to audit, check and advice on safety, quality practices and allmatters of interest throughout the production and export supply chain. Customerorientation is important as one of the coordination practices in the export supply chain.For both Oman and Tunisia, visits to exporters by customers take place regularlyevery season. However, their regularity and frequency depends on the customers.Results from survey data show that customers have fewer direct involvement in Oman(score 56 percent or 1.68) compared to Tunisia (score 90.5 percent or 2.72).

5.1.1.6 Vertical integration. Vertical integration is the involvement of exporters inupstream or downstream processes in the export supply chain. In vertical integration,the exporter may be vertically integrated from production to exportationand sometimes large and modern producers are directly involved in exportation.Tunisia’s score is 76.1 percent or 2.28 which imply a high degree of vertical integrationin terms of production, processing and export. Oman’s score is 67 percent or 2.01 whichimply a less direct involvement of exporters in production.

5.1.1.7 Vertical coordination. Vertical coordination includes operations such asharvesting, processing, packing, storage and transportation organized and coordinatedin order to control product quality along the export supply chain. With regard tovertical coordination, Oman score is 78 percent or 2.01 which implies that generallythere is some coordination of operations (harvesting, processing and export) but with

Dates exportsupply chain

397

no modern control systems, such as IT tracking systems. Tunisia score is 90.5 percentor 2.72 implying that operations are generally highly coordinated in large and modernpackinghouses equipped with IT tracking systems. This enables the system to monitortime closely and, as a result, making it possible to minimize time in storage andtransportation.

5.1.1.8 Traceability systems. Product-tracing systems are essential for food safety andquality control. Most of the foreign markets especially in North America and Europerequire traceability system. Traceability systems help firms to solve safety and qualityproblems quickly with minimal disruption by tracing back the origin of the products.A well-functioning traceability system uniquely codes each item or product to identifytime of production, line of production, place of production and sequence. With suchspecific information, the processor can trace faulty products to the minute of productionanddeterminewhether otherproducts from the samebatch are also defective.With regardto traceability systems, Tunisia score is 92.1 percent or 2.76 which imply that generallythere is a high level of traceability. Any packing box sold in the European market carriescodes and references that allows tracing of the product to the packinghouse, so thetreatment undergone by the product at the packinghouse can be verified easily. Omanscore is 66.6 percent or 2.00 which implies that many dates exporters have no traceabilitysystem in place. This will likely make it difficult for Oman to penetrate the lucrative EUand North American markets that require traceability systems. A summary of the eightKPIs (5.1.1.1-5.1.1.8) is shown in the radar chart (Figure 1).

Figure 1 is a spider web that presents a visual graphical summary of the eight KPIsof dimension 1. Tunisia is performing better than Oman in all eight KPIs. At the rangeof 1-3, Tunisia scores between 2 and 3 for all indicators. On the other hand, Oman’sperformance is not all that impressive. Its scores range from 1 to 2, achieving a score ofabove 2 in one indicator, namely market orientation.

5.1.2 Dimension 2: safety and quality orientation of the export supply chain.5.1.2.1 Quality certification. As industries are widening their range of products,

certification to national and international requirements has become necessary andcrucial in winning consumer confidence. Varying levels of certification are seen in eachcountry. Omani firms score reached 55.5 percent or 1.66 where some of them haveISO certificates and the majority are without certificates. On the other hand, Tunisianfirms score reached 61.9 percent or 1.86, where some of them have several types ofcertificates (ISO 9001, ISO 22000, HACCP, BRC, IFS, ISO 14000), but just like in Oman,the majority are without certificates.

5.1.2.2 Quality control specialists. Quality control specialists are the employees whodevise ways to guarantee the quality of products. They study products at variousstages of development to make sure that they are safe, will satisfy customers and meetthe company’s and regulators’ standards. With regard to quality control specialists,they are a norm in Tunisia with score reaching 100 percent or 3.00 and less common inOman with score reaching 77.8 percent or 2.33.

5.1.2.3 Training and knowledge. Training is important because organizations needto upgrade the knowledge and skills of their professionals. In most cases, training isfocused on achieving business goals leading to high-quality products and services. Forthis particular KPI, Oman score is 77.8 percent or 2.33 compared to Tunisia score of81.9 percent or 2.46. Implying that there is no significant difference between the twocountries in as far as training and knowledge is concerned.

BIJ18,3

398

5.1.2.4 Social responsibility. It is the obligation of the management of the firm. Socialresponsibility involves making decisions and taking actions that will enhance thewelfare and interests of employees. This is important in increasing employeeproductivity. With regard to social responsibility, Omani firms score is 92.1 percent or2.76 where workers are generally insured (social insurance) and labour regulations aregenerally adhered to, with access to medical care and provisions for the workers welfare(e.g. workers age, working hours, working conditions, legal and health requirements,salary and number of days for vacation). Tunisian firms score is 95.91 percent or 2.88,where approximately all the non-seasonal workers are insured and labour regulationsare adhered to, with access to medical care and provision for the workers welfare.

5.1.2.5 Environmental management. Lately, corporations have been confronted witha number of global environmental challenges such as global warming, acid rain,depletion of natural resources, waste management, green consumerism and pollutionprevention. Nowadays, there is a growing pressure for corporations to deliver productsand services which are GREEN or environmentally friendly. Various environmentalmanagement practices (e.g. implementing aggressive pollution-prevention programs;initiating environment-related performance measures; and developing green productsand process technologies) provide opportunities for firms to strengthen theirdistinctive competence. With regard to environmental management, the score forOmani firms is 33.3 percent or 1 implying that generally there are no demonstrableenvironmental management policies or practices in many of the Omani firms.On the other hand, Tunisian firms score is 47.6 percent or 1.43 implying that there isgenerally very little verifiable efforts in place focused towards environmentalmanagement.

5.1.2.6 Safety and quality requirements. The competitiveness of food companies atnational and international markets depends upon their ability to adopt productionprocesses which meet food safety and quality requirements. Food safety and qualityassurance affect the cost of carrying out business transactions, and implicit therein is theprivate incentive for adopting voluntary quality assurance systems. Quality assurancesystems have the potential to reduce transaction costs by serving as the seller’sguarantee of safety or quality (Holleran et al., 1999). With regard to safety and qualityrequirements, Tunisian score is 80.7 percent or 2.42. In Tunisia, the safety and qualityspecifications are always put in the contract with the customers. In addition, because ofTunisian Government assistance in improving dates quality control systems, the safetyand quality requirements are always met by the exporters. Omani score is 59.21 percentor 1.78 where exporters place more emphasis on personal contacts and goodrelationships with customers than on formal contracts. Moreover, because of lowgovernment assistance, dates quality control systems in Oman are not efficientsometimes hampering exporter’s ability to meet foreign customer specifications.

Figure 2 is a spider web (radar chart) that presents a visual graphical summary of thesix key qualitative performance indicators of dimension 2. As indicated, Tunisia isperformingbetter thanOman in all the six key qualitative performance indicators.At therange of 1-3, Tunisia scores between 2 and 3 for all indicators except for two, namely,quality certification and environmental management. Moreover, Tunisia scores 3 or100 percent in quality control specialist indicator implying that Tunisia takes the issueof quality control very seriously by employing enough qualified quality controlspecialists.

Dates exportsupply chain

399

On the other hand, Oman’s performance is not all that impressive – for threeindicators, Oman scores range from 1 to 2. For quality control specialist, training andknowledge, and social responsibility indicators, Oman achieved scores above 2.

5.1.3 Dimension 3: export operational infrastructure.5.1.3.1 Processing and packing technology. Advances in packaging technology

provide a potential for improved quality and extended shelf life of agricultural products.With regard to processing and packing technology, Oman is 77.73 percent or 2.33 andTunisia 84.1 percent or 2.52. Both countries have some degree of automation in sortingand grading lines, varying in the age of equipments and states of the technology used.

5.1.3.2 Processing and packing quality. It depends on customer requirements andspecifications. For instance, some customers require sterile foods with asepticprocessing and packaging in amanner that leaves the food free ofmicroorganisms. Sucha requirement has public health significance, because it helps to prevent the growth ofany microorganism under normal non-refrigerated storage condition and distribution.Some of the foods we buy from grocery stores go through non-refrigerated storageconditions; as a result, processing and packing quality are of paramount importance.With respect to processing and packing quality, Tunisian firms score is 100 percent or3.00 indicating there are high-quality processing and packing operations in virtually allfirms – with packagingmaterials readily available. In Tunisia, packaging requirementsare pre-agreed with customers. Omani firms score is 77.75 percent or 2.33 indicatingsome level of processing and packing quality.

5.1.3.3 Labelling flexibility. Flexibility in dealing with customer labellingrequirements varies across firms in the two countries. Some firms use excellentlabelling systems which include bar coding whereas for others labelling is entirelymanual. With regard to labelling flexibility, Omani firms score is 72.2 percent or2.17 where labelling is carried out by hand in a few of the Omani firms. However, as longas customer requirements can be met by this method, there are no problems. There arealso many traceability labelling requirements which not all Omani firms are able tomeet. Tunisian firms score is 90.46 percent or 2.71 indicating that excellent labellingsystems are used which include bar coding and use of coded reference. As a result, firmshave no problem meeting customer labelling requirements. In Tunisia, firms’ use ofadvanced IT systems in labelling facilitates labelling flexibility.

Figure 2.Result on the safety andquality orientation of theexport supply chain

0

1

2

3Quality certification

Quality controlspecialist

Training andknowledge

Social responsibility

Environmentalmanagement

Safety and qualityrequirements

Oman

Tunisia

Note: A summary of dimension 2

BIJ18,3

400

5.1.3.4 Storage technology. High level of technology used in storage has to includetemperature and humidity equipments control. With regard to storage technology,Oman score is 77.75 percent or 2.33 and Tunisia score is 92.84 percent or 2.79 indicatingsome level of investment and use of storage technology in both countries.

5.1.3.5 Storage capacity. With regard to storage capacity, Omani firms scored100 percent or 3.00 implying that there is enough storage capacity available with asignificant refrigerated capacity ranging from 100 to 2,600 tons. On the other hand, thescore for Tunisian firms reached 71.41 percent or 2.14.

5.1.3.6 Storage quality. The level of storage quality depends on the conditions ofcontrolled atmosphere stores. Storage quality score for Tunisia is 98 percent or 2.94which implies that all storage is under controlled atmosphere and pre-cooling takesplace before transport, even with the hired storage facilities. In Oman, the score is70 percent or 2.1. The small firms visited have few or no controlled atmosphere storagefacilities, as a result, products are subject to different storage qualities. The largestfirms, however, were found to have high-quality storage facilities.

5.1.3.7 Transport technology. The level of technology used in the transportation ofproducts for export has to include temperature and humidity control equipments inorder to control storage atmosphere either in the trucks or in the ships duringshipment. With regard to transport technology, Tunisia score is 92.84 percent or 2.79which implies that most of the dates exporters use cold transport with technology tocontrol temperature and humidity in both land and sea transport. On the other hand,Oman score is 61.05 percent or 1.83 which implies that most of the dates exporters usenon-cold transport, with low technology in both land and sea transportation.

5.1.3.8 Transport quality. The level of transport quality can be evaluated based onthe availability of refrigerated containers and problems encountered en route tocustomers. Sometimes, dates are stored for a long time before shipment (up to severalmonths). Owing to marketing conditions and packing possibilities, it is necessary tosample each consignment, in order to make sure that the quality of the fruit has notchanged. During loading, it is important to ensure that the surfaces or packaging arenot damaged. All the labels and markings must be checked to ensure compliance withthe laws of the importing country, as well as the customer requirements. Furthermore,since temperature and humidity are important factors in the preservation of the qualityof the dates, temperature and humidity control equipments with recorders must beplaced in the container or the truck. With regard to transport quality, Tunisia score is95 percent or 2.85. Tunisian firms use cold transport with technology to controltemperature and humidity. The cost of cold transport is high, but with governmentalsupport, the exporters are able to use cold transport in order to preserve dates fromdeterioration especially for the long distances between Tunisia and export destinationsin the EU. Oman score is 60 percent or 1.8. Oman firms use non-cold transport with lowtechnology to control temperature and humidity both in land and sea transport. Thecost of cold transport is high, and without governmental support, the exporters inOman are unable to use cold transport.

Figure 3 is a spider web (radar chart) that presents a visual graphical summary ofthe eight KPIs of dimension 3. As indicated, Tunisia is performing better than Oman inall the seven KPIs. At the range of 1-3, Tunisia scores between 2 and 3 for all indicators.Tunisia scores 3 or 100 percent in processing and packing quality indicating theexistence of high-quality processing and packing operations for all firms in Tunisia.

Dates exportsupply chain

401

Omani firms are performing better than Tunisian firms in one of the indicators, namelystorage capacity, because in Oman there is excess refrigerated storage capacity. This isbecause of the low-processed volumes handled by Omani firms compared to theirinitial planned capacity during establishment. At the range of 1-3, Oman scores 2-3 formost indicators except two, namely, transport technology and transport quality.

5.2 Quantitative dimensions5.2.1 Dimension 4: efficiency of the export supply chain.

5.2.1.1 Profit per ton. A firm adds to profits if marginal revenue from selling anextra unit is greater than the marginal cost of production. Therefore, the PPT or perunit will be equal to average revenue (AR) minus average total cost (ATC). That is, thePPT ¼ AR 2 ATC. The firm with the highest PPT is therefore considered to beperforming better than the other firms. The PPT or profit per exported ton is used hereas measure of export performance. With respect to this indicator, Tunisian firmsachieved around US$418 per exported ton, whereas Omani firms achieved aroundUS$102 per exported ton. This implies that Tunisian exporters earn around four timeshigher profit per exported ton than Omani exporters. In other words, Tunisianoperations are efficient and more profitable than Omani operations. It is important tonote that the observed differences in profitability between Oman and Tunisia, to someextent, may be attributable to differences in variety, quality, price of raw material atthe farm level and pre- and post-harvest operations.

5.2.1.2 Profit per employee. Recently, firms create wealth by converting “raw”intangibles into products, services, brands, intellectual capital and networks. The mostvaluable intangibles are employee skills, reputation and relationships. They representcompetitive advantage in today’s business environment and are now the true source ofcorporate wealth. In this regard, one new metric of business performance is profit peremployee (Wolfe, 2007; Lowell, 2007). Profit per employee or a contribution of eachemployee to the firm profit is therefore a good proxy for earnings on intangibles andhence a good indicator to evaluate the performance of a firm. With regard to profit peremployee, Tunisian firms achieved around US$3,874 per employee, whereas Omanifirms achieved around US$1,802 indicating that Tunisian are efficient and generatemore profit per employee than Omani firms.

Figure 3.Export operationalinfrastructure

0

1

2

3

Processing andpacking technology

Processing andpacking quality

Labelling flexibility

Storage technology

Storage capacity

Storage quality

Transport technology

Transport quality

OmanTunisia

Note: Summary of dimension 3

BIJ18,3

402

5.2.1.3 Export intensity. It is another financial indicator of export performance.It is defined as the proportion of export sale in total sale (Export Intensity ¼Value of Export/Value of TP). With regard to this indicator, Tunisian firms score isaround 0.86 indicating that around 86 percent of their revenue comes from export earningsand hence much more export oriented. Oman score, on the other hand, is around 0.35implying that only 35 percent of Oman firms revenue come from export earnings. Theseexport intensity statistics clearly show that Tunisian firms are very successful in dateexport compared to Oman firms.

Table X presents a summary of the three KPIs of dimension 4. As indicated, Tunisiais performing better than Oman in all three indicators. Results of this dimensioncomplements and enrich the results of the previous three dimensions.

6. Conclusions and recommendations6.1 ConclusionThe purpose of this study is two fold. First, is to apply the benchmarking approachemployed by Garcia et al. (2004) to the DESC in Oman and Tunisia in order to identifygaps in the organizational and operational structures of the DESC in the two countries.Second, is to put forward recommendations to improve Omani DESC. The TunisianDSC was used as the “best practice” or “benchmark” since, in many ways, it is moreadvanced and efficient than dates-producing countries. The benchmarking measureswere put into two groups, namely, qualitative and quantitative group. The qualitativegroup has three dimensions and the quantitative group has one dimension only. Eachof the four dimensions has a number of KPIs associated with it. It is these KPIs that areused to identify the gaps between Tunisia and Oman.

The analysis required an audit of the export supply chains of both countries. Theaudit was executed by visiting the exporters in both countries to collect the requireddata by means of questionnaires. In total, ten date exporters were interviewed, three ofwhich were Omani and the remaining seven firms were Tunisian.

Results from the benchmarking exercise were summarized in radar chart diagramsto visualize multiple targets and gaps. The results show that Tunisia is performingbetter than Oman in all the four dimensions. Evaluation and the implementationof the gaps highlighted in this study would help Omani firms to adapt and respond tosafety and quality standards demanded by international market customers. It isimportant to note that some of the practices that are feasible in Tunisia may not befeasible in Oman. This is simply because there could be large variations in resourceavailability, degree of modernization and market orientation of agri-food systemsbetween Oman, Tunisia and importing countries. A careful analysis of the findingsshould enable Oman policy makers and stakeholders to produce an industry actionplan to correct the gaps and take the lead.

Key performance indicators Tunisian exporters Omani exporters

PPT exported (US$) 418 102Profit per employee (US$) 3,874 1,802Export intensity 0.857 0.353

Note: A summary of dimension 4 (efficiency of the export supply chain)

Table X.Efficiency of the

export supply chain(dimension 4)

Dates exportsupply chain

403

6.2 Recommendations6.2.1 Coordination of the export SCM practices. The level of coordination seen in Omanis significantly lower than that in Tunisia where operations are highly coordinated inlarge andmodern packinghouses. Hence, initiatives should be developed at firm level inOman to increase the level of coordination among actors in the export supply chain.To increase the level of coordination in the DESC in Oman, there is a need to support andencourage horizontal and vertical integration, as well as information sharing betweenexporter and producers and exporter and importers. Because of the likely welfareimpacts of DESC, the public sector needs to be involved through direct investment andthrough availability of credits/loans to the private sector to invest in the DESC. TheMinistry of Agriculture, Ministry of National Economy and the Ministry of Commerceand Industry could work together to coordinate this so that social objectives such asemployment and income are taken into account.

Key to greater coordination in the DESC is a traceability system. In future, it will beimpossible to export to most of the foreign markets (in North America, Europe andAsia) without having a traceability system in place. As a result, Oman needs to startnow working on establishing such a system especially for economically importantcommodities such as dates. However, the fragmented nature of the DESC makesit difficult for Omani dates exporters to establish a traceability system. This is why thegovernment leadership and involvement is needed to make sure that this done.

6.2.2 Dimension 2: safety and quality orientation of the export supply chain. In thisdimension, Tunisia is performing better than Oman in all the six key qualitativeperformance indicators. It is therefore clear that there is a lot that needs to be done tobridge the gaps identified. This will require significant investments on the part of theOmani Government, date exporters, as well as on the part of the stakeholders. Theseinvestments are of course costly and must be planned and executed carefully in acoordinated fashion in consultation with all the stakeholders.

Because these investments are costly, they should not be borne entirely by thegovernment, instead all the stakeholders should take part. As a result, it is important toassign more responsibility for ensuring safety and quality along the supply chain tothe food companies themselves. This can be achieved by requiring date exporters andprocessors to obtain HACCP, ISO and other certifications that are necessary to wininternational and local customer confidence. Of course, obtaining these HACCP andISO certifications and maintaining them, as articulated earlier herein, requiressignificant investments both in human and physical capital; including quality controlinfrastructures and business information systems.

6.2.3 Dimension 3: export operational infrastructure. Here Tunisia is performingbetter than Oman in seven out of the eight KPIs. Omani firms are only performing betterthan Tunisian firms in one of the indicators, namely storage capacity. Exportoperational infrastructure which include eight items ranging from processing andpacking technology, labelling technology to storage technology requires significantlong-term investments that cannot be made by the private sector alone. The lack oftechnical and financial support in Oman very often makes the required investments inexport operational infrastructure very difficult. Therefore, it is recommended toimplement joint public/private initiatives to develop actionable strategies aimedat improving export infrastructure following Tunisian experience. Firm-levelinfrastructure-related investment should be done through preferential financing

BIJ18,3

404

arrangements as suggested earlier. Considerations must be given to innovative ways offinancing improvements, such as contributions in the cost of factory establishment andfactory upgrading (rehabilitation) similar to what is done by the Tunisian Government.

6.2.4 Dimension 4: efficiency of the export supply chain. Results from dimension 4show that the Tunisian DESC performance is more efficient than Oman in all three KPIs.In fact, these results are consistentwith the results of theprevious three dimensions.Moreneed to be done to improve the efficiency of the DESC in Oman through training ofemployees and investment in technology.The following recommendations are important:

. There are several date varieties in Oman most of which are of very low quality.At farm level, all these different varieties are mixed-up resulting in a substandardquality. To overcome this problem, the government needs to embark on long-termprogram to modernize and promote high-value varieties such as Medjool, BarheeKhalas, Abu Naringa, Barni, Madlouki and Faradh.

. There is a need for investment in research anddevelopment to identify and developalternatives uses for dates such as: baby food ingredients, sugar production out ofdates, baking ingredients, ice cream, coffee, sweets, confectionery, chocolates,preservatives, salads, sauces, breakfast cereals and soft drinks.

References

Ahmed, P.K. and Rafiq, M. (1998), “Integrated benchmarking: a holistic examination of selecttechniques for benchmarking analysis”, Benchmarking for Quality Management &Technology, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 225-42.

Allan, S. (1997), “Partners benchmarking”, available at: www.benchmarking.co.uk/bmark.htm#partners

Andersen, B., Fagerhaug, T., Randmoel, S., Schuldmaier, J. and Prenninger, J. (1999),“Benchmarking supply chain management: finding best practice”, Journal of Business &Industrial Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 378-89.

Anon. (2005), “Welfare benchmarking and herd health plans on organic dairy farms (OF0343)”,available at: http://orgprints.org/10776/ (unpublished).

Balm, G.J. (1996), “Benchmarking and gap analysis: what is the next milestone?”, Benchmarking:An International Journal, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 22-33.

Barnes, C. (2007), “Study exposes weak links in grain chain”, Food Manufacture, 27 March,available at: www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/4483/Study_exposes_weak_links_in_grain_chain.html

Bhutta, K.S. and Huq, F. (1999), “Benchmarking best practices: an integrated approach”,Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 254-68.

Brandt, J.R. and Taninecz, G. (2004), “Benchmarking: an executive primer to locating andleveraging manufacturing best practices”, available at: www.mpi-group.net/thoughtleadership/ITC_MPI_Benchmarking.pdf

Camp, R. (1989), The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior Performance,Productivity Press, Portland, OR.

CLAN (2006), “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from Australian agriculture: the role ofbenchmarking in driving best management practice”, A discussion paper prepared bythe Climate Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management AgricultureWorking Group, available at: www.greenhouse.gov.au/agriculture/publications/pubs/benchmarking.pdf

Dates exportsupply chain

405

Deloitte (2009), Benchmarking for Success: New Trends in North America’s Food and BeverageProcessing Industry, Deloitte, New York, NY, available at: www.deloitte.com/assets/DcomCanada/Local%20Content/Articles/Industries/Consumer%20business/ca_en_Benchmarking%20for%20success.pdf

Food and Drink National Training Organisation (Ed.) (2001), Measuring Success: InternationalBenchmarking of the Food and Drink Manufacturing Industry, Food and Drink NationalTraining Organisation, London.

Garcia Martinez, M. and Poole, N. (2003), “Developments in fresh produce quality and safetymanagement: implications for Mediterranean countries”, paper presented at the 82ndEuropean Seminar of the EAAE on Quality Assurance, Risk Management andEnvironmental Control in Agriculture and Food Supply Networks, Bonn, 14-16 May.

GidF (2005), Groupment Interprofessionnel des Fruits, Ministry of Agriculture and WaterResources, Tunisia.

Gilmour, P. (1999), “Benchmarking supply chain operations”, International Journal of PhysicalDistribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 29, pp. 259-66.

Helgason, S. (1997), “International benchmarking experiences from OECD countries”,paper presented at a conference organized by the Danish Ministry of Finance on:International Benchmarking, Copenhagen, 20-21 February, Public Management Service(PUMA), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

Holleran, E., Bredahl, M.E. and Zaibet, L. (1999), “Private incentives for adopting food safety andquality assurance”, Food Policy, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 669-83.

Howard, M. and Kilmartin, B. (2006), Assessment of Benchmarking within GovernmentOrganizations, Accenture, Dublin, May.

Laajimi, A. (2002), “National safety and quality systems in Tunisia: an analysis of the olive oiland dates sectors”, working paper, Departement d’Economie et de Developpement Rural,Institut National Agronomique de Tunisie, Tunis.

Lowell, L.B. (2007), “The new metrics of corporate performance: profit per employee”,The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 1, available at: www.massmac.org/newsline/0707/McKinsey.pdf

Luther, R. and Abdel-Kader, M. (2006), “Management accounting practices in the British foodand drinks industry”, British Food Journal, Vol. 108 No. 5, pp. 336-57.

Omachonu, V.K. and Ross, J.R. (1994), Principles of Total Quality, St Lucie Press, Delray Beach, FL.

Poole, N., Marshall, F. and Bhupal, D.S. (2002), “Air pollution effects and initiatives to improve foodquality assurance in India”,Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Vol. 41, pp. 363-86.

Ronan, G. and Taylor, P. (2004), “Strategic planning and benchmarking: keys to sustainableeconomic development in food and fibre industries”, paper presented at the 48th AnnualConference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, Melbourne,11-13 February, available at: www.aares.info/files/2004_ronan.pdf

Russell, R.S. and Taylor, B.W. (1998), Production and Operations Management, Focusing onQuality and Competitiveness, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Sparling, D. and van Duren, E. (2003), “Supply chain management – trends and implications forASEAN agribusiness in agribusiness management: systems approach”, SEAMO, pp. 169-76.

Stephens, B. (2004), Benchmarking Arab Microfinance Institutions, The Microfinance Gateways,Washington, DC, available at: www.microfinancegateway.org/content/article/more/14260

Thelwell, D. and Ritson, C. (2006), “The international competitiveness of the UK cereals sector”,paper presented at the 98th EAAE Seminar on Marketing Dynamics within the GlobalTrading System: New Perspectives, Chania, Crete, 29 June-2 July.

BIJ18,3

406

UNCTAD (2005), “Country case study on reflecting national circumstances and developmentpriorities in national codes on good agricultural practices that can be benchmarked toEurepgap”, available at: www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/meetings/eurepgap/UNCTAD%20Country%20Case%20Study.pdf

UNCTAD/WTO (2007), Fresh Tropical and Off-season Fruit and Vegetables, International TradeCenter, Geneva, available at: www.intracen.org/mns/documents/Fruits_and_vegetables.pdf

UNIDO (2002), Continuous Improvement and Quality Management – Quality and Productivity,United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna, available at: www.unido.org/doc/501746.htmls

USDA (2008), “Benchmarking: findings and recommendations”, Final Report May 30, The USDepartment of Agriculture Farm Service Agency Organizational Assessment, available at:www.fsa.USDA.gov/Internet/FSA_File/kbapp3benchmarking.pdf

Verıssimo, A. and Woodford, K. (2005), “Top performing farmers are information rich: casestudies of sheep and cattle farmers in the South Island of New Zealand”, Proceedings of theFifteenth International Farm Management Association Congress, Campinas, Brazil,August, Vol. 1, International Farm Management Association, Cambridge, pp. 365-8.

Wilson, R., Charry, A.A. and Kemp, D.R. (2004), “Performance indicators and benchmarking inAustralian agriculture: a whole farm family centered approach”, available at: www.csu.edu.au/faculty/science/saws/afbmnetwork/conferences/2004/proceedings/Wilson_et_al.pdf

Wolfe, I.S. (2007), “Profit per employee: can HR be trusted to get the job done?”,Business 2 Business, May, available at: www.super-solutions.com/ProfitPerEmployee_B2BMay2007.asp

Yakovleva, N., Sarkis, J. and Sloans, T.W. (2009), “Sustainable benchmarking of food supplychains”, GPMI Working Paper No. 2009-02, George Perkins Marsh Institute, ClarkUniversity, Worcester, MA, available at: www.clarku.edu/departments/marsh

Yasin, M.M. (2002), “The theory and practice of benchmarking: then and now”, InternationalJournal of Benchmarking, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 217-43.

Zairi, M. (1994), “Benchmarking: the best tool for measuring competitiveness”, Benchmarking ofQuality Management and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 11-24.

Further reading

Andersen, B. and Pettersen, P.-G. (1996), The Benchmarking Handbook, Chapman & Hall,London.

Aramyan, L., Ondersteijn, C., Van Kooten, O. and Oude Lansink, A. (2005), “Performanceindicators in agri-food production chains”, in Ondersteijn, C., Wijnands, J.H.M.,Huirne, R.B.M. and Van Kooten, O. (Eds), Quantifying Supply Chains, Kluwer AcademicPublisher, Dordrecht.

Barreveld, W.H. (1993), “Date palm products”, FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin No. 101,FAO, Rome.

Bateman, G.R. (1994), “Benchmarking management education teaching and curriculum”,in Camp, R. (Ed.), Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead toSuperior Performance, Quality Resources, White Plains, NY.

Country Report (2003), “Development of dates production and marketing in Arab nation”,Country Report, October (Oman).

FAO (n.d.), FAO Statistics, FAO, XXX.

Matters, M. and Evans, A. (1997), “The nuts and bolts of benchmarking”, available at: www.ozemail.com.au/,benchmark/nuts.bolts.html

Dates exportsupply chain

407

Ministry of Agriculture, Oman (n.d.), available at: www.maf.gov.om

Oman Customs (2006), Foreign Trade Statistics.

Shah, J. and Singh, N. (2001), “Benchmarking internal supply chain performance: development ofa framework”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 37, pp. 37-47.

Tunisian Agency for the Promotion of Agricultural Investment (n.d.), available at: www.tunisie.com/APIA

United Dates Factory (n.d.), Processing and handling of dates in Oman.

Corresponding authorMsafiri Mbaga can be contacted at: msafiri@squ.edu.om

BIJ18,3

408

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints