The Pilot Study

Mail surveys were sent to forty (40) senior level supply management professionals who are members of the Institute of Supply Management (ISM). These professionals represented a diverse cross-section of companies. Each survey packet contained three (3) coded self-

administered questionnaires, one for the recipient (focal firm), and one each for a key buyer and a key supplier who were part of the same product supply network. As part of the instructions at the beginning of the questionnaire, the focal firm was asked to consider the questions in the context of a) a specific item (part/material/subassembly) that generated a significant portion of the firm’s revenue and b) one that was part of the supply network that included both the supplier and the customer that was selected to participate in the survey. Included with the questionnaires was a cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey, and a self-addressed stamped envelope.

The importance of having responses to the survey from all parties (initial recipient, buyer, and supplier) was emphasized in the cover letter. Two options were provided to the informant on how to accomplish this task. For the first option, the recipient was asked to simply enter the contact information for the key buyer and supplier when completing the questionnaire. Provision of this information implicitly granted permission for us to send the appropriate questionnaire to the key buyer and supplier identified by the informant. In the other option, the recipient was instructed to send the two additional surveys provided in the survey packet to the relevant parties. Although the second choice involved more effort on the part of the recipient it would allow the information on the buyer and seller to remain private. Six of the packets were returned as undeliverable, three recipients called to say that they would not be able to fill out the

questionnaire because of changed responsibilities/time constraints/company policies. One recipient indicated that a response would be sent in a few weeks following the return from an overseas trip. However, no responses were received even after a second mailing a month later.

During discussions with peers, committee members, and two supply chain professionals some possible explanations for the lack of response were identified. These included the mere size of the packet sent which gave the impression that it would entail a lot of time and effort,

requiring the recipient to sift through three separate sets of questionnaires, and the complexity of the instructions. It was also noted that the additional steps involved for the second option could be a deterrent. The questionnaire was modified and another pilot study initiated. In the modified questionnaire, the respondent was simply asked to include contact information on the supplier and buyer referenced in his/her completed questionnaire. The new version of the questionnaire was sent to a random sample of forty senior level supply management professionals drawn from the ISM list which now excluded the members who had received a questionnaire in the first pilot study. This resulted in a 12.5% response rate which although lower than many mail surveys is fairly consistent with several web-based type surveys (Cousins et al. 2006; Klassen et al. 2001).

Only minor changes were made to the questionnaire prior to conducting the full blown web-based study using e-Rewards (website at http://www.e-rewards.com), a marketing research organization that provides paid access to a diverse and large pool (over 8000) of supply chain professionals. Advantages from using on-line studies include geographic reach, speed, flexibility, convenience to the respondent, and the ease with which data entry and analysis can be

accomplished (Evans et al. 2005). It was important for us to find a company that could

counteract some of the disadvantages of online surveys, identified by these researchers, such as the potential for the survey invitation to be treated as junk mail, privacy and security issues, and “representativeness” of the sample. We selected the e-Rewards organization as it is reputed to have a high quality panel that is acquired through an “invitation only” process and one that is closely managed to maintain the integrity of its database. Among the claims of the e-Rewards organization is that it practices strict conformance to industry standards and guidelines as it relates to the code of conduct when engaged in survey research.

The initial plan to collect matched pair responses from the focal firm and its key

downstream and upstream partner had to be modified to satisfy the requirement for anonymity of the participants involved in the online survey. Consequently, only the informant’s view of the transacting parties, both the immediate upstream supplier and the downstream customer, was collected. We would have preferred to have matched pairs or multiple informants (even though the resulting sample size would be smaller) as it has been claimed that this produces more reliable and valid information (Bagozzi et al. 1991; Seidler 1974).While single informants give a one sided view which could lead to some bias, scholars have suggested that single informant bias can be minimized by utilizing knowledgeable managers on the topic of interest (Huber et al. 1985; Kumar et al. 1993). Thus we selected senior level purchasing executives and managers who are actively involved in supply management.