Effects of Partners' Trust, Coordination, and Commitment

on the Success of e-Commerce Strategic Planning

1 Liber C.M. Lai, 2George G.G. Lee

Department of Information Management, National Taiwan University of Science and

Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

Author Biographies

* Chih-Ming Lai is a doctoral candidate in the Department of

Information Management at National Taiwan University of

Science and Technology (NTUST), Taipei, Taiwan. He

received his M.S. degree from NTUST. His research interests

include issues in business strategic planning and management,

customer relationship management, supply chain management,

knowledge management, and e-business & e-commerce.

Dr. Gwo-Guang Lee is an associate professor in the

Department of Information Management at National Taiwan

University of Science and Technology (NTUST), Taipei,

Taiwan. He received the Ph.D. from the School of Computer

Studies at the University of Leeds, UK, in 1993. Currently, he

also works as a consultant for the Center of Electronic

Commerce at NTUST, as well as large Taiwanese firms. Dr.

Lee has published in the Journal of Information Technology,

Behaviour and Information Technology, Industrial

Management and Data Systems, Management Decision, and

International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management.

His current research interests focus on knowledge

management, IS strategic planning, and e-business.

*Corresponding Author: Chih-Ming Lai, No.27, Alley 2, Lane 142, Sec. 1, Heping

Rd., Ji-an Township, Hualien County 973, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

Tel. no. +886-3-8574856

Local cell-phone no. 0937-978502

Fax. no. +886-3-8572645

E - mail: D9009203 @ mail.ntust.edu.tw (L.C.M. Lai),

or e- mail: liber @ ms01.dahan.edu.tw (L.C.M. Lai).

Effects of Partners' Trust, Coordination, and

Commitment on the Success of e-Commerce

Strategic Planning

Liber C.M. Lai

D9009203@mail.ntust.edu.tw

Department of Information Management, National Taiwan University of

Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

George G.G. Lee

lgg@cs.ntust.edu.tw

Department of Information Management, National Taiwan University of

Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

Abstract

This study explains how partnership influences the e-Commerce (EC) strategic planning (SP). Both the strategic planning and information system perspectives are used to demonstrate that three attributes of partnership: trust, coordination, and commitment, affect the success of ECSP via a survey of 166 CIOs in Taiwan. Analytical results demonstrate the relationships among the alignment of ECSP can

- 1 –

improve not only ECSP capabilities, but also the fulfillment of ECSP benefits. Furthermore, indicating that partner trust indirectly affects the alignment of ECSP via partner coordination, and indicating that partner trust indirectly affects the fulfillment of ECSP benefits via partner commitment. From this phenomenon, we can infer that firms should strive to develop high-quality partnerships when contemplating ECSP.

Keywords: Electronic Commerce, Strategic Planning, Partnership

- 2 –

1. Introduction

Partnership was defined as a strategic, purposive, inter-organizational, and cooperative relationship (Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). Partnerships consist of three attributes: trust, coordination, and commitment (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). The importance of partnership has been widely discussed in diverse fields such as marketing (Dwyer et al., 1987; Geyskens et al., 1996; Morgan and Hunt, 1994), information system (IS) outsourcing (Lee, 2001), IS strategic planning and management (Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Segars and Grover, 1998), and inter-organizational relationship (IOR) (Geyskens et al., 1996; Hart and Saunders, 1997; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). According to the commitment-trust theory of Morgan and Hunt, trust and commitment have a causal relationship. Partner trust is considered a cornerstone of partnerships (Lee, 2001; Lusch et al., 2003; Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994), and is a key determinant of partner commitment (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Rodríguez and Wilson, 2002), while partner commitment which in turn yields benefits (Lee and Lim, 2003; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Besides, successful partnerships are marked by coordinated actions directed at mutual objectives that are consistent across organizations (Narus and Anderson, 1987). Without high levels of coordination, any planned mutual advantage cannot be achieved (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). Although partnership is extremely important, its relation to EC has seldom been discussed together.

EC refers to a business activity involving trading behaviors. However, the definition of EC is varied, and a clear definition is required to identify the related influences. This study is based on studies defining EC as front-end business activities, which require the support of back-end IT infrastructure and IS function. EC describes the comprehensively cooperative relationships regarding the exchange of products, services, and information via the information superhighway (such as Internet today) (Kalakota and Whinston, 1996; Zhu, 2004; Zwass, 1996). Zhu emphasized the firms need to enhance the integration between front-end EC capability and back-end information technology (IT) infrastructure in order to reap the benefits of EC investments. Besides, IS function is as important as IT, because IS can support to and match for business strategy (Eardley et al., 1997), so we need to systematically integrate IT and IS for achieving business benefits (Poon and Swatman, 1999). Firms hope to achieve their strategic benefits from EC, explaining why EC strategic planning (ECSP) must be made first, because strategic planning provides indispensable policies (means) to achieve business goals (ends) (Porter, 1980).

Owing to the difficulty of testing a comprehensive model including a number of constructs, this study adopts both strategic planning and IS perspectives to demonstrate that partnership attributes (i.e., trust, coordination, and commitment) influence the ECSP success. Relationships are also found to exist among three constructs (i.e., ECSP alignment, capability, and strategic benefits) within the domain of success of ECSP. The research model and hypothesized relationships are tested using the structural equation modeling approach, supported by LISREL 8.72 software, and using data gathered from 166 chief information officers (CIOs) in Taiwan who

- 3 –

had adopted EC. Results of this study demonstrate that firms that focus on utilizing EC under appropriate inter-organizational environments are likely to implement EC successfully in their organizations and with their cooperative partners.

2. Background

Although many factors affect ECSP, this issue has seldom been addressed from an external partner perspective. This logical thinking shapes the conceptual model, which comprises two domains: one domain is success of ECSP, and the other is partnership. The first domain, a theoretical framework of the success of ECSP, resembles the model developed by Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1987). Meanwhile, the second domain, partnerships are composed of three attributes: trust, coordination, and commitment (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). If firms can handle environmental uncertainty by creating inter-organizational links between customers and suppliers, external partners can provide some suggestions for coping with problems (Choe, 2003). Therefore, partnerships may significantly influence a firm's ECSP (Lee and Lim, 2003; Raymond, 2001).

2.1. Success of ECSP

This study hypothesizes that ECSP is process-oriented, a new term which is seldom mentioned previous literature. According to the strategic information system planning (SISP) definition of Lederer and Sethi (1988), the ECSP definition closely resembles the SISP definition except for that SISP is a computer-based application and ECSP is an Internet-based one. Both ECSP and SISP involve analytical strategy planning based on creative strategy thinking. Consequently, ECSP is defined as identifying a portfolio of Internet-based IS applications that can not only integrate EC processes within and beyond an organization, but also help that organization to achieve strategic benefits. The IS within Internet-based EC that are also inter-organizational information systems (Gebauer and Shaw, 2002), and thus the IS perspective is used as a basis for considering ECSP.

Clearly, ECSP is a unique realization of SISP. Therefore, numerous SISP theories can be applied to ECSP. Additionally, strategic planning relies on using a consensus among domain experts to assess validity, but the suitability of this methodology is limited. An effective strategic planning must simultaneously provide both internal consistency and external validity of the planning process (Henderson and Sifonis, 1988). The alignment between IS strategy and business strategy is especially important for internal consistency. Planners facing environmental uncertainty must consider both the validity and consistency of the planning process. Therefore, treating partners as external assessors who can help confirm the validity of the planning process appears to be an appropriate measure.

Whether to adopt EC is a strategic business decision, and a formal plan is essential

- 4 –

to provide planning direction and focus (Teo and Ranganathan, 2004). The success of ECSP is adapted from the two-dimensional model of planning system success, where planning system success is a concept that measured using two constructs: improvement in system capabilities and extent of fulfillment of key planning objectives (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987). The two-dimensional model has been adapted for measuring planning system success in the IS context (Raghunathan and Raghunathan, 1994). Subsequently, the model was modified again to demonstrate the pivotal role of improved organizational planning capability in mediating the influences of organization contexts and planning system dimensions on IS planning effectiveness (Wang and Tai, 2003).

The above models are modified to fit the EC environment. This proposed that the domain of success of ECSP involves three measurable constructs: alignment of ECSP, improvement in ECSP capabilities, and fulfillment of ECSP benefits.

Researchers have hypothesized that a planning system can be visualized as an administrative system (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987). EC ventures may fail due to a lack of strategic planning (Kao and Decou, 2003). Therefore, firms that wish to succeed in system planning must initially conduct appropriate strategic planning linking IS strategy and business strategy (Gottschalk, 2000; Wetherbe, 1993). Alignment of ECSP uses the process (or means) perspective (Choe, 2003). An operable and measurable construct of alignment of ECSP is rational, in contrast with the conceptual construct of planning systems success.

Other constructs are also modified: improving the ECSP capabilities adopts the improvement judgment (or process, means) perspective to achieve key ECSP objectives, and fulfillment of ECSP benefits adopts the goal-centered judgment (or output, ends) perspective (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987; Wang and Tai, 2003). The overall framework for the success of ECSP can be considered a process-output (or means-ends) linkage (Henderson and Sifonis, 1988).

2.2. Partnership

Partnership was defined as a strategic relationship, and has purposive, cooperative, and inter-organizational properties (Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). Partnership describes a relationship involving resource exchange between partners (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). According to previous studies, partnership is a part of the environmental context (Raymond, 2001). In a broad sense, the external environmental context influences the success of ECSP. Consequently, in a narrow sense, partnership also influences ECSP success. In practice, firms may play multiple business roles (e.g. buyer and seller). In strategic alliances and marketing, there no buyers, sellers or customers, but only partners exchanging resources (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Therefore, relationships such as buyer-seller, customer-supplier, and consumer-producer, are all considered as simple partnerships in this study with the relevant roles being seen as those of partners.

This study examines the influence of partnership based on three partnership attributes: trust, coordination, and commitment (Mohr and Spekman, 1994).

- 5 –

Commitment-trust theory of Morgan and Hunt (1994) identifies three reasons for why trust and commitment are key variables. First, both trust and commitment encourage individuals to actively try to preserve relationship investments by cooperating with partners. Second, both trust and commitment resist attractive short-term alternatives in favor of pursuing the expected long-term benefits of staying with existing partners. Third, both trust and commitment view potentially high-risk actions as prudent due to their belief that their partners will not act opportunistically. Therefore, a high-quality partnership must depend on establishing adequate trust and commitment between partners (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000; Fuller and Vassie, 2002). Besides, Narus and Anderson (1987) suggest that successful partnerships are also marked by coordinated actions directed at mutual and consistent objectives across firms. Chatterjee et al. (2002) consider that the implementation of coordination legitimizes collaboration and sharing of knowledge and perspectives among executives with marketing, customer, and technology knowledge.

Furthermore, an effective strategic planning must have external validity (Henderson and Sifonis, 1988). Partners can be considered as assessors who are located within the external environment and can facilitate the confirmation of planning process validity as well as influencing firm's ECSP (Lee and Lim, 2003; Raymond, 2001). Therefore, the partnership perspective fits the external validity of strategic planning (Henderson and Sifonis, 1988; Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993; King, 1983).

2.3. Relationship between partnership and success of ECSP

As mentioned earlier, partnership positively influences the success of ECSP (Choe, 2003; Lee and Lim, 2003; Raymond, 2001). Chang et al. (2003) recommended that firms should carefully assess their customer and competitor base as a part of their strategic thinking and, thus, derive increased benefits. Clearly, a good partnership positively increases strategic benefits. Firms develop Internet-enabled initiatives to strengthen online interactions with customers, disseminate product information, facilitate transactions, and improve customer service via electronic links with suppliers that become more critical (Zhu, 2004). Based on the social exchange theory, the importance of partnership was demonstrated in resource exchange between partners. Therefore, high-quality partnerships require mutual benefits for partners (Lee and Lim, 2003).

A successful SISP requires users and line managers to work together with the IS function, which may not only generate relevant application ideas, but also tends to create ownership of both processes and outcomes (Earl, 1993). Based on the supply chain management (SCM) literature, strategic alignment requires not only an internal business-technology alignment (internal consistency) but also a buyer-supplier relationship alignment (external validity) (Handfield et al., 2000), because misalignment of buyer-supplier strategies results in extremely wasteful supply chains and generates considerable dissatisfaction among customers (Fisher, 1997). Therefore, it is plausible that improved supplier performance will not be realized or sustained unless buyers recognize procurement and SCM as sources of competitive advantage and align SCM strategy with overall business strategy (Handfield et al., 2000). Besides, a significant finding of this study is that suppliers derive considerable

- 6 –

strategic benefits when customers initiate a system and the supplier enhances the capabilities of that system (Mukhopadhyay and Kekre, 2002). Consequently, the participation of external partners strongly influences firm strategic alignment and outcomes. This view is corresponds to an empirical study on a web shopping mall in which customer relations are demonstrated to positively influence both alignment and competitive advantage (Lederer et al., 2001).

3. Research model and hypotheses

The previous section discussed the conceptual model of the two domains and their relationship. This section subdivides the two domains into six constructs, and thus forms a complete research model and hypotheses, and illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research model and hypotheses

3.1. Fulfillment of ECSP benefits

For providing useful guidance regarding improved planning management, a direct measuring and benefit-based approach is utilized in this study (King, 1983). Three classes of benefits were identified: informational, transactional and strategic. Strategic

- 7 –

H3

H11

H10 H8

H1

H2

Success of ECSP

Improvement in ECSP capabilities

Fulfillment of ECSP benefits

Alignment of ECSP

Partner trust

PartnerCoordination

PartnerCommitment

H7

H4 H5

H6 H9

Partnership

benefits comprise three parts: competitive advantage, customer relations, and alignment (Lederer et al., 2001; Mirani and Lederer, 1998). This study focuses strategic benefits on measuring four key factors which are recognized to achieve ECSP benefits. The first factor, namely strengthening competitiveness, is emphasized as the most important strategic benefit (Lederer et al., 1997). Meanwhile, the second factor, i.e., improving customer relations (Lederer et al., 2001; Mirani and Lederer, 1998; Teo and Ranganathan, 2004), is shown to positively influence both competitive advantage and alignment (Lederer et al., 2001).

The third factor, increasing market share, such as increasing the sale volume in business-to-business (B2B) study (Mukhopadhyay and Kekre, 2002) and as increasing market expansion in business-to-customer (B2C) study (Zhuang and Lederer, 2003), is recognized as capable of achieving strategic benefits. The final factor, i.e., improving customer service quality (Earl, 1993), such as improving customer service in B2B study (Teo and Ranganathan, 2004) and as increasing customer service benefit in B2C study (Zhuang and Lederer, 2003), is also recognized as capable of achieving strategic benefits. Consequently, success in ECSP must involve the fulfillment of the above four strategic benefits.

3.2. Alignment of ECSP

Firms hope to succeed in ECSP must first align their IS strategy and business strategy, this argument is consistent with the internal consistency of strategic planning (Henderson and Sifonis, 1988). Alignment is clearly important in Wetherbe's four-stage planning model (1993). During the first stage, namely strategic planning, the alignment between IS/IT plan and the overall organization objectives must be addressed (Bowman, et al., 1983; Reich and Benbasat, 1996). Although identifying the strategies to which the ECSP should be aligned is extremely difficult, without such alignment, the ECSP will not obtain long-term organizational support (Bowman, et al., 1983), and a firm's economic performance will falter as well (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993).

The importance of alignment can be demonstrated based on the ranking of IS management issues. Major IS management issues can be divided into four groups: business relationship, technology infrastructure, internal effectiveness, and technology application (Niederman et al., 1991). The first one of these groups, i.e., business relationship, focuses on managing the relationship between IS and the business. Effective planning requires appropriate IS organization alignment, and inappropriate alignment can seriously interfere with effective IS strategic planning (Niederman et al., 1991). Furthermore, SISP focuses mainly on alignment of IS with business needs (Earl, 1993). Therefore, Gottschalk (2000) predicts that an important IS management issue within business relationships in the 21st century is to improve the links between IS strategy and business strategy. Alignment thus is a critical starting point for overall planning.

Accordingly, the alignment must be clarified. Alignment is not an event but rather is a process of continuous adaptation and change (Henderson and Venkatraman, 1993), and it is generally accepted key factor for successful IS/IT planning (Segars

- 8 –

and Grover, 1998). Alignment involves a close link between IS/IT strategy and business strategy (Bergeron et al., 2004; Chan et al., 1997; Choe, 2003; Earl, 1993; Segars and Grover, 1998). However, alignment is also explained as a link between IS/IT plan and business plan (Henderson et al., 1987; Reich and Benbasat, 1996; Teo and Ang, 1999; Teo and King, 1996). Regarding the direction of our study, we argue that alignment is a planning process based on a close link between IS strategy and business strategy; consequently, the alignment is referred to as "strategic alignment" rather than "structural alignment" (Hirschheim and Sabherwal, 2001).

Item measures for alignment of ECSP were primarily adapted from those developed by Segars and Grover (1998), and retained four in eight items. The discarded reasons were as follows: one item referred to the emerging technologies issue, and three items referred to top management issues. Four items were retained and had demonstrated validity by empirical studies (cf. Kunnathur and Shi, 2001; Lee and Pai, 2003).

Numerous empirical studies have demonstrated that increased alignment leads to increased IS contributions to business benefits (cf. Bergeron et al., 2004; Chan et al., 1997; Choe, 2003; Sabherwal and Chan, 2001; Teo and King, 1996). Therefore, alignment could be considered a critical starting point for the success of ECSP and the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: Alignment of ECSP positively impacts fulfillment of ECSP benefits.

3.3. Improvement in ECSP capabilities

The construct of ECSP capabilities derives from the concept of strategic planning systems capability (Ramanujam et al., 1986). Planning system capability is conceptualized in terms of system ability to foster control and creativity (Raghunathan and Raghunathan, 1994; Ramanujam et al., 1986; Wang and Tai, 2003). Additionally, objectives associated with improved capabilities provide a potentially important perspective for assessing the adaptability of the planning system to fit planning needs (Segars and Grover, 1998). Differentiated capabilities can be created via alliances and partnerships, and dot-com operations are for assembling complementary strategic capabilities through relationships (Venkatraman, 2000).

Therefore, EC planning should have sufficient inbuilt flexibility to enable the adaptation of EC processes to foster new opportunities, thus fostering creativity. Furthermore, planners should attempt to balance creativity with adequate control mechanisms, thus preventing frequent adaptations on the grounds of creativity from leading to loss of control (Raghunathan and Raghunathan, 1994). Certainly, a planning system with greater capability to anticipate environmental change and maintain management control should provide the organization with a better chance of achieving its planning objectives (Wang and Tai, 2003).

Items measured to assess the improvement in ECSP capabilities were also primarily adapted from those developed by Segars and Grover (1998). This study discarded two items, one of which referred to the alignment issue, while the other referred to the

- 9 –

cooperation issue. Five items were retained, and their validity had to be demonstrated through empirical studies (cf. Kunnathur and Shi, 2001; Raghunathan and Raghunathan, 1994; Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987; Wang and Tai, 2003).

The relationship between "improvement in ECSP capabilities" and "fulfillment of ECSP benefits" has been demonstrated in numerous studies (Kunnathur and Shi, 2001; Segars and Grover, 1998). Further, their positive relationship has been also demonstrated by empirical studies (cf. Raghunathan and Raghunathan, 1994; Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987; Wang and Tai, 2003). Consequently, for consistency with previous studies, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H2: Improvement in ECSP capabilities positively impacts fulfillment of ECSP benefits.

On the other hand, while focusing on the fulfillment of ECSP benefits to provide a useful focal point for assessing strategic planning outcomes, but the ability of the planning process to adapt to a changing business environment remains unclear. Restated, equally important is to assess how the planning process has adapted to better determine planning system effectiveness (Segars and Grover, 1998). This effective planning system criterion has been formally defined and operationalized as an improvement in system capabilities (Segars and Grover, 1998; Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987).

However, an effective planning system should continuously improve in terms of its basic capabilities to support the organization (Venkatraman and Ramanujam, 1987). Segars and Grover (1998) observed that the organizational learning that accompanies planning experience should improved capabilities to achieve alignment between IS strategy and business strategy, analyzing and understanding a business and associated technologies, fostering cooperation and partnership among functional managers and user groups, anticipating relevant events and issues within the competitive environment, and adapting to unexpected organizational and environmental changes.

Many studies have demonstrated the relationship between "alignment of ECSP" and "improvement in ECSP capabilities" (Kunnathur and Shi, 2001; Segars and Grover, 1998). Furthermore, their positive relationship has also been demonstrated by empirical researches (cf. Lee and Pai, 2003; Wang and Tai, 2003). Therefore, for consistency with previous studies, this study presents the following hypothesis:

H3: Alignment of ECSP positively impacts improvement in ECSP capabilities.

3.4. Partner trust

Partner trust refers to the reliance (or confidence) between partners. Although the definition of partner trust is problematic, owing to the wide variety of approaches to

- 10 –

the concept, this study defines partner trust using two approaches: cooperative behavior and belief (Moorman et al., 1992).

Two different conceptualizations of trust exist in social reality: viewing trust as a cooperative behavior, and viewing trust as a psychological construct (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Partner trust has been defined as "the reliance by one person, group, or firm upon a voluntarily accepted duty on the part of another person, group, or firm to recognize and protect the rights and interests of all others engaged in a joint endeavor or economic exchange", where this reliance must be designed to improve cooperation and achieve benefits (Hosmer, 1995). Meanwhile, partner trust has also been defined as one party having confidence in the reliability and integrity of an exchange partner (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), or in the goodwill of such a partner (Moorman et al., 1992; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). More explicitly, partner trust can be defined as a belief that partners will act to achieve positive outcomes as well as not unexpectedly taking actions that result in negative outcomes (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Trust enables parties in a relationship to develop confidence that can yield long-term benefits (Anderson and Weitz, 1989).

Based on the literature by Butler and Cantrell (1984), partner trust includes four measured key factors: openness, honesty, competence and benevolence (Butler and Cantrell, 1984; Ganesan, 1994; Geyskens et al., 1996; Hart and Saunders, 1997; Larzelere and Huston, 1980; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Rempel et al., 1985; Walter, 2003). Openness indicates mental willingness to share ideas and information freely with partners. Moreover, honesty indicates the reputation for integrity of the partners who stand by their word and fulfill promised role obligations. Furthermore, competence indicates that partners have the required expertise, such as technical knowledge and interpersonal skills, for performing their jobs, and moreover handle situations consistently. Finally, benevolence indicates that partners are interested in firm welfare, will not opportunistically pursue their own gain, are loyal and also are willing to protect, support, and encourage their partners.

3.5 Partner coordination

Coordination is a process of arranging activities (Quinn and Dutton, 2005) and reflects the set of tasks each party expects the other to perform (Mohr and Spekman, 1994). Therefore, coordination is established in the partner's believe between each other, and such definition of coordination is about the expectation of coordination rather than the realization of coordination (Quinn and Dutton, 2005). Cooren (2000) asserts that coordination is a process of using speech acts to impose narrative structures onto situations in order to make sense of those situations, this view had revealed the individual ability of coordinator can affect the coordinated result. In sum, actual coordinated jobs must depend on two differ coordinated offers: one is to own the coordinated ability and the other is having willingness for the partners to work together (Gerwin, 2004). Narus and Anderson (1987) suggest that successful working partnerships are marked by coordinated actions directed at mutual objectives that are consistent across organizations. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) assert without high levels of coordination, any planned mutual advantage cannot be achieved.

- 11 –

Chatterjee et al. (2002) suggest that managerial judgments and actions across the enterprise can be linked through the use of a variety of coordination mechanisms, such as standard operating procedures (SOP), liaison roles, and task forces. Therefore, the executed degree of above three mechanisms can be estimated the level of partner coordination.

3.6. Partner commitment

Partner commitment refers to an exchange partner believing that a valued relationship with another is considered sufficiently important to warrant making a maximum effort at maintaining it; that is, the committed party believes the relationship is worth maintaining to ensure it endures indefinitely (Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994).

Commitment has been classified into various types. Affective commitment and calculative commitment appear most frequently, and also appear to be the most relevant for IOR (Geyskens et al., 1996). Affectively committed channel members wish to maintain relationships because they like the partner and enjoy the partnership, while calculative commitment indicates the extent to which channel members perceive the need to maintain a relationship given the significant termination or switching costs associated with leaving. Simultaneously, the conceptualized affective commitment and calculative commitment have been identified as mutual independence (Geyskens et al., 1996). Savant contended that two consequences of affective commitment surpass calculative commitment (Kumar et al., 1994). First, affectively committed partners invest more in the relationship than calculative commitment parties. Second, affectively committed partners are more resistant to opportunistic behavior. These two consequences are consistent with Morgan and Hunt. Consequently, this study adopts "affective commitment" as a generic term for "partner commitment".

Theory was primarily adopted by Walter (2003), and item development was primarily adapted by Lusch et al. (2003), Morgan and Hunt (1994). Partner commitment incorporates three key measured factors: continuing investment, short-term sacrifice and long-term benefit orientation. Continuing investment represents partner willingness to strive to maintain the partnership; these commitment inputs include idiosyncratic and dedicated investments (Dwyer et al., 1987; Gundlach et al., 1995; Hart and Saunders, 1997; Lee and Lim, 2003; Lusch et al., 2003; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Walter, 2003). Because commitment potentially entails vulnerability, partners will make an effort and balance short-term sacrifice against long-term goal achievement. Obviously, partner commitment is also a long-term benefit (Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Gundlach et al., 1995; Lusch et al., 2003; Mohr and Spekman, 1994; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Walter, 2003).

3.7. Relationships among partner trust, partner coordination, partner commitment, alignment of ECSP, improvement in ECSP capabilities, and fulfillment of ECSP benefits

- 12 –

Anderson and Narus (1986) deemed that trust as a party's expectation that another party desires coordination, will fulfill obligations and will pull its weight in the relationship. Trust has been suggested as the relationship mechanism that facilitates cooperation and coordination (Rodríguez and Wilson, 2002). Once trust is established, firms learn that coordinated efforts will lead to outcomes that exceed what the firm would achieve if it acted solely in its own best interests (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Pruitt (1981) believes trust and a desire to coordinate with another party are closely related, and an empirical research of Jap (1999) has demonstrated the positive relationship between trust and coordination. Therefore, based on the above, we hypothesize:

H4: Partner trust positively impacts partner coordination.

If one partner conforms to expectations, then the other partner will be encouraged to maintain the partnership. Thus, a reciprocal relationship exists between continuity and trust, with trust reinforcing the prospect of continuity in a relationship representing a commitment to maintain an IOR in the future (Hart and Saunders, 1997). Since commitment entails vulnerability, only trustworthy partners are sought after (Geyskens et al., 1996; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Rodríguez and Wilson, 2002). The process framework of cooperative IOR comprises a repetitive and cyclic sequence of negotiation, commitment, and execution. In the commitment stage, during which the parties identify trustworthy partners, the mechanism for governing the cooperative relationship is established, and the commitments among the parties are either codified in a formal legal contract or an informally psychological contract (Ring and Van de Ven, 1994). This process clearly reveals the relation between trust and commitment; that is, it uses trustworthiness as a basis for codifying commitment to partners to keep their promises and complete deals.

Thus the link between trust and commitment is important because commitment is essential for successful long-term relationships (Gundlach et al., 1995). Partners can demonstrate their trustworthiness by committing themselves to the exchange relationship, therefore, trust building can be considered a business investment made to strengthen a mutual relationship (Hallén et al, 1991). Finally, partners with long-term relationships can achieve competitive advantage (Ganesan, 1994). Additionally, trust is conceived as a determinant of relationship quality (Moorman et al., 1992). Because trust is so highly valued, parties are strongly motivated to maintain such relationships.

In sum, partner trust is considered a cornerstone of partnership (Lee, 2001; Lusch et al., 2003; Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994), and is a key determinant of partner commitment (Geyskens et al., 1996; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Rodríguez and Wilson, 2002). Numerous empirical researches have demonstrated the existence of these positive trust-commitment relationships (cf. Geyskens et al., 1996; Larzelere, R. E., Huston, 1980; Lusch et al., 2003; MacDonald amd Smith, 2004; McDonald, 1981; Moorman et al., 1992; Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Rodríguez and Wilson, 2002; Walter,

- 13 –

2003). Therefore, based on the above, we hypothesize:

H5: Partner trust positively impacts partner commitment.

A theoretical study has described the development of trust between firms as a function of maintaining the relationship, and the trust mechanisms lying behind alignment (Bresnen and Marshall, 2000). And, alignment of IS strategy with business strategy gained through coordination between the business and IS planning functions and activities (Teo and King, 1996). Besides, according to three empirical studies demonstrating how the partnership and the alignment of ECSP are related from the perspectives of external environment (Choe, 2003), customer relations (Lederer et al., 2001), and partnership (Earl, 1993). Partnership is a part of the environmental context (Raymond, 2001), and customer relations are viewed as a type of partnership. Consequently, three relationships can be inferred, namely that partner trust, coordination, and commitment can impact alignment of ECSP. Therefore, based on the above, we hypothesize the following:

H6: Partner trust positively impacts alignment of ECSP.

H7: Partner coordination positively impacts alignment of ECSP.

H8: Partner commitment positively impacts alignment of ECSP.

Some investigations have demonstrated that partner trust lead to benefits (Anderson and Weitz, 1989; Anderson and Narus, 1990; Fuller and Vassie, 2002; Hosmer, 1995), while other studies have shown that partner coordination lead to benefits (Anderson and Narus, 1990; Fisher, 1997). Yet other researches have demonstrated that partner commitment achieves benefits (Kumar et al., 1994; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Besides, some studies have demonstrated that partnership lead to benefits (Chang et al., 2003; Lederer et al., 2001). Numerous empirical researches have demonstrated the positive relationships between partner trust and fulfillment of ECSP benefits (cf. Lee and Lim, 2003), partner coordination and fulfillment of ECSP benefits (cf. Jap, 1999), partner commitment and fulfillment of ECSP benefits (cf. Kumar et al., 1994; Lee and Lim, 2003; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Therefore, based on the above, we hypothesize the following:

H9: Partner trust positively impacts fulfillment of ECSP benefits.

H10: Partner coordination positively impacts fulfillment of ECSP benefits.

H11: Partner commitment positively impacts fulfillment of ECSP benefits.

- 14 –

4. Methodology

4.1. Survey procedures

Data were collected via a postal survey. A draft questionnaire was pilot tested by three MIS professors to ensure the content validity and no problems in wording. Five CIOs were administered the revised questionnaire and asked to examine it for meaningfulness, relevance, and clarity, which resulted in some minor modification of the wordings of certain survey items. The final instrument was mailed to the CIOs of 784 firms randomly selected from the directories of the 2003 Common Wealth 1000 largest firms in Taiwan. Although the use of a single informant may result in method variances and informant biases, the CIO is sufficiently qualified to answer questions about ECSP (Huber and Power, 1985; Van der Heijden, 2001).

4.2. Measure procedures

A direct measurement and benefits based approach is used to improve planning management (King, 1983). Meanwhile, a multi-item approach is used to measure the research variables, together with a five-point Likert-type scale. All the scale items please see Appendix.

The research models were analyzed using SEM, supported by LISREL 8.72. Because the statistics technique of SEM allow a researcher can compare the explanatory power of a model to that of competing models by using adequacy indices. And the researcher can reduce uncertainty about a plausible model by testing a priori competing models, comparing their meaningfulness to account for the data. Eliminating competing rivals strengthens support for a model (Aquino et al., 1997). The measure procedures consist of three stages.

The first stage, we use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to identify whether items are appropriate. Therefore, we test the questionnaire's validity and reliability, factor loading, and overall fit of the model with six constructs. Seven approved indices are used, such as chi-square test (χ2), χ2/df, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), normed fit index (NFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) (Aquino et al., 1997; Bentler, 1990; Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Carmines and McIver, 1981; Etezadi-Amoli and Farhoomand, 1996; Hair et al., 1998; Rigdon, 1996).

The second stage, the research model and hypothesized relationships are tested using the SEM approach, and seven approved indices are also used to test the overall fit of research model. However, owing to partner coordination positions between the partner trust and the alignment of ECSP, partner commitment positions between the partner trust and the fulfillment of ECSP benefits. The mediation may be existence, so we need to test thus mediation further.

The third stage, we delete some path parameters of the research model to form new nested models, namely model-a and model-b, in order to compare the parameters

- 15 –

change among different competing models (Marsh, 1994). According to the suggestion of Baron and Kenny (1986), the test processes of mediation are two steps. If we want to prove variable M is mediator between variable X and Y. The first step must prove X to Y, as well as X to M is influential. The second step when M is added between X and Y, the influence of M to Y is significant and the influence of X to M is still significant but the influence of X to Y becomes un-significant. Because the existence of M makes the influence of X to Y to be not significant anymore, therefore M can be proved that is a really complete mediator between X and Y.

5. Data Analysis

A total of 166 completed usable questionnaires were returned, for an effective response rate of 21.17%. The sample size of 166 was adequate for model testing, since the ratio of sample size (166) to the observed indicators (23) was 7.2 exceeding the recommended ratio of 5.0 (Bentler and Chou, 1987).

5.1. Sample characteristics

The demographic characteristics of the sample and reveals some interesting phenomenon. First, the respondents come from diverse industries, including: electronics industry 24.7%, financial/insurance 22.3%, manufacturing 19.3%, traditional industry 10.2%, in addition to various other industries such as building, transportation, retailing and so on. Second, most IS departments are not large, 33.1% of the responding firms had fewer than ten IS employees, 31.9% had between 11 and 50, 10.2% had between 51 and 100, and 24.8% had over 100. Finally, EC remains in its infancy, 22.3% of respondent firms had been carrying out EC for less than 1 year, 56.6% between 1 and 3 years, 14.5% between 3 and 5 years, and only 6.6% for over 5 years.

5.2. Measure validity and reliability (CFA)

All constructs were measured with multiple indicators. Respondents gave the extent of their agreement or disagreement with each statement concerning the constructs. CFA was performed to examine the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Table 1 lists the CFA results.

Table 1. The results of measurement model CFA

Latent construct IndicatorFactor loading

Standard error

t-valueComposite reliability

Partner trust(4 items)

0.87

TR1 0.47 0.04 10.64***TR2 0.52 0.04 12.77***

- 16 –

TR3 0.52 0.04 13.05***TR4 0.57 0.05 11.48***

Partner coordination (3 items)

0.84

CR1 0.46 0.05 10.13***CR2 0.55 0.04 12.67***CR3 0.59 0.05 12.32***

Partner commitment (3 items)

0.86

CO1 0.48 0.04 13.02***CO2 0.45 0.04 12.64***CO3 0.44 0.04 11.61***

Alignment of ECSP(4 items)

0.92

AL1 0.61 0.05 12.76***AL2 0.65 0.05 13.70***AL3 0.70 0.05 14.00***AL4 0.60 0.04 13.49***

Improvement in ECSP capabilities(5 items)

0.93

CA1 0.52 0.04 12.84***CA2 0.60 0.04 13.56***CA3 0.58 0.04 13.31***CA4 0.61 0.04 14.75***CA5 0.59 0.04 13.66***

Fulfillment of ECSP benefits(4 items)

0.87

BE1 0.57 0.04 12.67***BE2 0.59 0.05 12.43***BE3 0.52 0.05 9.81***BE4 0.57 0.04 13.16***

***p<0.001 ( |t-value | >3.08), **p<0.01 ( |t-value | >2.575), *p<0.05 ( |t-value | >1.96)

The validity of the questionnaire can be defined as the degree to which an indicator or set of indicators correctly represents the study concept (Hair et al., 1998). This study focuses on three forms of validity: content, convergent and discriminate validity.

Content validity was established by adopting constructs that have been used in former empirical studies, and through conducting a pilot test on experts in related fields (Lee and Lim, 2003). This questionnaire has content validity because all the indicators were determined through a review of other similar studies and a pilot test was conducted on three MIS professors and five CIOs.

Convergent validity tests were conducted to determine whether all the indicators measuring a construct clustered together and clearly formed a single construct (Lee and Lim, 2003). Table 1 shows that each indicator had a higher load on associated construct than any other construct. Most of indicators' factor loading fitted the threshold value between 0.5 and 0.95. Even though a few indicators' factor loading are smaller than 0.5, but their standard error are extremely small (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988)

- 17 –

and all t-values were statistically significant (Bagozzi et al., 1991), so indicating that the indicators were one dimensional. Consequently, this questionnaire has good convergent validity.

Discriminate validity indicates the degree to which a conceptual and theoretical differences between constructs, and is indicated by a low correlative coefficient between measured variables (Lee and Lim, 2003). Table 2 reveals the occurrence of discriminate validity, in which the correlative coefficient of any pair construct is below 0.9 (Hair et al., 1998).

Table 2. Correlations between constructs Construct (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)(1) Partner trust 1.000

(2) Partner coordination 0.575*** 1.000

(3) Partner commitment 0.666*** 0.482*** 1.000

(4) Alignment of ECSP 0.552*** 0.575*** 0.444*** 1.000

(5) Improvement in ECSP capabilities

0.498*** 0.487*** 0.431*** 0.677*** 1.000

(6) Fulfillment of ECSP benefits

0.548*** 0.443*** 0.512*** 0.646*** 0.685*** 1.000

***p<0.001 ( |t-value | >3.08), **p<0.01 ( |t-value | >2.575), *p<0.05 ( |t-value | >1.96)

Reliability can be defined as the extent to which an indicator or set of indicators is consistent with what the researcher intends to measure (Hair et al., 1998). Reliability assessment was performed using composite reliability, which indicates the degree of internal consistency. In Table 1, all constructs indicated adequate reliability when the composite reliability exceeded the threshold value of 0.7 for confirmatory research (Hair et al., 1998). This demonstrates that the questionnaire has good reliability.

Consequently, this study concluded that all the indicators used had acceptable validity and reliability. Table 3 shows that the following measured indices were used to assess the overall fit of the measurement model. The goodness of fit indices was: χ2/df=1.239, RMSEA=0.039, NFI=0.97, NNFI=0.99, CFI=0.99, GFI=0.88, AGFI=0.84. Overall, the CFA results demonstrated that this questionnaire was appropriate for testing the hypothesized model.

Table 3. Fit statistics and recommended values for measurement model

Fit statisticsThreshold

valueReference

Measurementmodel

chi-square/degree of freedom (2/ df)

< 3 Carmines and McIver, 1981266.42/215

=1.239root mean square error of < 0.08 Hair et al., 1998 0.039

- 18 –

approximation (RMSEA)normed fit index

(NFI)> 0.90 Hair et al., 1998 0.97

non-normed fit index(NNFI)

> 0.90 Hair et al., 1998 0.99

comparative fit index(CFI)

> 0.90 Bentler and Bonett, 1980 0.99

goodness-of-fit index(GFI)

> 0.80 Etezadi-Amoli and Farhoomand, 1996 0.88

adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI)

> 0.80 Etezadi-Amoli and Farhoomand, 1996 0.84

***p<0.001 ( |t-value | >3.08), **p<0.01 ( |t-value | >2.575), *p<0.05 ( |t-value | >1.96)

5.3. Analysis of structural model and hypothesis testing

Figure 2 illustrates the structural model with parameters requiring estimation. Table 4 shows the structural model with related fit statistics and estimated parameters. The global fit statistics indicate adequate fit (χ2/df=1.548, RMSEA=0.058, NFI=0.96, NNFI=0.98, CFI=0.98, GFI=0.85, AGFI=0.81). Since the proposed model is meaningless if the correlations among the alignments of ECSP, improvement in ECSP capabilities, and fulfillment of ECSP benefits are not significant, therefore the relationships within the constructs of success of ECSP are examined before partnership. Consistent with H1, the alignment of ECSP significantly and positively influences the fulfillment of ECSP benefits (β53=0.30, p<0.01). Furthermore, the improvement in ECSP capabilities also positively and markedly influences the fulfillment of ECSP benefits (β54=0.44, p<0.001), and thus H2 is supported. Additionally, the alignment of ECSP markedly and positively influences the improvement in ECSP capabilities (β43=0.64, p<0.001), and thus H3 is supported.

Since H1, H2 and H3 are statistically significant. Each hypothesis is tested to identify the constructs that are important for ECSP success. Moreover, regarding the hypothesis of partner trust is considered a cornerstone of partnership, partner trust is considerably related to partner coordination (γ11=0.32, p<0.001), thus H4 is supported; partner trust is also considerably related to partner commitment (γ21=0.38, p<0.001), thus H5 is supported too.

Regarding the hypotheses relating to partnership and alignment of ECSP, partner trust is not significantly as well as partner commitment related to the alignment of ECSP (γ31=0.16, p>0.05; β32=0.07, p>0.05), but partner coordination is significantly related to the alignment of ECSP (β31=0.58, p<0.001). Therefore, H7 is supported but H6 and H8 are not.

- 19 –

Figure 2. Structural equation model

Table 4. Parameter estimates, and fit statistics for structural models

Parameter (Path)

Original research

model

Research

model-a

Research

model-b

Estimate t-value Estimate t-value Estimate t-value

γ11 (Trust → Coord) 0.32 *** 7.38 0.33 *** 7.59 0.32 *** 7.38

γ21 (Trust → Comit) 0.38 *** 9.59 0.38 *** 9.55 0.39 *** 9.77

γ31 (Trust → Align) 0.16 1.57 0.40 *** 4.47 0.15 1.46

γ51 (Trust → Benef) 0.05 0.68 0.05 0.59 0.18 *** 3.30

β31 (Coord → Align) 0.58 *** 3.83 Deletion 0.58 *** 3.85

β32 (Comit → Align) 0.07 0.42 -0.01 -0.04 0.08 0.50

β43 (Align → Capab) 0.64 *** 9.23 0.64 *** 9.23 0.64 *** 9.22

β51 (Coord → Benef) -0.14 -1.14 -0.13 -1.06 -0.16 -1.29

β52 (Comit → Benef) 0.29 * 2.20 0.30 * 2.22 Deletion

β53 (Align → Benef) 0.30 ** 2.76 0.28 ** 2.67 0.29 ** 2.66

β54 (Capab → Benef) 0.44 *** 4.27 0.45 *** 4.28 0.46 *** 4.30

χ2/df [<3] 340.66/220= 1.548 362.27/221= 1.639 346.01/221= 1.566

RMSEA [<0.08] 0.058 0.062 0.059

NFI [>0.9] 0.96 0.96 0.96

- 20 –

β43

β52

β32β51

β53

β54

β31

γ11 γ21

γ31 γ51

PartnerCoordination

PartnerCommitment

Partner trust

Alignment of ECSP

Fulfillment of ECSP

benefitsImprovement in

ECSP capabilities

NNFI [>0.9] 0.98 0.98 0.98

CFI [>0.9] 0.98 0.98 0.98

GFI [>0.8] 0.85 0.84 0.85

AGFI [>0.8] 0.81 0.80 0.81

***p<0.001 ( |t-value | >3.08), **p<0.01 ( |t-value | >2.575), *p<0.05 ( |t-value | >1.96)

Trust: Partner trust; Coord: Partner coordination; Comit: Partner commitment; Align: Alignment of

ECSP; Capab: Improvement in ECSP capabilities; Benef: Fulfillment of ECSP benefits

Finally, regarding the hypotheses relating to partnership and fulfillment of ECSP benefits, partner trust is not significantly as well as partner coordination related to the fulfillment of ECSP benefits (γ51=0.05, p>0.05; β51=-0.14, p>0.05); but partner commitment is significantly related to the fulfillment of ECSP benefits (β52=0.29, p<0.05). Therefore, H11 is supported but H9 and H10 are not.

5.4. Mediation testing

Research model-a and model-b are nested models of original research model, thus three model have adequate fit statistics (cf. Table 4). Although H6 is not supported in original model, but H6 is supported in model-a. Using a test processes of mediation (Baron and Kenny, 1986), when parameter β31 is not existence in model-a, γ11 and γ31 are significant (γ11=0.33, p<0.001; γ31=0.40, p<0.001). When parameter β31 is existence in original model, γ31 becomes un-significant (γ31=0.16, p>0.05). Because the existence of β31 makes γ31 to be not significant, therefore partner coordination can be proved that is a really complete mediator between partner trust and alignment of ECSP.

Using same test processes of mediation, when parameter β52 is not existence in model-b, γ21 and γ51 are significant (γ21=0.39, p<0.001; γ51=0.18, p<0.001). When parameter β52 is existence in original model, γ51 becomes un-significant (γ51=0.05, p>0.05). Because the existence of β52 makes γ51 to be not significant, therefore partner commitment can be proved that is a really complete mediator between partner trust and fulfillment of ECSP strategy.

6. Discussion

The first five hypotheses are directive inferences based on the results of numerous empirical studies. Thus H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 are all expected to be supported. H1 successfully demonstrated that if a firm wishes to fulfill ECSP benefits, they must first align IS strategy and business strategy. Meanwhile, H2 successfully demonstrated that a firm that is capable of enhancing strategic planning capability will have a higher

- 21 –

likelihood of achieving ECSP benefits. Good alignment of ECSP improves ECSP capabilities, as demonstrated by H3. Finally, H4 demonstrates that partner trust positively influences partner coordination; H5 demonstrates that partner trust positively influences partner commitment.

These hypotheses H6, H7, and H8 are probing into the relations between the partnership and the alignment of ECSP. H6 is not supported, although the result of data analysis demonstrates the partner coordination is complete mediator between partner trust and ECSP alignment, namely that partner trust can indirectly affect the alignment of ECSP via partner coordination. H7 successfully demonstrated that a good partner coordination can positively impacts the alignment of a firm's EC strategic planning. H8 is not supported; a reasonable inference is that partner commitment is benefit orientation (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Former studies consider the partner attributes are the independent variables when discussed the influences of partnerships to other constructs; few studies consider the relations among partner attributes. Consequently, when we discuss the influences of partnerships to ECSP alignment; particularly partner trust, coordination, and commitment have certain antecedent-subsequent relations. Therefore, non-benefit oriented partner trust and coordination can affect the ECSP alignment, but benefit-oriented partner commitment can not affect the alignment of ECSP.

Besides, hypotheses H9, H10, and H11 are probing into the relations between the partnership and the fulfillment of ECSP benefits. H9 is not supported, although the mediation testing demonstrates the partner commitment is complete mediator between the partner trust and the fulfillment of ECSP benefits, namely that partner trust can indirectly affect the fulfillment of ECSP benefits via partner commitment. H11 successfully demonstrated that the partner commitment can positively impacts a firm to achieve their ECSP benefits. In the process of literatures study, we find most literatures discussed the relationship between fulfillment of ECSP benefits with partner trust only (Anderson and Weitz, 1989), or with partner coordination only (Anderson and Narus, 1990), or with partner commitment only (Kumar et al., 1994). However, few studies have simultaneously discussed the fulfillment of ECSP benefits together with partner trust-coordination and trust-commitment relationship. H10 is not supported, a possible reason is that partner commitment is more benefit-oriented than partner coordination; partner coordination is more like a process of focusing on arrangement of inter-organizational activities (Quinn and Dutton, 2005).

7. Conclusions

Although the extent to which the high-quality partnerships influence firm policy and contribute to ECSP success has been extensively studied, these two issues have seldom been simultaneously addressed in empirical research. This study not only offers implications for practitioners and researchers, but also identifies limitations of the methods used here, which are presented in the next paragraph. Two conclusions are listed below.

- 22 –

Conclusions regarding the success of ECSP:

1. Alignment of ECSP is a critical starting point for the success of ECSP. Good alignment of ECSP influences not only the improvement in ECSP capabilities, but also the fulfillment of ECSP benefits.

2. Improvement in ECSP capabilities influences the fulfillment of ECSP benefits.

Conclusions regarding the influence of partnership to ECSP success:

1. Partner trust owns important influence in partnership. The relations among three partnership attributes (i.e., trust, coordination, and commitment) are not only simple correlation but also antecedent-consequence relationships. Partner trust is a critical cornerstone of partner coordination and commitment.

2. Based on EC environment, it necessary to handle partner trust, coordination, and commitment simultaneously from the partnership perspective. Thus, partner coordination is an important mediator between partner trust and alignment of ECSP. If firms wish to achieve the alignment between IS strategy and business strategy, they must to win partner trust first, and then do the coordinated jobs well. Besides, partner commitment is an important mediator between partner trust and fulfillment of ECSP benefits. If firms wish to achieve strategic benefits, they must base on partner trust first, and then must strive to achieve partner commitment.

3. It is necessary to separate the partnership from the environmental context when discussing questions related to environmental issues.

7.1. Implications for practitioners

This study has five main implications for practitioners initiating or currently implementing ECSP.

First, the alignment of ECSP has been shown to be a critical starting point for ECSP success. Managers should carefully consider the alignment between IS strategy and business strategy when considering how to improve ECSP capabilities and fulfill ECSP benefits.

Second, improvement in ECSP capabilities has been shown to affect the fulfillment of ECSP benefits. Managers need numerous relevant planning skills to smoothly involve the EC environment when facing the rapidly changing world. Managers must improve ECSP capabilities in identifying key problem areas and new business opportunities, anticipating crises, understanding businesses and their information needs, and flexibly adapting to unanticipated change. Mass creativity applications and adequate control mechanisms provide a better opportunity for firms to achieve strategic benefits.

- 23 –

Third, partner trust can be considered an important external factor which influences firm policy and helps to align IS strategy and business strategy. Managers must learn how to take partner advice to appropriately modify firm policy; restated, for the purpose of max mutual benefits among partners that firm needs to learn how to modify their strategy to gain the partner trust.

Fourth, partner coordination has been demonstrated to be an important mediator between partner trust and alignment of ECSP. If firms wish to do the strategic planning well, they must win partner trust first, and then strive to coordinated jobs. When the trust-coordination relationship is established, firms have good external cooperated partner who can give suggestions to fit the firms' ECSP alignment.

Fifth, partner commitment has been demonstrated to be an important mediator between partner trust and fulfillment of ECSP benefits. Thus, if firms wish to achieve strategic benefits, they must first win partner trust via cooperative behavior and belief, and then gain partner commitment. When the trust-commitment relationship is established, the commitments are codified either in a formal legal contract or in an informal psychological contract among the partners. Consequently, it may be possible to fulfill the ECSP benefits.

7.2. Implications for researchers

This study demonstrates the need to separate the partnership from the environmental context when discussing certain questions related to environmental issues. The environmental context can be divided into two parts, environmental uncertainty and partnership. Partnership should be considered an independent construct which can be distinguished from other environmental constructs. A situation in which partnership is neglected or mixed together with other environmental constructs when discussing the environmental context regarding firm influence can affect the inference of study results. Two related examples can be found in the study of Choe (2003) and Raymond (2001).

Choe (2003) noted the clear environmental uncertainty, which indicated an external environment but not internal environment (e.g. organizational development goal, technological ability). Choe indicated that external environments factors include environmental dynamism, heterogeneity, hostility, competition and external needs, but not include partnership. This limits our understanding of the environmental context.

Although Raymond (2001) indicated the environmental context included both environmental uncertainty and partner influence, his study also found that environmental context did not significantly influence the strategic benefit. However, Raymond does not analyze the relationship of strategic benefit with environmental uncertainty and partnership, but mixes environmental uncertainty with partnership to create one construct, namely environmental context. This study only tests the relationship between partnership and strategic benefit, and successfully demonstrates the relationship between them. Consequently, it is important to distinguish between environmental uncertainty and partnership, thus avoiding criterion pollution.

- 24 –

7.3. Limitations

This study has three main limitations. First, in the SCM a firm may simultaneously fulfill the upstream, middle, and downstream roles. Questionnaire responses may have differed according to the type of role fulfilled. Second, this study used a single respondent per firm because this helped obtain a good response rate. Chief executive officers (CEO) are generally used as subjects for completing questionnaires in management studies, and CEO can be an appropriate respondent who has adequate management knowledge. However, this study selected CIO as the respondent, because the CIO is more likely to possess know-how regarding the research variables, particularly the measurement of ECSP success. Asking a different management level representative to fill in the questionnaire probably influenced the results. Third, the sample population came from large enterprises in Taiwan and 78.9% of sampled firms had conducted EC for less than three years. The conclusions thus may differ from those in other countries that have performed EC for a long time, and have limited generalizability for small-sized and medium-sized enterprises.

7.4. Future research directions

Although the surveys of Ng et al. (1998), Poon and Swatman (1999) clearly indicated that EC remains in its infancy in the late 20th century, EC is still highly promising on marketing. The survey of Ng et al. selected 300 firms from those listed in the Yahoo! Directory for detailed study. However, only 15.3% of these firms were engaged in on-line transactions. Additionally, the number of secure transaction sites remains low. This may well create a barrier to visitors considering buying products or services via the Internet. Most firms look to the Internet as a potential marketing tool. According the survey of Ng et al., despite the problem of security, the opinions of the respondents suggest that businesses will continue to adopt the Internet to enlarge their markets. Restated, a situation in which partner trust can be won would achieve long-term benefits and potential business opportunities.

So far, this study has only discussed two vertices issues, strategic planning as a starting point and strategic benefits as an end point, and the relationship between them. A complete ECSP process also includes other three parts (i.e., organizational information requirements analysis, resource allocation, and project planning) (Wetherbe, 1993), which have not been discussed. Enormous potential exists for future research discussing the other three processes in terms of their strategic benefits.

Numerous studies have indicated that alliance and partner (or partners and customers) differ from each other. However, this study considers them to be similar. When a firm has multiple roles in the SCM, the relationship of that firm with its cooperator makes it difficult to identify which is an alliance, or which is a partnership, or a simple provider-customer. Nevertheless, if the use of dichotomy is practicable for separating purely on a buyer versus seller basis, the effects of partner relationship on ECSP could be more significant.

- 25 –

Appendix. Questionnaire items

A.1. Partner trustTR1: The EC partners have willingness to share ideas and information with us. TR2: The EC partners are integrity and stick to their obligations in dealing with us.TR3: The EC partners are competence who has technical knowledge and interpersonal

skill to perform the jobs, and good consistency in handling situations.TR4: The EC partners are concerned about our welfare and have willingness to

protect, support, and encourage us.

A.2. Partner coordinationCR1: Participators (i.e., planners and EC partners) have good standard operating

procedures to be follow in the EC coordinated process.CR2: Participators play well the liaison roles in the EC coordinated process.CR3: In the EC coordinated process, participators solve the problem via task forces.

A.3. Partner commitmentCO1: Our relationship to EC partners deserves my firm's maximum effort to maintain.CO2: Our relationship to EC partners is something my firm is very committed to even

though short-term sacrifice happened.CO3: Our relationship to EC partners is something my firm intends to support

indefinitely base on long-term benefits.

A.4. Alignment of ECSPAL1: Aligning EC strategies with the strategic planning of the organization.AL2: Adapting the objectives of EC to changing objectives of the organization.AL3: Identifying EC-related opportunities to support the strategic direction of the

firm.AL4: Adapting EC to strategic change.

A.5. Improvement in ECSP capabilitiesCA1: Capabilities of ECSP in identifying key problem areas was improved.CA2: Capabilities of ECSP in identifying new business opportunities was improved.CA3: Capabilities of ECSP in anticipating surprises and crises was improved.CA4: Capabilities of ECSP in understanding the business and its information needs

was improved.CA5: Flexibility to adapt to unanticipated changes was improved.

A.6. Fulfillment of ECSP benefitsBE1: Fulfillment of ECSP can increase competitiveness.BE2: Fulfillment of ECSP can improve customer relations.BE3: Fulfillment of ECSP can increase market share.BE4: Fulfillment of ECSP can improve customer service quality or increase customer

satisfaction.

- 26 –

References

Anderson, E., Weitz, B., Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads, Marketing Science, 8 (4), 1989, pp. 310-323.

Anderson, E., Weitz, B., The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels, Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (1), 1992, pp. 18-34.

Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., Toward a better understanding of distribution channel working relationships, in: Backhaus, K., Wilson, D. (Eds), Industrial Marketing: A German-American perspective, Berlin Springer-Verlag, 1986, pp. 320-336.

Anderson, J. C., Narus, J. A., A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working partnerships, Journal of Marketing, 54 (1), 1990, pp. 42-58.

Aquino, K., Griffeth, R. W., Allen, D. G., Hom, P. W., Integrating justice constructs into the turnover process: a test of a referent cognitions model, Academy of Management Journal, 40 (5), 1997, pp. 1208-1227.

Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 1988, pp. 74-94.

Bagozzi,R. P., Yi, Y., Phillips, L. W., Assessing construct validity in organizational research, Administrative Science Quarterly, 36 (3), 1991, pp. 421-458.

Baron, R. M., Kenny, D. A., The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1986, pp. 1173-1182.

Bentler, P. M., Comparative fit indices in structural models, Psychological Bulletin, 107, 1990, pp. 238-246.

Bentler, P. M., Bonett, D. G., Singnificance test and good of fit in the analysis of covariance structures, Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3), 1980, pp. 588-606.

Bentler, P. M., Chou, C. P., Practical issues in structural modeling, Sociological Methods & Research, 16 (1), 1987, pp. 78-117.

Bergeron, F., Raymond, L., Rivard, S., Ideal patterns of strategic alignment and business performance, Information & Management, 41 (8), 2004, pp. 1003-1020.

Bowman, B. J., Davis, G. B., Wetherbe, J. C., Three stage model of MIS planning, Information & Management, 6 (1), 1983, pp. 11-25.

Bresnen, M., Marshall, N., Partnering in construction: a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas, Construction Management and Economics, 18 (2), 2000, pp. 229-237.

Butler, J. K., Cantrell, R. S., A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates, Psychological Reports, 55 (1), 1984,

- 27 –

pp. 19-28.

Carmines, E. G., McIver, J. P., Analyzing models with unobserved variables: analysis of covariance structures, in: G. W. Bohrnstedt, E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues, Beverly Hills, CA, 1981, pp. 65-115.

Chan, Y. E., Huff, S. L., Barclay, D. W., Copeland, D. G., Business strategic orientation, information systems strategic orientation, and strategic alignment, Information Systems Research, 8 (2), 1997, pp. 125-150.

Chang, K. C., Jackson, J., Grover, V., E-commerce and corporate strategy: an executive perspective, Information & Management, 40 (7), 2003, pp. 663-675.

Chatterjee, D., Grewal, R. and Sambamurthy, V., Shaping up for e-commerce: institutional enablers of the organizational assimilation of web technologies, MIS Quarterly, 26 (2), 2002, pp. 65-89.

Choe, J. M., The effect of environmental uncertainty and strategic applications of IS on firm's performance, Information & Management, 40 (4), 2003, pp. 257-268.

Cooren, F., The organizing property of communication, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000.

Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., Oh, S., Developing buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, 51 (2), 1987, pp. 11-27.

Eardley, A., Avison, D., Powell, P., Developing information systems to support flexible strategy, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 7 (1), 1997, pp. 57-77.

Earl, M. J., Experiences in strategic information systems planning, MIS Quarterly, 17 (1), 1993, pp. 1-24.

Etezadi-Amoli, J., Farhoomand, A. F., A structural model of end user computing satisfaction and user performance, Information & Management, 30 (2), 1996, pp. 65-73.

Fisher, M. L., What is the right supply chain for your product, Harvard Business Review, 75 (2), 1997, pp. 105-116.

Fuller, C. W., Vassie, L. H., Assessing the maturity and alignment of organizational cultures in partnership arrangements, Employee Relations, 24 (5), 2002, pp. 540-555.

Ganesan, S., Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 1994, pp. 1-19.

Gebauer, J., Shaw, M. J., Introduction to the special section: business-to-business electronic commerce, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 6 (4), 2002, pp. 7-17.

Gerwin, D., Coordinating new product development in strategic alliances, Academy of Management Review, 29 (2), 2004, pp. 241-257.

- 28 –

Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. -B. E. M., Scheer, L. K., Kumar, N., The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: a trans-Atlantic study, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13 (4), 1996, pp. 303-317.

Gottschalk, P., Studies of key issues in IS management around the world, International Journal of Information Management, 20 (3), 2000, pp. 169-180.

Gundlach, G. T., Achrol, R. S., Mentzer, J. T., The structure of commitment in exchange, Journal of Marketing, 59 (1), 1995, pp. 78-92.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., Black, W. C., Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice-Hall, NJ, 1998.

Hallén, L., Johanson, J., Seyed-Mohamed, N., Interfirm adaptation in business relationships, Journal of Marketing, 55 (2), 1991, pp. 29-37.

Handfield, R. B., Krause, D. R., Scannell, T. V., Monczka, R. M., Avoid the pitfalls in supplier development, MIT Sloan Management Review, 41 (2), 2000, pp. 37-49.

Hart, P., Saunders, C., Power and trust: critical factors in the adoption and use of electronic data interchange, Organization Science, 8 (1), 1997, pp. 23-42.

Henderson, J. C., Rockart, J. F., Sifonis, J. G., Integrating management support systems into strategic information systems planning, Journal of Management Information Systems, 4 (1), 1987, pp. 5-24.

Henderson, J. C., Sifonis, J. G., The value of strategic IS planning: understanding consistency, validity, and IS markets, MIS Quarterly, 12 (2), 1988, pp. 187-200.

Henderson, J. C., Venkatraman, N., Strategic alignment: leveraging information technology for transforming organizations, IBM Systems Journal, 32 (1), 1993, pp. 4-16.

Hirschheim, R., Sabherwal, R., Detours in the path toward strategic information systems alignment, California Management Review, 44 (1), 2001, pp. 87-108.

Hosmer, L. T., Trust: the connecting link between organizational theory and philosophical ethics, Academy of Management Review, 20 (2), 1995, pp. 379-403.

Huber, G. P., Power, D. J., Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: guidelines for increasing their accuracy, Strategic Management Journal, 6 (2), 1985, pp. 171-180.

Jap, S. D., Pie-expansion efforts: collaboration processes in buyer-supplier relationships, Journal of Marketing Research, 36 (4), 1999, pp. 461-475.

Kalakota, R., Whinston, A. B., Frontiers of Electronic Commerce, Addison-Wesley, MA, 1996.

Kao, D., Decou, J., A strategy-based model for e-commerce planning, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 103 (4), 2003, pp. 238-252.

- 29 –

King, W. R., Evaluating strategic planning systems, Strategic Management Journal, 4 (3), 1983, pp. 263-277.

Kumar, N., Hibbard, J. D., Stern, L. W., The nature and consequences of marketing channel intermediary commitment, Working paper, No. 94-115, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA, 1994.

Kunnathur, A. S., Shi, Z., An investigation of the strategic information systems planning success in Chinese publicly traded firms, International Journal of Information Management, 21 (6), 2001, pp. 423-439.

Larzelere, R. E., Huston, T. L., The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42 (3), 1980, pp. 595-604.

Lederer, A. L., Mirchandani, D. A., Sims, K., The link between information strategy and electronic commerce, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 7 (1), 1997, pp. 17-34.

Lederer, A. L., Mirchandani, D. A., Sims, K., The search for strategic advantage from the world wide web, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 5 (4), 2001, pp. 117-133.

Lederer, A. L., Sethi, V., The implementation of strategic information systems planning methodologies, MIS Quarterly, 12 (3), 1988, pp. 445-461.

Lee, G. G., Pai, J. C., Effects of organizational context and inter-group behaviour on the success of strategic information systems planning: an empirical study, Behaviour & Information Technology, 22 (4), 2003, pp. 263-280.

Lee, J. N., The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success, Information & Management, 38 (5), 2001, pp. 323-335.

Lee, S., Lim, G. G., The impact of partnership attributes on EDI implementation success, Information & Management, 41 (2), 2003, pp. 135-148.

Lewis, J. D., Weigert, A., Trust as social reality, Social Forces, 63 (4), 1985, pp. 967-985.

Lusch, R. F., O'Brien, M., Sindhav, B., The critical role of trust in obtaining retailer support for a supplier's strategic organizational change, Journal of Retailing, 79 (4), 2003, pp. 249-258.

MacDonald, J. B., Smith, K., The effects of technology-mediated communication on industrial buyer behavior, Industrial Marketing Management, 33 (2), 2004, pp. 107-116.

Marsh, H. W., Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: a multifaceted approach, Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 1994, pp. 5-34.

Mathieu, J. E., Zajac, D. M., A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment, Psychological

- 30 –

Bulletin, 108 (2), 1990, pp. 171-194.

McDonald, G. W., Structural exchange and marital interaction, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43 (4), 1981, pp. 825-839.

Mirani, R., Lederer, A. L., An instrument for assessing the organizational benefits of IS projects, Decision Sciences, 29 (4), 1998, pp. 803-838.

Mohr, J., Spekman, R., Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques, Strategic Management Journal, 15 (2), 1994, pp. 135-152.

Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., Deshpande, R., Relationships between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of trust within and between organizations, Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (3), 1992, pp. 314-328.

Morgan, R. M., Hunt, S. D., The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 1994, pp. 20-38.

Mukhopadhyay, T., Kekre, S., Strategic and operational benefits of electronic integration in B2B procurement processes, Management Science, 48 (10), 2002, pp. 1301-1313.

Narus, J. A., Anderson, J. C., Distributor contributions to partnerships with manufactures, Business Horizons, 30 (5), 1987, pp. 34-42.

Ng, H. I., Pan, Y. J., Wilson, T. D., Business use of the world wide web: a report on further investigations, International Journal of Information Management, 18 (5), 1998, pp. 291-314.

Niederman, F., Brancheau, J. C., Wetherbe, J. C., Information systems management issues for the 1990s, MIS Quarterly, 15 (4), 1991, pp. 475-500.

Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G. R., The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective, Harper and Row, NY, 1978.

Poon, S., Swatman, P. M. C., An exploratory study of small business internet commerce issues, Information & Management, 35 (1), 1999, pp. 9-18.

Porter, M. E., Competitive s trategy: t echniques for a nalyzing i ndustries and c ompetitors , Free Press, NY, 1980.

Pruitt, D., Negotiation behavior, Academic, NY, 1981, pp. 101.

Quinn, R. W., Dutton, J. E., Coordination as energy-in-conversation, Academy of Management Review, 30 (1), 2005, pp. 36-57.

Raghunathan, B., Raghunathan, T. S., Adaptation of a planning system success model to information systems planning, Information Systems Research, 5 (3), 1994, pp. 326-340.

Ramanujam, V., Venkatraman, N., Camillus, J. C., Multi-objective assessment of effectiveness of strategic planning: a discriminant analysis approach, Academy

- 31 –

of Management Journal, 29 (2), 1986, pp. 347-372.

Raymond, L., Determinants of web site implementation in small businesses, Internet Research, 11 (5), 2001, pp. 411-422.

Reich, B. H., Benbasat, I., Measuring the linkage between business and information technology objectives, MIS Quarterly, 20 (1), 1996, pp. 55-81.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., Zanna, M. P., Trust in close relationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49 (1), 1985, pp. 95-112.

Rigdon, E. E., CFI versus RMSEA: a comparison of two fit indices for structural equation modeling, Structural Equation Modeling, 3 (4), 1996, pp. 369-379.

Ring, P. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships, Academy of Management Review, 19 (1), 1994, pp. 90-118.

Rodríguez, C. M., Wilson, D. T., Relationship bonding and trust as a foundation for commitment in U.S.-Mexican strategic alliances: a structural equation modeling approach, Journal of International Marketing, 10 (4), 2002, pp. 53-76.

Sabherwal, R., Chan, Y. E., Alignment between business and IS strategies: a study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders, Information Systems Research, 12 (1), 2001, pp. 11-33.

Segars, A. H., Grover, V., Strategic information systems planning success: an investigation of the construct and its measurement, MIS Quarterly, 22 (2), 1998, pp. 139-163.

Teo, T. S. H., Ang, J. S. K., Critical success factors in the alignment of IS plans with business plans, International Journal of Information Management, 19 (2), 1999, pp. 173-185.

Teo, T. S. H., King, W. R., Assessing the impact of integrating business planning and IS planning, Information & Management, 30 (6), 1996, pp. 309-321.

Teo, T. S. H., Ranganathan, C., Adopters and non-adopters of business-to-business electronic commerce in Singapore, Information & Management, 42 (1), 2004, pp. 89-102.

Van der Heijden, H., Measuring IT core capabilities for electronic commerce, Journal of Information Technology, 16 (1), 2001, pp. 13-22.

Venkatraman, N., Five steps to a dot-com strategy: how to find your footing on the web, MIT Sloan Management Review, 41 (3), 2000, pp. 15-28.

Venkatraman, N., Ramanujam, V., Planning system success: a conceptualization and an operational model, Management Science, 33 (6), 1987, pp. 687-705.

Walter, A., Relationship-specific factors influencing supplier involvement in customer new product development, Journal of Business Research, 56 (9), 2003, pp. 721-733.

- 32 –

Wang, E. T. G., Tai, J. C. F., Factors affecting information systems planning effectiveness: organizational contexts and planning systems dimensions, Information & Management, 40 (4), 2003, pp. 287-303.

Wetherbe, J. C., Four-stage model for MIS planning concepts, techniques, and implementation, in: R. D. Banker, R. J. Kauffman, M. A. Mahmood (Eds.), Strategic information technology management: perspectives on organizational growth and competitive advantage, Idea Group Publishing, PA, 1993, pp. 83-117.

Zhu, K., The Complementarity of information technology infrastructure and e-commerce capability: a resource-based assessment of their business value, Journal of Management Information Systems, 21 (1), 2004, pp. 167-202.

Zhuang, Y., Lederer, A. L., An instrument for measuring the business benefits on e-commerce retailing, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 7 (3), 2003, pp. 65-99.

Zwass, V., Electronic commerce: structures and issues, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1 (1), 1996, pp. 3-23.

- 33 –