Incoterms® Use in Buyer-Seller Relationships: a Mixed ...
Transcript of Incoterms® Use in Buyer-Seller Relationships: a Mixed ...
University of Missouri, St. LouisIRL @ UMSL
Dissertations UMSL Graduate Works
5-18-2017
Incoterms® Use in Buyer-Seller Relationships: aMixed Methods StudyThomas J. SchaeferUniversity of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation
Part of the International Business Commons, Marketing Commons, and the Operations andSupply Chain Management Commons
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the UMSL Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion inDissertations by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationSchaefer, Thomas J., "Incoterms® Use in Buyer-Seller Relationships: a Mixed Methods Study" (2017). Dissertations. 692.https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/692
i
INCOTERMS®USEINBUYER-SELLERRELATIONSHIPS:AMIXEDMETHODSSTUDY
ThomasJ.Schaefer
M.B.A.–UniversityofMissouri-St.Louis,2004B.S.B.A.–UniversityofMissouri-St.Louis,2002
ADissertationSubmittedtoTheGraduateSchooloftheUniversityofMissouri-St.LouisinpartialfulfillmentoftherequirementsforthedegreePh.D.InBusinessAdministration
withanemphasisinLogisticsandSupplyChainManagement
August2017
AdvisoryCommittee
DonaldC.SweeneyII,Ph.D.Chairperson
RayMundy,Ph.D.Co-Chair
KarlManrodt,Ph.D.
DouglasL.Smith,Ph.D.
ii
©2017
THOMASJ.SCHAEFER
AllRightsReserved
iii
TABLEOFCONTENTS
TableofContents……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iii
ListofFigures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….ix
ListofTables……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. x
Dedication……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. xiv
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………….. xv
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… xvii
Chapter1–Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………... 1
1.1ResearchObjectiveandResearchQuestions…………………………………………… 16
1.2JustificationforthisResearch…………………………………………………………………. 17
1.3ResearchApproach…………………………………………………………………………………….17
1.4ContributionsofthisResearch……………………………………………………………………20
1.5DissertationOrganization……………………………………………………….……………….. 22
Chapter2–LiteratureReview………………………………………………………...………………..……….23
2.1Buyer-SellerRelationships…………………………………………..………………………….…23
2.2LogisticsManagement.………………………………………………………………….…………. 27
2.3Incoterms®………………………………………………………………………………………………..29
2.3.1HistoryofIncoterms®………………………………………………………………… 29
iv
2.3.1.1RulesforAnyModeorModeofTransport……………………………... 30
2.3.1.2RulesforSeaandInlandWaterTransport……………………………… 33
2.3.2ProperUseofIncoterms®……………………………………………………………………… 36
2.4LiteratureReviewMethodology.…………………………………………………………………38
2.4.1ReviewProcess…………………………………………………………………………. 40
2.4.2ClassificationFramework…………………………………………………………… 40
2.4.3Results………………………………………………………………………………………..41
2.4.4Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………42
2.5MixedMethodsResearch………………………………………………………………………… 52
2.5.1Definition…………………………………………………………………………….…… 52
2.5.2History……………………………………………………………………………………… 54
2.5.3PhilosophicalFoundation…………………………………………………………. 56
2.5.4Rationale………………………………………………………………………………..… 62
2.5.5 Comparison of Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed MethodsResearch……………………………………………………………………………………………. 63
2.5.6BasicSteps……………………………………………………………………………….. 68
2.5.7ResearchDesigns……………………………………………………………………… 68
2.5.8PrevalenceandUseinBusinessResearch……………………………………70
2.5.9Recommendations…………………………………………………………………… 72
v
2.6Experiments…………………………………………………………………………………………… 72
Chapter3–Methodology…………….………………………………………………………………………….. 75
3.1Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………… 75
3.2StudiesOneandTwo:QualitativeDesignOverview…………………………………. 79
3.2.1GroundedTheory……………………………………………………………………… 81
3.2.2Design………………………………………………………………………………………. 82
3.2.3DataCollectionProcedures………………………………………………………. 83
3.2.4Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………… 84
3.2.5Sampling…………………………………………………………………………………… 86
3.2.6ResearchTrustworthiness………………………………………………………… 87
3.3Study3:QuantitativeDesignOverview…………………………………………………… 87
3.3.1.Sample……………………………………………………………………….……………. 88
3.3.2Procedure………………………………………………………………………………… 89
3.3.3Pretest……………………………………………………………………………………… 91
3.3.4InstrumentsandMeasures………………………………………………………. 91
3.3.5DataAnalysis……………………………………………………………………………. 92
Chapter4–DataAnalysisandResults……………………………………………………………………… 95
4.1StudyOne:PilotCaseStudy(QualitativeResearchFindings)…………….……. 95
vi
4.1.2DiscussionofthePilotCaseStudy…………….………..…………..…………107
4.2StudyTwo:MultipleCaseStudies(QualitativeResearchFindings)……………108
4.2.1Introduction…………..…………..…………..…………..…………..……………….108
4.2.2DataCollection…………..…………..…………..…………..…………..…………..109
4.2.3Sample…………..…………..…………..…………..…………..…………..…………..110
4.2.4DataCodingandAnalysis…………..…………..………..…………..………… 111
4.2.5TheoreticalSaturation…………..…………..…………..…………..…………….117
4.2.6ResearchTrustworthiness…………..………..…………………….……..…… 119
4.2.7DiscussionofQualitativeStudyTwoResults………………..………….. 121
4.2.7.1aHowdobuyer-sellerdyadsnegotiatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?……………………………………………………………………..121
4.2.7.1bGeneralNegotiationProcess……………………………………... 121
4.2.7.1cNegotiationProcessforTransportation……………………… 125
4.2.7.2Howdobuyer-sellerdyadscommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?……………………………………............ 129
4.2.7.3Whydoerrorsinlogisticsmanagementdecisioncommunicationoccurwithinbuyer-sellerdyads,andwhataretheconsequencesoftheseerrors?…………………….…. 132
4.2.8OtherCategoriesDiscovered…………..…………..…………..…………….. 147
4.2.8.1Sellersfocusonsale,notexecution………………………….. 147
4.2.8.2RevenueRecognition………………………………………………… 148
4.2.8.3Expeditedfreight……………………………………………………… 149
vii
4.2.8.4FCAvs.EXWIncoterms®…………………………………………… 150
4.2.9Whatcanimprovethequalityofbuyer-sellerdyads’communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions?……………………………………….. 151
4.2.10 HypothesesforStudyThree…………………………………………………. 155
4.3StudyThree:QuantitativeResearchFindings–TestingHypotheses……….. 156
4.3.1ExperimentalDesign………………………………………………………………… 156
4.3.2Questionnaire…………………………………………………………………………. 157
4.3.3QuestionnairePretest.………………………………………………………………164
4.3.4QuestionnaireSample………………………………………………………..…… 164
4.3.5Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………… 170
4.3.5.1NonresponseBias……………………………………………………… 170
4.3.5.2BeforeandAfterReminderDemographicComparisons.170
4.3.5.3FullQuestionnaireResponsesVersusNotFullyCompletedDemographicComparisons………………………………………176
4.3.5.4QuestionnaireResponseAnalysis–ByScenario……….. 183
4.3.5.5ScenarioOneDescriptiveStatistics…………………………….186
4.3.5.6ScenarioTwoDescriptiveStatistics…………………………….188
4.3.5.7ScenarioThreeDescriptiveStatistics………………………… 189
4.3.5.8ScenarioFourDescriptiveStatistics…………………………….191
4.3.5.9ScenarioFiveDescriptiveStatistics……………………………. 192
viii
4.3.5.10QuestionnaireResponseAnalysis–Overall………………195
4.3.6DiscussionofStudyThreeResults……………………………………………..203
Chapter5–Contributions,Limitations,andFutureResearch…………….…………………….206
5.1OverallContributionsandManagerialImplications…………………….………….206
5.1.1OverallContributions……………………………………………………………...206
5.1.2ManagerialImplications……………………………..……………………….…..208
5.2ResearchLimitations………………………………………………………………………….……210
5.3FutureResearch.………………………….………………………………………………………...211
5.4ConcludingRemarks…………………….………………………………………………………...213
References……………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..….215
AppendixI–LiteratureReview…………………………………………………………………..…………..241
AppendixII–StudyTwoIn-DepthSemi-StructuredInterviewGuide…………………….….256
AppendixIII–WordCloudBeforeCoding……………………………………………………….……….259
AppendixIV–WordCloudAfterCoding………………………………………………………………….. 260
AppendixV–WordCloudAfterNodetoCategoryCoding………………………………….…….261
AppendixVI–StudyThreeQuestionnaire……………………………………….………………………. 262
Treatment1:OperationalDefinitionsFullySpelledOut……………………..………… 264
Treatment2:Incoterms®Used………………………………………………………………………269
ix
LISTOFFIGURES
Figure1.1:TotalCostComponents……………………………………………………………………………….6
Figure1.2:Incoterms®RulesResponsibilities…………………………………………………………… 10
Figure2.1:Lee’s(1991)Framework…………………………………………………………………………… 57
Figure4.1:ProcessFlowfromInterviewtoDiscussion………………………………………………112
Figure4.2:SampleProcess……………………………………………………………………………………… 117
Figure4.3:NegotiationProcess………………………………………………………………………………. 123
Figure4.4:MapofRespondents……………………………………………………………………………….166
x
LISTOFTABLES
Table2.1:SummaryofArticlesReviewed…………………………….……………………………………. 40
Table2.2:SummaryofArticleClassification………………………………………………………………. 41
Table2.3:SummaryofAcademicArticlesonIncoterms®……………………………………………43
Table2.4:Rationalesforutilizingmixedmethodsresearch…………………………………………62
Table2.5:StrengthsandWeaknessesofQuantitativeResearch………………………………… 64
Table2.6:StrengthsandWeaknessesofQualitativeResearch……………………………………65
Table2.7:StrengthsandWeaknessesofMixedMethodsResearch…………………………… 67
Table2.8:RecommendationsforDesigning,Implementing,andReportingMixed
MethodsStudies………………………………………………………………………………………. 72
Table4.1:CustomerUsage………………………………………………………………………………………… 96
Table4.2:SupplierUsage……………………………………………………………………………………………97
Table4.3:CombinedUsage(CustomerandSupplier)………………………………………………… 98
Table4.4:FrequencyofIncoterms®2010Use…………………………………………………………… 99
Table4.5:FrequencyofuseofIncoterms®2000,DAF,DES,andDDU……………………… 100
Table4.6:FrequencyofOtherShippingTermUse…………………………………………………… 100
Table4.7:ParticipantandDyadTable……………………………………………………………………… 111
Table4.8:CasetoNodeCodingTable……………………………………………………………………… 113
xi
Table4.9:CasetoNodeCodingTable……………………………………………………………………….114
Table4.10:NodetoCategoryCodingTable……………………………………………………………….115
Table4.11:NodetoCategoryCodingTable………………………………………………………………116
Table4.12:ResearchTrustworthiness……………………………………………………………………… 120
Table4.13:DemographicFrequencies………………………………………………………………………166
Table4.14:GenderFrequencyTable…………………………………………………………………………167
Table4.15:AgeFrequencyTable………………………………………………………………………………167
Table4.16:JobRoleFrequencyTable……………………………………………………………………….168
Table4.17:WorkExperienceFrequencyTable………………………………………………………… 168
Table4.18:Incoterms®TrainingFrequencyTable……………………………………………………. 169
Table4.19:WhenIncoterms®TrainedFrequencyTable……………………………………………169
Table4.20:CrossTabulationofGenderandReminder………………………………………………171
Table4.21:CrossTabulationofAgeandReminder……………………………………………………172
Table4.22:CrossTabulationofJobRoleandReminder…………………………………………… 173
Table4.23:CrossTabulationofWorkExperienceandReminder………………………………174
Table4.24:CrossTabulationofIncoterms®TrainingandReminder………………………….175
Table4.25:CaseProcessingFinished………………………………………………………………………..176
Table4.26:CrossTabulationofGenderwithFinishedtheQuestionnaire………………… 177
xii
Table4.27:CrossTabulationofAgeReminderwithFinishedtheQuestionnaire……….178
Table4.28:CrossTabulationofJobRoleFinishedwithFinishedtheQuestionnaire….179
Table4.29:CrossTabulationofWorkExperiencewithFinishedtheQuestionnaire…. 180
Table4.30:CrossTabulationofIncotermsTrainedwithRespondentsWhoFinishedthe
Questionnaire…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...182
Table4.31:NumberofScenarioQuestionsRespondedtowithCorrectAnswer………. 183
Table4.32:ValidResponsesbyScenarioQuestion……………………………………………………183
Table4.33:FrequencyofTotalNumberofCorrectResponses………………………………… 184
Table4.34:ResponsetoScenarioOneQuestion……………………………………………………… 187
Table4.35:ModelSummary……………………………………………………………………………………. 187
Table4.36:EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion1Correctly………………………….. 188
Table4.37:ResponsetoScenario2Question……………………………………………………………188
Table4.38:ModelSummary.……………………………………………………………………………………. 189
Table4.39:EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion2Correctly……………………………189
Table4.40:ResponsetoScenario3Question……………………………………………………………190
Table4.41:ModelSummary……………………………………………………………………………………. 190
Table4.42:EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion3Correctly……………………………191
Table4.43:ResponsetoScenario4Question……………………………………………………………191
xiii
Table4.44:ModelSummary…………………………………………………………………………………… 192
Table4.45:EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion4Correctly……………………………192
Table4.46:ResponsetoScenario5Question……………………………………………………………193
Table4.47:ModelSummary……………………………………………………………………………………. 193
Table4.48:EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion5Correctly……………………………194
Table4.49:ResponsetoAllScenarioQuestions………………………………………………………. 195
Table4.50:CaseProcessingSummary………………………………………………………………………198
Table4.51:ModelFitting……………………………………………………………………………………….… 198
Table4.52:Goodness-of-Fit…………………………………………………………………………………….. 199
Table4.53:PseudoR-Square…………………………………………………………………………………… 199
Table4.54:ParameterEstimates…………………………………………………………………………….. 200
Table4.55:CellInformation………………………………………………………………………………….… 201
Table4.56:TestofParallelLines………………………………………………………………………….…. 201
Table4.57:SummaryTestsofHypotheses……………………………………………………………... 204
xiv
DEDICATION
Thisdissertationisdedicatedtoallofthose,especiallymyfamilyandfriends,
whoguided,supported,andencouragedmeduringmylongacademiccareeratthe
UniversityofMissouri-St.Louis(UMSL).Thisdissertationisfurtherdedicatedtomywife,
Sunny,forherpatience,support,andsacrificeduringmydoctoraldegreepursuit.
xv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thepursuitofadoctoraldegree,thefeelingwhilepursuing,andthedissertation
processarebestdescribedbythesongwriterThomasEarlPettyet.al(1989),whosings:
I’mrunnin’downadream.Itneverwouldcometome.Workingona
mystery.Goingwhereveritleads.Runnin’downadream.
Thedreamhasfinallybecomeareality,soIwouldliketothankallofthosewhoplayeda
roleinhelpingmecompletemydoctoraldegreeattheUniversityofMissouri-St.Louis
(UMSL).
First,Iamverythankfultomydissertationcommitteemembers:Dr.Karl
Manrodt,Dr.RayMundy,Dr.L.DouglasSmith,andDr.DonaldC.SweeneyII.All
committeemembersplayedanimportantrole.Nowordsorgesturecanproperly
expressmyappreciationtothedissertationcommitteechairperson,Dr.DonaldC.
SweeneyII,fortheastronomicalamountoftimethathespentwithmeandmy
dissertation.Hisguidanceandknowledgemadeahugedifference.Totheco-chair,Dr.
RayMundy,thankforyouforyouradviceandsuggestionsthroughout.Youprovided
keyinputsatcriticaltimes.Ialsoacknowledgehistemptationtotryoutandapplyto
thedoctoralprogram.IwouldalsoliketothankhimforintroducingmetoDr.Karl
Manrodt,andhence,completingthefour-persondissertationcommittee.ToDr.Karl
Manrodt,thankyouforservingonadissertationcommitteeoutsideofyourown
university,andespecially,Iamverygratefulforyourguidanceandknowledgealong
theway.ToDr.L.DouglasSmith,thankyouforaskingthe“why”question.Thisonly
xvi
madethedissertationbetter.
IalsoacknowledgethatImayneverhavepursuedanydegreeattheUniversity
ofMissouri-St.Louis(UMSL)withouttheamazingopportunitytoplayfouryearsof
divisionIIcollegiatetennis.ThankyoutoCoachRickGyllenborgforthatopportunity.
Themulti-taskingandprioritizationskillslearnedasastudent-athletemadethisdoctoral
degreepossible.
Also,Iamveryappreciativeofmyemployers,managers,andcoworkerswho
haveencouragedandsupportedmethroughoutmypursuitofadoctoraldegree.
Iwouldliketoespeciallythankmyfamily.Mymother,Valda,hasalways
sacrificedandtriedtoprovideopportunitytome,andthishasledtothesuccessesthatI
haveachieved.Ialsoacknowledgemylategrandparents,StanleyandGenevieve,who
helpedraisemeandinstilledinmedetermination,drive,andfocus.Iamvery
appreciativeofmywifeSunny’ssupportwhilepursuingthisdoctoraldegree.Shemade
alotofsacrifices.
Lastly,toDr.RayMundy,thankforyouforhavingthevisiontopushforpart-
timedoctoralstudentsintheprogram.Withoutthis,Imayneverhaveachievedmy
dreamandmaystillberunnin.
Thankstoeveryoneagain.
xvii
INCOTERMS®USEINBUYER-SELLERRELATIONSHIPS:AMIXEDMETHODSSTUDY
BY
THOMASJ.SCHAEFER
(UnderthedirectionofDonaldC.SweeneyII)
ABSTRACTThenegotiationandcommunicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisionsbetween
buyersandsellersofgoodsiscriticalforeffectivesupplychainmanagement.Incoterms®
rules,asetofthreecharacteracronyms,areoftenusedbybuyersandsellersto
communicateeachparty’slogisticsmanagementresponsibilitieswhentransacting
goods.InappropriateapplicationofIncoterms®rulescanleadtomiscommunicationof
logisticsresponsibilitiesandexposeeitherpartytounanticipatedcostsandrisks.This
three-partmixedmethodsresearchexploresthecircumstancesthatcontributetoerrors
inlogisticsmanagementdecisioncommunicationwithinbuyer-sellerdyads,the
consequencesoftheseerrors,andmethodstoimprovelogisticsmanagementdecision
communication.
Study1isaqualitativepilotcasestudythatexploreshowbuyer-sellerdyads
negotiateandcommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisionsandthecommunication
errorsthatoccurwithinalarge,anonymous,internationalcorporation.Study2conducts
multiplequalitativecasestudiesutilizingin-depthsemi-structuredinterviewsthat
explorehowbuyer-sellerdyadsnegotiateandcommunicatelogisticsmanagement
decisionsandthecommunicationerrorsthatoccurwithinthesebuyer-sellerdyads.
Study3quantitativelytestshypothesesdevelopedfromanalysisoftheresultsofStudy
xviii
2,usingascenario-basedexperimentdeployedviaaquestionnaire,andseekstofind
methodstoimprovethequalityofcommunicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisionsin
buyer-sellerdyads.
ThehypothesestestedinStudy3areH1:Incoterms®trainingleadstoadecrease
inmiscommunicationoflogisticsdecisions;H2:usingfullyspecifiedandexplicit
Incoterms®definitionsleadstoadecreaseinmiscommunicationoflogisticsdecisions;
andH3:usingbothfullyspecifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsandIncoterms®
trainingleadstoafurtherdecreaseinmiscommunicationoflogisticsdecisions.
Examiningtheresultsofthequestionnaire,usingbinarylogisticregressionandordinal
logisticsregression,H1issupported,H2ispartiallysupported,andH3isnotsupported.
Thefindingsoftheresearchdetailtheprocessusedinthenegotiationand
communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions.WhileIncoterms®rulesappear
widelyusedingoodstransactionstocommunicatelogisticsdecisions,their
inappropriateusecausesavarietyofissuesincludingunanticipatedcostsandrisks.
Incoterms®trainingisshowntohavethebiggestimpactonimprovingthequalityof
buyer-sellerdyads’communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions.
INDEXWORDS:Incoterms,Shippingterms,Buyer-sellerrelationships,Logistics
management,Supplychainmanagement,Mixedmethods,Casestudy,Experiment,
Binarylogisticregression,Ordinallogisticregression
1
CHAPTER1
INTRODUCTION
Buyer-sellerrelationships,logistics,negotiation,purchasing,andsupplychain
researchhavenotconvergedtoexplorethekeylinkamongthem--thenegotiationand
communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisionsbetweenbuyersandsellersofgoods.
Thisstudyholisticallyexploresthatcrucialarea.Beyondnegotiationand
communication,thisstudyexpandstoexploreerrors,theconsequencesoftheseerrors,
andthewaystoimprovebuyer-sellercommunicationoflogisticsmanagement
decisions.
Whilenotanewconcept,theideaofcooperativebuyer-sellerrelationshipshas
takenalongtimetogaintraction.AccordingtoRamsay,
onemayarguethatitispossibletodiscernanarrativeinthepartsofthe
purchasing,marketingandsupplychainliteraturesdealingwithbuyer-seller
relationships[..]thatdescribesachangeovertimefromanacceptanceofshort-
term,arms-length,competitiverelationshipstoafocusonlong-termco-
operationandpartnerships.(Ramsay,2004,p.219)
AsmentionedbyRamsay(2004),theideaofco-operativeratherthanadversarialbuyer-
sellerrelationships,althoughpresent25yearsago,hastakenalongtimetogain
recognition(Farmer&Macmillian,1978;Ramsay,1979;Ramsay,2004).
TheCouncilofSupplyChainManagementProfessionals(CSCMP)definessupply
2
chainmanagementas,
theplanningandmanagementofallactivitiesinvolvedinsourcingand
procurement,conversion,andalllogisticsmanagementactivities.Importantly,it
alsoincludescoordinationandcollaborationwithchannelpartners,whichcanbe
suppliers,intermediaries,thirdpartyserviceproviders,andcustomers.In
essence,supplychainmanagementintegratessupplyanddemandmanagement
withinandacrosscompanies.Supplychainmanagementisanintegrating
functionwithprimaryresponsibilityforlinkingmajorbusinessfunctionsand
businessprocesseswithinandacrosscompaniesintoacohesiveandhigh-
performingbusinessmodel.Itincludesallofthelogisticsmanagementactivities
notedabove,aswellasmanufacturingoperations,anditdrivescoordinationof
processesandactivitieswithandacrossmarketing,sales,productdesign,
finance,andinformationtechnology(CSCMP,2016).
Thisstudyincludesitemsusuallystudiedinmanydifferentiatedfields:purchasing
(sourcingandprocurement),logisticsmanagement,andmarketing(coordinationand
collaborationwithchannelpartners)(Frankeletal.2008;CSCMP,2016).
Traditionalsupplychainmanagement(SCM)hasfocusedona“survivalofthe
fittest”mentality(Spekmanetal.,1998),andfirmshaveusedvariousbiddingprocesses
forsupplierselection(Stuart,1993).TheSCMfunctionhassimplyconcentratedon
minimizingcosts(Benton&Maloni,2005).Historically,companieshavetriedtosqueeze
supplierprofitmarginsforunitcostreductionsorotherfavorabletermstoimprove
3
short-termprofits(Anderson&Katz,1998).Evenwithinrecentyears,Anheuser-Busch
InBevtoldsuppliersthattheymustconformto120-daypaymentterms(Kesmodel&
Vranica,2009).However,duetothechangingbusinessenvironment,interesthasgrown
insupplierpartnershipsleadingtoamoremodernSCM,wheresupplierpartnerships
consistoftheestablishmentandmaintenanceofongoingrelationshipsbetween
“partners”(Stuart,1993).ModernSCMencouragestight-knitpartnershipswith
compatibleobjectivesbothinternallyandexternally(Spekmanetal.,1998).
AsstatedbyFlynnandfellowresearchers,“Whenitcomestosupplychain
management,it’sallaboutrelationships”(Flynn,etal.,2008,p.169).Theheartofsupply
chainmanagementisinprocurementandsupplierrelationships.Wal-Mart,Dell,oreven
McDonald’swouldnotbeassuccessfulifprocurementandsupplierrelationswerenot
deemedimportant.Furtheringthis,Suetal.contendthat,“thereisanincreasing
interestininter-firmrelationships,asmorefirmsrelyonresourcesoutsidetheirown
firmtocompetesuccessfullywiththetrendofglobalizationandtechnology
transformation”(2008,p.263).Soosayetal.statethat,
Organisationsinsupplychainsarecompelledtorestructureandre-engineer
relentlesslytoincreasetheireffectivenessandsatisfycustomers.Thisrealization
requiresfirmstolookbeyondtheirorganizationalboundariesandevaluatehow
theresourcesandcapabilitiesofsuppliersandcustomerscanbeutilizedto
createexceptionalvalue”(2008,p.160).
FromaninternationalSCMperspective,theirSCMstructuretendstobemorecomplex
4
thanpurelydomesticsupplychains(Meixell&Gargeya,2005).Withthisadded
complexity,managingrelationshipsamongsupplychainpartnersisstrainedfurther.
Supplychainsarefullofbuyer-sellerrelationships(Mentzeretal.,2001;Xu&
Beamon,2006;Frankeletal.,2008;Thomas,2013),andnegotiationsareakeypartof
thosebuyer-sellerrelationships(Thomas,2013).Negotiationoffersanexceptional
vantagepointtostudyinter-organizationallinkagesinsupplychains(Dwyeretal.,1987;
Atkin&Rinehart,2006).Negotiationbehaviorisa“fundamentalphenomenon”forthe
industrialmarketinter-firmbehavior(Perdueetal.,1986;Atkin&Rinehart2006),and
withintheindustrialmarket,buyer-sellerinteractionplaysakeyrole(Anderson&
Narus,2004;Fang,2006;Herbstetal.,2011).Negotiationisadyadicprocess,meaning
thatthereisaninter-relationshipbetweenthebuyerandthesellerthatissupposedto
solveproblemsendinginbenefitsforbothdyadicparticipants(Rinehartetal.,1988;
Atkin&Rinehart,2006).Mostimportantlyforpurchasingorsupplymanagement,
negotiationistheprocessbywhichabuyerandsellercometoestablishtermsina
purchaseagreement(Dobleretal.,1984;Atkin&Rinehart,2006,).AscoinedbyAtkin
andRinehart(2006),“contractformality”isestablishedwhenthebuyerandseller
explicitlystateactionsviaacontract(Mohretal.1996;Atkin&Rinehart,2006).As
foundinAtkinandRinehart,FawcettandMagnan(2000)affirmthisbystating,“inthe
absenceoftrust,aneffortismadetolegislatecooperation”viaacontract(2006,p.54).
Thereismuchresearchinterestonformalandinformalagreementswithinthebuyer-
sellerrelationship(Lassar&Zinn,1995;Frankeletal.,1996;Atkin&Rinehart2006).
5
Inthecontextofabuyer-sellerdyad,logisticsmanagementrequirements
influencethebuyer’spurchasingandtheassociatedlogisticsmanagementchoices
(Wagner,1987).AccordingtotheCSCMP’sdefinition,logisticsmanagementis
thatpartofsupplychainmanagementthatplans,implements,andcontrolsthe
efficient,effectiveforwardandreverseflowandstorageofgoods,services,and
relatedinformationbetweenthepointoforiginandthepointofconsumptionin
ordertomeetcustomers'requirements.(CSCMP,2016).
Inaddition,theCSCMPconsidersthatlogisticsmanagementactivitiestypicallyinclude
inboundandoutboundtransportationmanagement,fleetmanagement,
warehousing,materialshandling,orderfulfillment,logisticsnetworkdesign,
inventorymanagement,supply/demandplanning,andmanagementofthird
partylogisticsservicesproviders.Tovaryingdegrees,thelogisticsfunctionalso
includessourcingandprocurement,productionplanningandscheduling,
packagingandassembly,andcustomerservice.Itisinvolvedinalllevelsof
planningandexecution--strategic,operationalandtactical.Logistics
managementisanintegratingfunction,whichcoordinatesandoptimizesall
logisticsactivities,aswellasintegrateslogisticsactivitieswithotherfunctions
includingmarketing,salesmanufacturing,finance,andinformationtechnology.
(CSCMP,2016).
Thisstudywillusetheabovedefinitionoflogisticsmanagement.
Strongerbuyer’slogisticmanagementneedsincreasetheimportanceoflogistics
6
management,andpossibly,thelogisticsmanagementcostcomponent(Wagner1987).
Withinlogisticsmanagement,distributionplaysasignificantroleinsecuringproper
transportationarrangements(Wagner,1987).Anotherdimensionoflogistics
managementisthatitisincludedinthetransactionnegotiation,whichincludesthe
purchasingofgoods(Novacketal.,1992).Thebuyerand/orsupplierownershipor
controlofvariouslogisticsmanagementcomponentscanalterthetotalpurchasecost
(Wagner,1987).Appropriateunderstandingandanalysisofthelogisticsmanagement
componentofanoverallpurchaseiscriticaltokeepingcostscompetitive(Wagner,
1987).Buyersarelookingforanyopportunitytosecurelowerlogisticsmanagement
costs(Wagner,1987).Rinehartetal.(1988)examinedtheconceptualfoundationsofthe
negotiationprocessusedbyshippersandcarrierstoarriveatcontractualagreements
forcontractsofcarriage.However,whileaplethoraofnegotiationandbuyer-seller
relationshipresearchexists,researchershavenotfocusedonthebuyer-seller
negotiationoflogisticsmanagementservicesbetweenfirmstransferringgoods.Littleis
knownofthisnegotiationprocess.Buyer-sellerrelationshipsandnegotiationresearch
hasfocusedonthepurchasepriceofgoods.Thenegotiationresearchhasleftoutan
importanttotalcostcomponent:logisticscost.ThisisillustratedinFigure1.
Figure1.1:TotalCostComponents
Goods Logistics TotalPrice
7
Thetotallandedcostofproductincorporatesallcostsincurredwithinthesupply
chaininordertomakeaproductavailableforconsumption.Anychangetototallanded
costcomponentshasamajorimpact.Logisticsmanagementcostsshouldbeconsidered
inanysupplychainmanagementpurchase.Otherwise,thefirmisleavingmoneyonthe
tableinanegotiation.
Logisticsmanagementiscriticalintheoverallsupplychain’ssuccess(Stank&
Goldsby,2000).In1997,logisticsmanagementcostsaccountedfor57%ofU.S.firms’
supplychaincosts(Berg,1998;Stank&Goldsby,2000).AsnotedinStank&Goldsby
(2000),BowersoxandCloss(1996)foundthatoneinsevenjobsintheU.S.islogistics
managementrelated.However,manyshippersusepre-1980slogictomakelogistics
managementdecisions(Stank&Goldsby,2000)leadingtopoorperformanceassupply
chainmanagementprogresses(Moultrie,1998;Stank&Goldsby2000).Expectationsof
logisticsmanagementhavechangedovertimefromlowcostandhighservicecriteriato
cutting-edgetechnologytomeetincreasinglystringentservicerequirementsand
steadilyloweringcosts(Stank&Goldsby,2000).Theoverallsupplychainisonlyas
strongastheweakestcomponentandunfortunately,logisticsmanagementisoneofthe
supplychain’sweakestcomponents(Stank&Goldsby,2000).
Whiletheimportancethatcommunicationhasoncollaborationisofrecent
scholarlyinterest,simplifyingandstandardizingcommunicationamongbuyersand
sellersisnotnew.Business-to-business(B2B)transactions,whetherdomesticor
international,requireanagreementbetweenbuyersandsuppliers.These,often
8
intermediate,transactionsinvolvesomeagreementformonetaryexchangetoprovide
goodsorservices.Beyondprice,especiallywhencontractingforgoods,thepartiesneed
toagreeupontheresponsibility,handling,andcostsrelatedtotransportation,risks,
insurance,customsformalities,andotherassociateditems.Whiletheseagreementsare
oftentakenforgranted,considerablecareisrequired.Oftentimes,thebuyerandseller
donotspeakthesamelanguage,literallyinsomecases,sotheconsistencyand
predictabilityofB2Btransactionscanbeaffected.
Sheuetal.(2006)concludethatcollaborationiscrucialforprosperoussupply
chainandorganizationalperformance.Collaborationalsohasapositiveeffectonbuyer
performancewithtrustanddependenceplayinganimportantroleinthesupplier
relationship(Corsten&Felde,2005).
Nevertheless,WildingandHumphriesremarkthat“closelycollaborative,long-
termsupplychainrelationshipsinevitably”sufferstrainsduetoconstraintsontheir
freedomofactionduetounavoidablecompromise.However,theycanreducesources
offrustrationthatgeneratenegativebehaviorsbytakingjointactionstoseekinnovative
waysofdealingwith“environmental”issueslike“oldproducts,obsolescence,staffand
organisationalupheavals,poorend-customervisibilityandlackofinvestmentinmodern
proceduresandsystems”(Wilding&Humphries(2006,p.14)
AccordingtoPeng,“abasicenablerfortightsupplychaincollaborationisinter-
organizationalcommunication”(2011,p.17).Manyscholarshaveexpressedthat
communicationisthekeytoholdingsupplychainpartnerstogether(Mohr&Nevin,
9
1990;Lamming,1996;Stuart&McCutcheon,1996;Lee&Whang,2000;Minetal.,
2005;Sheuetal.,2006;Chopra&Meindl,2007;Peng,2011).Effectiveandefficient
communicationisalsosignificanttotheseinter-firmrelationships(Paulrajetal.,2008).
Conversely,themaincauseofcollaborationfailuresiscommunicationdifficulty(Peng,
2011).Misunderstandingsandconflictscanoccuramongsupplychainpartnerswhen
miscommunicationoccurs(Paulrajetal.,2008;Caoetal.,2010;Peng,2011).
AccordingtotheInternationalChamberofCommerce(ICC),asthevolumeand
complexityofbusinessincreasesespeciallyglobally,sotoodothepossibilitiesforsupply
chainpartners’disputesormisunderstandings(2010).Asetoftradetermscalled
Incoterms®ruleswasdesignedtostandardizeB2Bpracticewhencontractingforgoods
bytheICC.TheseIncoterms®rulescameintoexistencetotackleinterpretation
problemsamongtradingpartnersandtodefinedyadicbuyer-sellerresponsibilities
(Stapletonetal.,2014b).Whenincorporatedintoacontractofsale,Incoterms®rules,of
whichthelatestversionis2010,designatetheresponsibilitiesfortasks,costs,andrisks
involvedinthedeliveryofgoodsfromsellerstobuyersthroughthreecharacter
acronyms,asshowninthefollowinggraphic(ICC,2010).
10
Figure1.2:Incoterms®rulesResponsibilities
Hence,theseIncoterms®rulesdefinedyadicresponsibilitiesbetweenbuyersandsellers
(Stapletonetal.,2014b).Inessence,theyattempttoprovideverydetailedoperational
definitionsbyusingonlythreecharacteracronyms.Operationaldefinitionsaredefined
byMundyasputting“communicablemeaningintoaconcept[..]thatpeoplecando
businesswith[andwhich]hasthesamemeaningtosupplierandcustomer”(Mundy,
1997,p.2).Mundynotedalsothatitisimportantforboththebuyerandsellertohavea
commonunderstandingofwhatismeantbyaconcept,anditisimportantforboththe
buyerandsellertohaveavalidmeasurementinstrument(Mundy,1997).
Typicaldeliveryperilsareriskoflossorriskofdamage(Yao-Hua&Thoen,2000).
Riskdoesnotincludeothershipmentrisks,suchasdelaysornon-fulfillment(Yao-Hua&
Thoen,2000).Incoterms®arethetrademarkedproductoftheICCandclearlydefine
sellerandbuyerobligationsthusreducingtheparties’legalrisks(ICC,2010).Asstated
bestbyRoos:
Trustbetweenbuyerandsellerisofcourseveryimportant.It’sevenmore
Incoterms®
Tasks Costs Risk
11
importantthatthepartiesinvolved(salesandshippingdepartments)possessthe
knowledgetheyneed:anunderstandingoftherulesofthegameofinternational
tradeandhowtoapplythem.Itmightalsobementionedthatmanypeoplein
logisticssupportservicesneedtopayagreatdealmoreattentiontothecorrect
applicationofIncoterms.(Roos,2011,p.5)
AccordingtotheICC,Incoterms®rulesareintendedtobeself-explanatory(ICC,
2010).However,researchershavefoundIncoterms®usageerrors(Stapleton&Saulnier,
2001;Reynolds,2010;Bergami,2011;Glitz,2011;Malfliet,2011;Ramberg,2011;Roos,
2011;Bergami,2012;Bergami,2013;Stapleton,2014;Stapletonetal.,2014a;Stapleton
etal.,2014b).Theseusageerrorscanleadtomisunderstandings(Reynolds,2010).
Reynoldsconsiderswheremostcommercialproblemsstart:misunderstanding!Such
misunderstandingoccursbetweensellersandbuyers,betweensellersandtheirown
factories,andbetweeneitherpartyandcarriers.“Forinternationaltransactions,addthe
potentialformisunderstandingbetweenexportersandtheirfreightforwarders,
importersandtheircustomsbrokers,banksandeveryoneelse,andfailuretoobserve
applicablegovernmentregulations”(Reynolds,2010,p.17).
Stapletonetal.(2014a)suggestthatshippersmayuseless-than-optimal
Incoterms®strategiescreatedthroughalackofknowledgeofvulnerabilitiesandsloppy
implementations.Theyalsomentionthattradersare“creaturesofhabit”andmany
timesrepeatedlymakethesameIncoterms®usageerrorsleadingtopreventablerisk.
Bergamioffersasimilarsentimentnotingthat“therearesignificantproblemsingetting
traderstochangefromtheestablishedroutinestomoreappropriateandcorrectuseof
12
Incoterms”(2012,p.37).Stapletonetal.(2014a,2014b)provideninecommonusage
errors:
1. UsingFOB(freeonboard)orotherseaandinlandwaterwayIncoterms®for
containerizedtransport.
2. UsingIncoterms®ruleswithoutclearlyspecifyingageographicplace.
3. NotadoptingarecentIncoterms®ruleversion,suchasIncoterms®2000or2010.
4. BelievingthatusingIncoterms®rulesleadstoalegalcontractofsale.
5. MisunderstandingthedeliveryandriskpointswhenusingCFR(costandfreight).
6. Misunderstandingloopholesinthe1936CarriageofGoodsbySeaAct(COGSA).
7. EliminatingShip’srail”asatransferpointinIncoterms2010.
8. ProblematicallyusingFOBwithdocumentarylettersofcredit(DLC).
9. Requiringdifferingdutiesofshippersbybankinginstitutions.
Stapleton(2014)andStapletonetal.(2014b)alsogointomoredetailsbeyondwhathas
alreadybeenmentionedaboutFOB’sinappropriateuse.Forexample,theycitethe
widespread“naked”FOB(i.e.notfollowedbyaportname)useonAlibaba.com.
Additionally,theymentionthedistinctionbetweenFCA’s(freecarrier)“loading,”which
isconsistentwithcontainerizedortruckfreight,and“placing”ofthegoods,whichis
consistentwithbreak-bulkfreight.Bergami(2013)foundthatbankingpracticesmay
placerequirementsuponsellersthatarecontrarytotheIncoterms®rules.Supporting
thisfinding,Roos(2011)foundthatbanksplacesecondaryimportanceonIncoterms®,
andU.S.Customsdoesnotrecognizethem.GlitzreviewedcourtcasesinBraziland
13
foundthatcourtsmay“endupgivingthecustomaryinterpretation”oftheshippingand
deliverytermsusedbytraders,asBraziliandoctrineandjurisprudencemaybe
unfamiliarwithIncoterms®rules(2011).
ResearchersprovidedetailedexamplesasevidenceofIncoterms®errors.
StapletonandSaulnier(1999,2001)provideanexamplewhereaU.S.Midwesternfirm
wasshippingfullcontainersofpensandotheritemsworth$125,000USDthatthey
procuredfromAsiasuppliers,whoengravedcorporatelogosandthenresoldtoclients
globally.ThefirmnegotiatedandusedtheIncoterms®FOBSingapore,butthesellerwas
willingtotakeonmoreriskandtasks(i.e.CorDIncoterms®rules).FOBrequiresthatthe
buyercontractmaincarriageandon-carriage.Thesteamshiplinehitroughwaters,and
thecontainerwaslostatsea.PerCOGSA1937,asteamshiplineisonlyresponsiblefor
$500percontainer,sothefirmlost$124,500USD.Thefirmmadeacostlyandavoidable
mistake.AlthoughnotstatedinStapletonandSaulnier(1999,2001),FOBismisusedfor
containertransport.
Bergami(2012,2013)surveyedbankletterofcreditformsforcontainer
transport.HefoundthatwaterwayIncoterms®(FOB,CFR,CIF)accountfor55%,
multimodalIncoterms®(FCA,CPT,CIP)accountfor34%,andothersareeithermadeup,
outdated,orothernon-Incoterms.Bergami(2012,2013)notesthatifFOBisused,there
isamismatchbetweenlossofphysicalcontrol(e.g.canbehandledsixtoeighttimes
beforeloadingonavessel)andrisktransferpoint.Heconcludesthatbanksarenot
knowledgeableaboutIncoterms®,andthatbankrequirementsincreaserisktotheseller.
14
Hestatesthatitis“strangethatthetermFOB,coinedatleasttwohundredyearsbefore
theeraofcontainerisation(fromthe1960’s),hasbeensoreadilyadoptedand
inappropriatelyappliedtomoderndaycontainerhandlingpractices”(Bergami,2012,
p.37).
Stapletonetal.(2014b)surveyed1,000freightforwarders,andtheyfoundthat
misusewasprevalent:49%haveusedFOBforcontainerizedfreight,37%reportedusing
CIFforcontainerizedfreight,60%usedCFRforcontainerizedfreight,and14%reported
usingC&F,whichhasnotbeenanofficialIncoterm®fordecades.Theyalsofoundthat
Incoterms®aresometimesdeliberatelymisusedincertaincountriestomanipulateor
gamethesystemandevensometimestoenablekickbacks.Largeshippers,likeWal-
MartandAldi,useEXWorFCAtoprovidesupplychainvisibility.
Zhai(2013)providesanotherexampleofevidenceofIncoterms®errorthat
occurredinAugust2004betweenacandleproducerinChangsha,HunanProvince,
China(seller)andawholesalerinYinchuan,QinghaiProvince,China(buyer).Theparties
agreedtoacontractfor200cartonsfor20,000YuanwithanOctober2004delivery,but
theplaceofdeliverywasnotclearlystated.Thesellertransported200cartonsin
Septemberviarail,butuponbuyerinspection,60cartonshadbecomedeformeddueto
heatdamage.Thebuyerpaidthesellershort,andthecasewenttocourt,which
providedtwoimportantfindings.First,thesellerisresponsible,ashedidnotfulfillthe
200cartonscontract.Second,thecarriercausedtheissue,sothesellerisnot
responsible,andthebuyerowestheremainingamount.Theverdictbeyondthese
15
opinionsisnotclear.Zhaiexclaimsthat“noriskpointinthecontractistheunforgivable
error”andthatIncoterms®impactonChina’sdomesticgoodtradeis“landmark”(Zhai,
2013,p.13).
However,muchoftheevidenceofcommonusageerrorsisanecdotal(Stapleton
etal.,2014a).ThisiscompoundedbyBergami’s(2012,2013)findingofascarcityof
Incoterms®2010literaturebeyondthatpublishedbytheICC.AsnotedbyBergami,
mostresearchavailableonIncoterms®isfromshortarticlesintradepublications(2013).
AcademicresearchinthelastfewyearshasjuststartedtoexploretheIncoterms®arena
leavingawideopeningforcontinuedandexpandedacademicresearch.Newtraining
methodsforlearningIncoterms®havealsoemergedtocombatthelackofIncoterms®
understanding(Holley&Haynes,2003;Kocketal.,2008).
Insummary,buyer-sellerrelationshipsarecriticalforthesupplychain.Within
thesebuyer-sellerrelationships,negotiationisanimportantaspectofsolvingproblems
andconflictthatleadstodyadicbenefits(Rinehartetal.,1988;Ramsay,2004;Atkin&
Rinehart,2006).Whileaplethoraofnegotiationandbuyer-sellerrelationshipresearch
exists,researchershavenotfocusedonthebuyer-sellernegotiationoflogistics
managementservicesbetweenfirmstransferringgoods.Littleisknownofthis
negotiationprocess.Interestingly,akeycomponentofnegotiationisdyadicagreement
onresponsibilitiesoflogisticsmanagementcomponentsrelatedtothesale.Incoterms®
rules,throughthreecharacteracronyms,defineanddesignatethedyadic
responsibilitiesfortasks,costs,andrisksinvolvedinthedeliveryofgoodsfromsellersto
16
buyers(ICC,2010,Stapletonetal.2014b).However,researchershavefounderrorsin
Incoterms®usage(Stapleton&Saulnier,2001;Reynolds,2010;Bergami,2011,2012,
2013;Glitz,2011;Malfliet,2011;Ramberg,2011;Roos,2011;Stapleton,2014;Stapleton
etal.,2014a,2014b)leadingtodyadicmisunderstandings(Reynolds,2010).
1.1RESEARCHOBJECTIVEANDRESEARCHQUESTIONS
Thisresearchutilizesandbuildsonexistingpurchasing,marketing,legal,logistics
management,andsupplychainliteratureguidingthereaderthroughbuyer-seller
relationships,theassociatedlogisticsmanagementdecision,andtheircommunication.
Thisinter-organizationalcommunicationisnecessaryforeffectivesupplychain
collaboration(Peng,2011).Basedupontheidentifiedliteraturegapsandmissing
connectionsbetweenvariousstudies,thefollowingfourresearchquestionsare
developed:
1. Howdobuyer-sellerdyadsnegotiatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?
2. Howdobuyer-sellerdyadscommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?
3. Whydoerrorsinlogisticsmanagementdecisioncommunicationoccurwithin
buyer-sellerdyadsandwhataretheconsequencesoftheseerrors?
4. Whatcanimprovethequalityofcommunicationoflogisticsmanagement
decisionswithinbuyer-sellerdyads?
Todate,scholarshavenotfocusedtheirresearchonthebuyer-sellernegotiation
process,communication,oroutcomesoflogisticsmanagementdecisions.Thefour
researchquestionsareinvestigatedviathreerelatedstudies.Thefirststudyisa
17
qualitative,pilotcasestudy.Thesecondstudyinvolvesmultiplequalitativecasestudies.
Thethirdstudyisaquantitative,experimentalstudy.
1.2JUSTIFICATIONFORTHISRESEARCH
Thisresearchisessentialforsixreasons.First,thisstudyexploreshowbuyer-
sellerdyadsnegotiatelogisticsmanagementdecisions.Second,thisstudyexploreshow
buyer-sellerdyadscommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisions.Bothare
underexploredareasofnegotiationandbuyer-sellerrelationshipresearch.Third,
anecdotalevidenceisprevalentregardingIncoterms®usageerrors(Stapletonetal.,
2014a),yetnothoroughlycomprehensiveoracademicallyrigorousevidenceexists.This
studywillapplyappropriatesystematicrigortoexploreIncoterms®usageerrors.Fourth,
ascarcityofIncoterms®researchexists,andmostresearchavailableisfromshort
articlesintradepublications(Bergami,2012,2013).Incoterms®researchwillbe
systematicallyreviewedandsummarizedinaliteraturereview.Thisstudywilladdto
Incoterms®literature.Fifth,mixedmethodsresearchisanunderutilizedresearch
methodwithinpurchasing,marketing,andsupplychainliterature,andthisstudywill
usethisunderutilizedresearchmethod.Lastly,thisstudyseekstoimprovethequalityof
buyer-sellerdyadcommunicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions.
1.3RESEARCHAPPROACH
Researchwithintheareaofsupplychainmanagementhasusedvarious
methodologiesincludingquantitative,qualitative,contextual,andanalyticalapproaches
(Sachan&Datta,2005;Frankeletal.,2008).Buyer-sellerrelationshipbusinessresearch
18
isverypopular,whichhadledtoacornucopiaoftheoriesandmethodstoexaminethe
phenomena(Autry&Golicic,2010).
Thisstudywilluseamixedmethodsresearchapproachdefinedastheuseof
bothquantitativeandqualitativeresearchinasinglestudy.Qualitativeresearchfocuses
on“induction,discovery,exploration,theory/hypothesisgeneration,theresearcheras
theprimary‘instrument’ofdatacollection,andqualitativeanalysis”(BurkeJohnson&
Onwuegbuzie,2004).Contrastingly,quantitativeresearchfocuses“ondeduction,
confirmation,theory/hypothesistesting,explanation,prediction,standardizeddata
collection,andstatisticalanalysis”(BurkeJohnson&Onwuegbuzie,2004).However,by
understandingthestrengthsandweaknessesofquantitativeandqualitativeresearch
methods,theresearcherispositionedtomixmethodstherebyprovidingasuperior
studycomparedtomono-methodresearch(Johnson&Turner,2003;BurkeJohnson&
Onwuegbuzie,2004).
UsingtheresearchofBurkeJohnson&Onwuegbuzie(2004),thisstudy’smixed
methoddesignswilltransactasmallerqualitativestudy,followedbyafull-scale
qualitativestudythatinformsaquantitativestudy(qualàQUALàQUAN).Study1isa
qualitative,pilotcasestudythatseeksevidenceoflogisticsmanagementcommunication
erroroutcomesorIncoterm®usageerroroutcomeswithinapurposefulsampleofan
anonymouslarge,internationalcorporationintheindustrialmarket.Anonymityis
providedtothiscorporationtoprotecttheircorporateimage,proprietarydataand
allowsubjectstobemorecomfortablewithsharinginformation.Study2qualitatively
19
conductsmultiplecasestudiesthatexplorebuyer-sellerdyadnegotiation,howthedyad
communicateslogisticsmanagementdecisions,andthecommunicationerrorsthatoccur
betweenthem,withinapurposefulsampleofananonymouslarge,international
corporationintheindustrialmarket.Rinehart(2016)arguesthatrelationshipscan’t
reallybeunderstoodunlesstheyarevieweddyadically.Therefore,interviewswith
dyadicmemberswithinandoutsidethecompanyareconducted.U.S.tonon-U.S.dyads
areexploredaswellasU.S.toU.S.dyadsandnon-U.S.tonon-U.S.countrydyads.This
willprovideaholisticviewofglobaldyads.Duetotheexploratorycharacteristicsofthe
research,groundedtheoryisdeemedappropriatetoallowtheflexibilityneededfor
appropriateexplorationinstudiesoneandtwo(Glaser&Strauss,1967;Patton,1990;
Eisenhardt,1989;Yin,1989;Pappu&Mundy,2002;Thomas,2013).Groundedtheory
allowsthediscoveryoftheoriesfromsystematicallyobtaineddata(Pappu&Mundy,
2002).Study3quantitativelyteststhehypothesesexploredanddevelopedinStudy2,
andseekstofindwaystoimprovethequalityofbuyer-sellerdyadcommunicationof
logisticsmanagementdecisions.Thishypothesistestingisconductedviadesigned
experimentsatananonymouslarge,internationalcorporationintheindustrialmarket.
Theexperimentaldesignisfittingforthesystematictestingoftheory(Thye,2007;
Siemsen,2011;Thomas,2013).
Buyer-sellerrelationshipscandifferduetoindustrialcircumstances(Goffinetal.,
2006;Autry&Golicic,2010).Therearesignificantmeasurementdifferencesand
variancesfromindustrytoindustryandfromfirmtofirm(Goffinetal.,2006;Autry&
Golicic,2010).Researchers,whoreviewdesignandexecutionplansacrossfirmsand
20
industriessubsequentlyaggregateorcomparethemand,thus,arelikelytocreateerrors
duetometricdis-uniformityperhapsunderestimatingthetrueeffectsinonecontext
whileoverstatingtheminothers(Autry&Golicic,2010).Therefore,thisresearchwillbe
restrictedtoasinglecompanyandindustry,thusenhancinginternalvalidityatsome
expensetoexternalvalidity.
1.4CONTRIBUTIONSOFTHISRESEARCH
Thisresearchmakessiximportantcontributionstoscholarsandpractitioners.
First,thisresearchsystematicallyinvestigatestheusageerrorsdescribedinthe
Incoterms®literature.Currently,onlyanecdotalevidenceisprevalentregarding
Incoterms®usageerrors(Stapletonetal.,2014a).Thisstudyexploresandreportsonthe
outcomesthatIncoterms®rulesactuallyhave.
Second,andrelatedtotheabove,usageerrorsfoundinthisresearchwhichare
notdescribedinexistingresearchareidentified.Theseusageerrorsaredescribed,
characterizedandtestedforprevalence.
Third,thisprobingresearchshedslightonanareainlogisticsmanagement
negotiationsandcommunication,Incoterms®,withlittleprioracademicallyrigorous
research.Practitionerattentionisclearlypresentasshownintheliteraturereview.
However,whilesomeacademicresearchdoesexist,thisstudy’sintentistohighlightthe
importanceandwide-rangingusageofIncoterms®,thereby,drivingmoreattentionand
researchtothearea.Arenewed,andperhapsdifferent,practitionerfocusisalso
suggestedthroughapplyingproperacademicrigortoexploreIncoterms®.
21
Fourth,withinthescopeofbuyer-sellerdyadicnegotiations,thisstudyexplores
andexplainshowdyadsnegotiateandcommunicatetheagreeduponlogistics
managementresponsibilities.Therefore,notonlyarethenegotiationoutcomes(i.e.
usageerrors)exploredandexplained,sotooarethenegotiationprocessandthe
communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions.
Fifth,itisshownthattheappropriateresearchmethoddependsuponthetopic
andresearchquestionsbeinginvestigated.Findingandvalidatingthebestresearch
methodforatopicisexamined.Differentinsightsaregainedbyapplyingdifferent
researchmethods,andthereisadanger,suchasmethodweaknessesorsingularity,if
onereliestoomuchonasinglemethod(Stewart,2009;Davisetal.,2011).Incontrast
withthetypicalresearchparadigmofemployingeitheraquantitativeorqualitative
approach,amixedmethodsapproach,isusedtostudythesupplychainmanagement
topicofhowdyadicbuyer-sellerrelationshipscommunicatelogisticsmanagement
decisions.Therefore,thisstudyappliesmixedmethodsresearchinthesupplychain
managementdomain.Otherdisciplinesmayalsobenefit.Themergerofqualitativeand
quantitativeresearchmethodsisshowntocomplementandaddfurthervalidityand
generalizabilitytothisstudy.Byusingmixedmethodsresearch(MMR)tostudythe
samephenomenon,morerobustandcompellingfindingsmaybeanticipated(Stewart,
2009;Davisetal.,2011).Mixedmethodsresearchisstillasomewhatnovelapproach
withinpurchasing,marketing,andsupplychainliterature,anditiscertainlyanew
approachtoexploringandexplainingtheIncoterm®phenomena.Thisstudyprovidesa
22
“how-to”guideforconductingthisformofmixedmethodsresearch,whichisbeshown
tobeanappropriateandpracticalresearchtechniqueforthisresearch.
Lastly,thisstudyaddstotheverylimitedresearchusingpracticingmanagersas
participantsindesignedexperiments.Participantsinnegotiationresearchgenerally
havebeenMBAstudents,andtheuseofreal-lifeparticipantsisverylimited(Mestdagh
&Buelens,2003).MestdaghandBuelensfoundthatpracticingmanagersareincludedas
participantsinonly5%ofstudies(2003).
1.5DISSERTATIONORGANIZATION
Thisdissertationcomprisesfivechapters.Chapter1introducesthephenomena,
logisticsmanagementdecisionswithindyadicbuyer-sellerrelationships.Chapter2
reviewsexistingresearchonthetopicsofbuyer-sellerrelationshipsandlogistics
management,synthesizesthetopicandliteratureonIncoterms®,andexploresthe
literatureonmixedmethodsresearch.Chapter3developsindetailtheappropriate
mixedmethodsmethodology,thepilotcasestudy,themultiplecasestudies,andthe
experiment,usedtoinvestigatethephenomenon.Chapter4reportsontheresultsof
themixedmethodsresearch.Thefirstsectiondescribesthepilotcasestudy.Thesecond
sectiondetailsthemultiplecasestudies,andthethirdsectionreportsonthe
experiment.Chapter5interpretstheresultsofallthreestudies,sothatpractitioners
andscholarscanfindtheresultsuseful.Italsoidentifiesthelimitationsoftheresearch
andlikelybeneficialdirectionsforfutureresearch.
23
CHAPTER2
LITERATUREREVIEW
Thissectionreviewsexistingresearchonthetopicsofbuyer-sellerrelationships,
logisticmanagement,Incoterms®,mixedmethodsresearch,andexperiments.This
researchisthusgroundedinthisexistingliterature.
2.1BUYER-SELLERRELATIONSHIPS.
Manysocialsciencedisciplineshavestudiedinter-organizationalrelationships
(Autry&Golicic,2010).Marketingresearchershaverepeatedlyfocusedonbuyer-seller
exchanges(Dwyeretal.,1987),andsomehaveevendeclaredtheprimaryfocusof
marketingtobetheexchangerelationship(Kotler&Levy,1969;Luck,1969;Ferber,
1970;Kotler&Zlatman,1971;Kotler,1972;Luck,1974;Dwyeretal.1987).Thesedyadic
buyer-sellerrelationshipsarecrucialforthesupplychainmanagementdiscipline,where
manycustomerandsupplierrelationshipsdriveindustrysuccess(Autry&Golicic,2010).
Thereverseisalsotrue;poordyadicbuyer-sellerrelationshipscanleadtopoorindustry
performance(Autry&Golicic,2010).Accordingtomanyresearchers,anessentialpiece
ofsupplychainmanagementisthemanagementofbusinessrelationships(Lambertet
al.,1996;Staughton&Johnston,2005;Cousins&Menguc,2006;Autry,&Griffis,2008;
Autry&Golicic,2010).Thereismuchresearchinterestonformalandinformal
agreementswithinbuyer-sellerrelationships(Lassar&Zinn,1995;Frankeletal.,1996;
Atkin&Rinehart,2006).
24
Overthedecades,thepressureofglobalcompetitionhasforcedmanufacturers
tofocustheirin-houseundertakingsoncorecompetenciesandtooutsourcenon-core
competencies(Prahalad&Hamel,1990;Atkin&Rinehart,2006).Thistrendhas
increasedinterestintheintegrationofvarioussupplychainlayers(Frohlich&
Westbrook,2002;Atkin&Rinehart,2006).ThisbuildsonPorterandMillar’s(1985)
conceptofthevaluesystemorvaluechain,whichwasintroducedover30yearsago
(Porter&Millar,1985;Atkin&Rinehart.2006).Today,thereisatendencytooutsource
someofthenon-criticalvaluechainactivities,whichmagnifiestheinterdependenceof
supplychainmembers(Atkin&Rinehart,2006).
Duetotheaforementionedtrend,itisnotsurprisingthattoday’ssupplychains
arecharacterizedbymanybuyer-sellerrelationships(Mentzeretal.,2001;Xu&
Beamon,2006;Frankeletal.,2008;Thomas,2013),andnegotiationsareakeypartof
thosebuyer-sellerrelationships(Thomas,2013).Therefore,itisexpectedthat
negotiationsbetweenmembersofthesupplychainareessentialforcompetitiveness
(Atkin&Rinehart,2006).Thereisasymbioticrelationshipbetweenmemberswithinthe
supplychain(Ramsay,2004;Atkin&Rinehart,2006;Thomas,2013).Interestingly,
dyadicbuyer-sellerrelationshipsaredynamic,wherebythereisasimultaneousstruggle
betweencooperationandcompetitionwithintherelationship(Jap,2001;Nairetal.,
2011).AsfoundinDaugherty(2011),Dwyeretal.(1987)stressedthesignificanceofthe
changetowardscloseandon-goingbuyer-sellerrelationships.
Manytypesofbuyer-sellerrelationshipsexistinthesupplychain,suchas
25
manufacturer-distributor,materialsupplier-manufacturer,shipper-carrier,etc.(Thomas,
2013),butmanyresearchersandmanagersareparticularlyinterestedinverticalbuyer-
supplierrelationships(Autry&Golicic,2010).Muchofthisinterestisaresultofstrong
verticalbuyer-supplierrelationshipsleadingtoimprovedperformanceandcompetitive
advantagesforbothdyads(Morgan&Hunt,1994;Day,2000;Krauseetal.,2007;Autry
&Golicic,2010).
Negotiationisaspecifictypeofinteractionwithinbuyer-sellerrelationships
(Thomas,2013).Thenegotiationprocessistheprincipalmethodofhandlingconflict
withinsuchrelationships(Ramsay,2004),anditisadyadicprocessthatissupposedto
solveproblemsresultinginbenefitsforbothdyadicparticipants(Rinehartetal.,1988;
Atkin&Rinehart,2006).Negotiationoffersanexceptionalvantagepointtostudyinter-
organizationallinkagesinsupplychains(Dwyeretal.,1987;Atkin&Rinehart,2006).In
addition,negotiationsareveryrelevantbecausemanysalesconditions,suchasprice,
dateofdelivery,andwarranties,arenegotiatedbetweenvaluechainpartners
(Anderson&Narus,2004;Fang,2006;Herbstetal.,2011;Thomas,2013).Most
importantly,forpurchasingorsupplymanagement,negotiationistheprocessbywhich
abuyerandsellercometoestablishtermsinapurchaseagreement(Dobleretal.,1984;
Atkin&Rinehart2006).Thetwocorporatefunctionsthatdealwithmostnegotiationare
thepurchasingandsellingfunctions(Ramsay,2004).Itisalsosaidthat25%ofa
manager’stimeisspentonnegotiations(Mestdagh&Buelens,2003;Thomas,2013).
Thedyadsarecompelledtofindthebestresultswithinthebuyer-sellertransactions
(Herbstetal.,2011).Firmsmosteffectivelynegotiatingmaybemorelikelyto
26
outperformrivals(Thomas,2013).
Today,firmsarecreatingcollaborativerelationshipswiththeircounterpartsin
thebuyer-sellerdyadtogaincompetitiveadvantage(Nyagaetal.,2010).Itisnot
surprisingthatnewbuyer-sellerapproachessuchasthe“vestedoutsourcing”approach
haveemerged(Vitasek&Manrodt,2012a,2012b).Ongoingbuyer-sellerrelationships,
whicharedescribedaslong-termassociationswithformalcontractsandtermed
“domesticatedmarkets”areexplainedastransactionsthatareplannedand
administeredratherthanbeingconductedonanadhocbasis(Dwyeretal.,1987;Arndt,
1979).Asopposedtotheserelationalexchanges,discretetransactionscanbedescribed
ashavingverylittlebuyer-sellercommunicationorrelationship(Dwyeretal.,1987).As
coinedbyAtkinandRinehart(2006),“contractformality”isestablishedwhenthebuyer
andsellerexplicitlystaterequirementsviaacontract(Mohretal.,1996;Atkin&
Rinehart,2006;).AsnotedbyAtkinandRinehart(2006),FawcettandMagnan(2000)
affirmthisbystating,“intheabsenceoftrust,aneffortismadetolegislate
cooperation”viaacontract.
Interactionsbetweenthebuyer–sellerplaykeyroleswithinindustrialmarkets
(Håkansson,1988;Gemünden,1997;Håkansson&Ford,2006;Herbst,2011).
Negotiationbehaviorisa“fundamentalphenomenon”forindustrialmarkets’inter-firm
behavior(Perdueetal.,1986;Atkin&Rinehart,2006),andwithintheseindustrial
markets,buyer-sellerinteractionsplayakeyrole(Anderson&Narus,2004;Fang,2006;
Herbstetal.,2011).
27
2.2LOGISTICSMANAGEMENT
Over30yearsago,PorterandMillarintroducedtheconceptofthevaluesystem
orvaluechain(1985).Theydefinedactivitiesrelatedtothecreationanddeliveryofa
productorservice.Theirfiveprimaryactivityareasareinboundlogistics,operations,
outboundlogistics,marketingandsales,andservice.AsshowninAtkinandRinehart
(2006),PorterandMillar(1985)maintainedthatthesuccessfulperformanceofthese
activitiesandtheabilitytoproperlymanagetheirlinkagesleadtocompetitive
advantage(Porter&Millar,1985;Atkin&Rinehart,2006).
Similartothetranscendenceofpartnerswithinthesupplychain,Daugherty
(2011)assertedthatBowersoxetal.(1989)andLaLondeetal.(1988)bothindicated
thatlogisticsrelationshipshavechanged.Alargevarietyofdifferentlogistics
managementserviceshaveemergedsincethederegulationoftheU.S.interstate
truckingindustry(Smithetal.,2007).Termssuchas“partners”and“alliances”emerged
intheliterature(Daugherty,2011).Inaddition,itwasclearthatbothacademicsand
practitionersbegantoseetheimportanceoflogisticsmanagement(Daugherty,2011).
AsnotedinDaugherty,(2011),StankandDaugherty(1997)notethatduringthe1980’s
and1990’s,companiesfacedpressuretoprovide“better,faster,cheaperlogistical
services,”andsimilartotheoverallsupplychain,companiesdecidedtofocusoncore
competenciesandoutsourcethenon-corecompetenciesoflogistics.Thesecompanies
specializinginexternallogisticsofferedmorecost-effectivewaystoachievecompany
goals(Daugherty,2011).Duringthattime,logisticsservicesweresomeofthemost
28
commonbusinessareastobeoutsourced(LaLonde&Maltz,1992;Daugherty,2011)
withstrongdemandovertime(Knemeyer&Murphy,2005).Itisnotedthatduringthe
1990s,logisticsmanagementresearchalsoshiftedbeyondtheboundariesofan
individualformtostudybothinter-firmrelationshipsaswellasbothpartsofdyads
(Langley&Holcomb,1992;Frankeletal.,2008).
Logisticsmanagementiscriticalintheoverallsupplychain’ssuccess(Stank&
Goldsby,2000).In1997,logisticsmanagementcostsaccountedfor57%ofU.S.firms’
supplychaincosts(Berg,1998;Stank&Goldsby,2000).AsnotedinStankandGoldsby
(2000),BowersoxandCloss(1996)foundthatoneinsevenjobsintheU.S.arelogistics
managementrelated.However,manyshippersusepre-1980slogictomakelogistics
managementdecisions(Stank&Goldsby,2000)leadingtopoorperformanceassupply
chainmanagementadvances(Moultrie,1998;Stank&Goldsby,2000).Expectationsof
logisticsmanagementhavechangedovertimefromlow-costandhigh-servicecriteriato
cutting-edgetechnologyinordertomeetincreasinglystringentservicerequirements
andsteadilyloweringcosts(Stank&Goldsby,2000).Theoverallsupplychainisonlyas
strongastheweakestcomponentandunfortunately,logisticsmanagementisoneofthe
supplychain’sweakestcomponents(Stank&Goldsby,2000).
Inthecontextofabuyer-sellerdyad,thebuyers’logisticsmanagement
requirementsinfluencetheirpurchasingandtheassociatedlogisticsmanagement,
choices.Strongerbuyerlogisticsmanagementneedsincreasetheirimportanceand
possiblytheassociatedcostcomponent.Withinlogisticsmanagement,distributionplays
29
asignificantroleinsecuringsuitabletransportationarrangements.Thebuyerorsupplier
controlofvariouslogisticsmanagementcomponentscanalterthetotalpurchasecost.
Appropriateunderstandingandanalysisofthelogisticsmanagementcomponentofan
overallpurchaseiscriticalforkeepingcostscompetitive.Buyerslookforany
opportunitytosecurelowerlogisticsmanagementcosts(Wagner,1987).
2.3INCOTERMS®
Thissectionoftheliteraturereviewprovidesthehistoryandusageof
Incoterms®rules.Italsosystemicallyidentifiesandsynthesizesacademicjournalsand
practitionerpublicationsonthetopicofIncoterms®,whicharebroadlydefinedas
shippingterm(s).
2.3.1HistoryofIncoterms®.
ThetraditionofusingtradetermsstartedduringthenineteenthcenturyinGreat
Britain(Malfliet,2011).However,itwasnotuntil1921thatIncoterms®ruleswerefirst
consideredbytheICCandultimatelybroughtintousein1936(ICC,2010,2015a).Prior
tothistime,tradetermswereoftensubjective,leadingtovariousinterpretationsand
frequentdisputesandlitigation(Gupta,2010;Bergami,2011).AsstatedbytheICC,“a
TradeTermsCommitteewiththeassistanceoftheICCNationalCommitteesdeveloped
thefirstsixrulesin1923:FOB,FAS,FOT,FOR,FreeDeliveredCIFandC&F,whichwere
theprecursorofwhatwouldlaterbeknownastheIncoterms®rules”(2015a).Thesesix
rulesaredescribedasFreeonboard(FOB),Freealongsideship(FAS),Freeontruck
30
(FOT),Freeonrail(FOR),Cost,insurance,andfreight(CIF),andCostandfreight(C&F).
Sincethen,theICChasupdatedIncoterms®rulesregularlytoreflecttheever-changing
businessenvironment,commercialpractices,typesofgoodsandtransports,and
internationallaws(ICC,2010,2015a).Ramberg(2011)notesthatIncoterms®revisions
require“somethingimportant”tohavetakenplaceincommercialpractice.TheICC’s
CommissiononCommercialLawandPractice,whichiscomposedofmemberswith
expansiveglobalandsectorexpertise,istaskedtoensurethattheIncoterms®rules
reflectandrespondtoB2Bglobalneeds(ICC,2010).Initialrevisionisdelegatedtoa
smallglobalDraftingGroup,whosemembershipisformedofexpertsfromassorted
nationschosenfortheircontributionstointernationalcommerciallawandtotheICC
(ICC,2015a).Fromthere,reviseddraftsaredisseminatedinternationallyandbroadly
throughtheICC,withtheresultingcommentsandsuggestionsprovidedbacktothe
DraftingGroup(ICC,2015a).WhentheICCCommissiononCommercialLawandPractice
approvesthefinaldraft,itissubmittedforadoptiontotheICCExecutiveBoard(ICC,
2015a).TheICCstatesthatthe“broadinternationalconsultationaimstoensurethat
officialICCproductspossessanauthorityasrepresentingthetrueconsensusviewpoint
oftheworldbusinesscommunity”(ICC,2015a).
Ontheirwebsite,theICC(2015b)providesashortdescriptionoftheeleven2010
Incoterms®rules:
2.3.1.1RULESFORANYMODEORMODESOFTRANSPORT
EXWExWorks-“ExWorks”meansthatthesellerdeliverswhenitplacesthe
31
goodsatthedisposalofthebuyerattheseller’spremisesoratanothernamed
place(i.e.works,factory,warehouse,etc.).Thesellerdoesnotneedtoloadthe
goodsonanycollectingvehicle,nordoesitneedtoclearthegoodsforexport,
wheresuchclearanceisapplicable.
FCAFreeCarrier-“FreeCarrier”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodstothe
carrieroranotherpersonnominatedbythebuyerattheseller’spremisesor
anothernamedplace.Thepartiesarewelladvisedtospecifyasclearlyas
possiblethepointwithinthenamedplaceofdelivery,astheriskpassestothe
buyeratthatpoint.
CPTCarriagePaidTo-“CarriagePaidTo”meansthatthesellerdeliversthe
goodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbytheselleratanagreed
place(ifanysuchplaceisagreedbetweenparties)andthatthesellermust
contractforandpaythecostsofcarriagenecessarytobringthegoodstothe
namedplaceofdestination.
CIPCarriageAndInsurancePaidTo-“CarriageandInsurancePaidto”meansthat
thesellerdeliversthegoodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbythe
selleratanagreedplace(ifanysuchplaceisagreedbetweenparties)andthat
thesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsofcarriagenecessarytobringthe
goodstothenamedplaceofdestination.Theselleralsocontractsforinsurance
coveragainstthebuyer’sriskoflossofordamagetothegoodsduringthe
carriage.ThebuyershouldnotethatunderCIP,thesellerisrequiredtoobtain
32
insuranceonlyonminimumcover.Shouldthebuyerwishtohavemore
insuranceprotection,itwillneedeithertoagreeasmuchexpresslywiththe
sellerortomakeitsownextrainsurancearrangements.
DATDeliveredAtTerminal-“DeliveredatTerminal”meansthattheseller
deliverswhenthegoods,onceunloadedfromthearrivingmeansoftransport,
areplacedatthedisposalofthebuyeratanamedterminalatthenamedportor
placeofdestination.“Terminal”includesaplace,whethercoveredornot,such
asaquay,warehouse,containeryardorroad,railoraircargoterminal.The
sellerbearsallrisksinvolvedinbringingthegoodstoandunloadingthematthe
terminalatthenamedportorplaceofdestination.
DAPDeliveredAtPlace-“DeliveredatPlace”meansthatthesellerdeliverswhen
thegoodsareplacedatthedisposalofthebuyeronthearrivingmeansof
transportreadyforunloadingatthenamedplaceofdestination.Thesellerbears
allrisksinvolvedinbringingthegoodstothenamedplace.
DDPDeliveredDutyPaid-“DeliveredDutyPaid”meansthatthesellerdelivers
thegoodswhenthegoodsareplacedatthedisposalofthebuyer,clearedfor
importonthearrivingmeansoftransportreadyforunloadingatthenamed
placeofdestination.Thesellerbearsallthecostsandrisksinvolvedinbringing
thegoodstotheplaceofdestinationandhasanobligationtoclearthegoods
notonlyforexportbutalsoforimport,topayanydutyforbothexportand
import,andtocarryoutallcustomsformalities.
33
2.3.1.2RULESFORSEAANDINLANDWATERWAYTRANSPORT
FASFreeAlongsideShip-“FreeAlongsideShip”meansthatthesellerdelivers
whenthegoodsareplacedalongsidethevessel(e.g.,onaquayorabarge)
nominatedbythebuyeratthenamedportofshipment.Theriskoflossofor
damagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsarealongsidetheship,andthe
buyerbearsallcostsfromthatmomentonwards.
FOBFreeOnBoard-“FreeOnBoard”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodson
boardthevesselnominatedbythebuyeratthenamedportofshipmentor
procuresthegoodsalreadysodelivered.Theriskoflossofordamagetothe
goodspasseswhenthegoodsareonboardthevessel,andthebuyerbearsall
costsfromthatmomentonwards.
CFRCostandFreight-“CostandFreight”meansthatthesellerdeliversthe
goodsonboardthevesselorprocuresthegoodsalreadysodelivered.Theriskof
lossofordamagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsareonboardthevessel.
Thesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsandfreightnecessarytobringthe
goodstothenamedportofdestination.
CIFCost,Insurance,andFreight-“Cost,Insurance,andFreight”meansthatthe
sellerdeliversthegoodsonboardthevesselorprocuresthegoodsalreadyso
delivered.Theriskoflossofordamagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsare
onboardthevessel.Thesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsandfreight
necessarytobringthegoodstothenamedportofdestination.Theselleralso
34
contractsforinsurancecoveragainstthebuyer’sriskoflossofordamagetothe
goodsduringthecarriage.ThebuyershouldnotethatunderCIF,theselleris
requiredtoobtaininsuranceonlyonminimumcover.Shouldthebuyerwishto
havemoreinsuranceprotection,itwillneedeithertoagreeasmuchexpressly
withthesellerortomakeitsownextrainsurancearrangements.
ThecompleteIncoterms®2010EnglishEditionpublishedbytheICCisavailableat
http://store.iccwbo.org/incoterms-2010(ICC,2015b).Listedbelowaresomeofthe
mostsignificantrevisionsthathaveledtotheIncoterms®2010version:
• 1980–ThetermFCAisintroduced(ICC,2015a).
• 1990–EDI-messageswereallowedtofulfilltheseller’sobligationforproofof
delivery(ICC,2015a).
• 2000–Twochangesweremade.First,theexportclearanceresponsibilityunder
FASwasplaceduponthebuyer(previouslyseller)(ICC,2015a).Second,forFCA,
claritywasprovidedinthatunderthisterm,thesellerwasnotobligatedtoload
goodsontothebuyer’scollectingvehicle,andthebuyer’sobligationtoreceive
theseller’sarrivingvehicleunloadedwasnoted(ICC,2015a).
• 2010-OnJanuary1,2011,Incoterms®2010rulestookeffectcreatingtwonew
rules(DATandDAP)replacingfourIncoterms®2000rules(DAF,DES,DEQ,and
DDU)(ICC,2010,2015a).
ThroughtheIncoterms®years,therehavebeenattemptstogetIncoterms®
endorsedinternationally(Bergami,2011).In1969,Incoterms®of1953attemptedto
35
gainendorsementfromtheUnitedNationsCommissiononInternationalTradeLaw
(UNCITRAL),butthisattemptwasnotsuccessful(Bergami,2011).Finally,in1992,
Incoterms®1990wasendorsedbyUNCITRAL,whichisthecommissionthatformulates
andregulatesinternationaltrade,atits480thmeeting(Bergami,2011).Incoterms®2000
wasalsoendorsedbyUNCITRAL(Bergami,2011).
Incoterms®arenottobeconfusedwiththe1941RevisedAmericanForeign
TradeDefinitionsorthe1951UniformCommercialCode(UCC)shippinganddelivery
terms,thatareprimarilyusedwithinNorthAmerica,especiallyintheU.S.(Bergami,
2011,2012;LegalInformationInstitute,2015).However,othershavefoundUCC
shippinganddeliveryterminfluencesoutsideoftheUnitedStates,suchasinChina
(Zhai,2013).WiththisIncoterms®“competitor”(Bergami,2011),threeoftheUCC
shippinganddeliverytermacronyms(FOB,FAS,andCIF)overlapwithIncoterms®2010
rules(Bergami,2012;LegalInformationInstitute,2015).Whilemuchofsame
terminologyexists,UCCtermsallowvariations(i.e.OriginorDestination)toprovide
differentmeanings(Bergami,2011).CriticallydifferentfromIncoterms®,UCCshipping
anddeliverytermsdoindicatetransferoftitleorownership,andtheymayindicate
obligationsbeyondthoseofIncoterms®(Bergami,2012;LegalInformationInstitute,
2015).ThesimilaritiesinUCCandIncoterms®terminologyleadtoconfusioninthe
marketplace(Bergami,2011).In2004,theUCCeliminatedshippinganddeliveryterms,
openingthedoorforwideracceptanceofIncoterms®rules(Bergami,2011).
36
2.3.2ProperUseofIncoterms®
Whenusedproperly,usingIncoterms®is“aneffectiveriskmanagementtool”
(Bergami,2013).TheICCstatesthattherearefourmainconsiderationsforproper
Incoterms®use(ICC,2010):
1) UseIncoterms®2010rulesinthecontractofsale–IfyouwanttouseIncoterms®
rulesinacontract,youshouldclearlyspecifybystatingtheIncoterms®rule,
followedbythenamedplaceorport,andthenspecifyingtheIncoterms®
versions,suchasIncoterms®2010.
2) IdentifytheappropriateIncoterms®rule–UsetheGuidanceNotesforeach
Incoterms®ruletodeterminetheappropriatethreecharacterIncoterm®.
3) Stipulatetheplaceorportaccurately–Preciselynamingtheplaceorportafter
theIncoterms®ruleiscriticaltoavoidmisunderstandingsbetweenparties.
4) Incoterms®donotprovideacompletecontractofsale–Incoterms®rulesonly
specifyaparty’sobligationtosecurecarriageorinsurance,whendeliveryoccurs
betweensellerandbuyer,andthecostobligationsofeachparty.Incoterms®
rulesdonotstatethepricetobepaidnorthepaymentmethod.Additionally,
theydonotindicatetransferoftitleorownershiporcontractbreach
consequences.
Onoccasion,partiesmaywanttoaltertheIncoterms®rules.Althoughnot
prohibited,potentialdangersdoarise.IfanIncoterms®ruleisaltered,theICCstrongly
suggeststhatthedeliberateeffectismadeexceptionallyclearinthecontractofsale
37
(ICC,2010).
SinceIncoterms®rulesarenotabodyoflaw,theymustbespecificallyincluded
inthedyadicsalescontractfortheIncoterms®rulestoapply(Bergami,2012).When
usedinasalescontract,Incoterms®rulesarebindingonthebuyer-sellerdyad,butthe
Incoterms®ruleobligationsmayrequireothercontractstobeformed,suchasa
contractwithatransportationproviderorcustomsbroker.Thesethirdpartiesarenot
boundbythedyadicbuyer-sellersalesagreement,butratherbytheirindividual
agreements(Bergami,2013).
Foreachofthe11Incoterms®rules,verydetailedguidancenotesareprovidedin
Incoterms®2010:ICCrulesfortheuseofdomesticandinternationaltradeterms.The
guidancenotesclarifythespecificsofeachIncoterms®rule,suchaswhenitshouldbe
used,whenriskpassesfromsellertobuyer,andhowcostsareallocatedbetweenseller
andbuyer.Toclarify,theguidancenotesarenotpartoftheactualIncoterms®2010
rules,butareintendedtohelptheusercorrectlyandefficientlynavigatetowardsthe
suitableIncoterms®ruleforaparticulartransaction(ICC,2010).AsstatedbytheICC
(2010),thefollowingguidancenotesareprovidedforeachIncoterms®rule.
• A–Theseller’sobligations
o A1–Generalobligationsoftheseller
o A2–License,authorizations,securityclearances,andotherformalities
o A3–Contractsofcarriageandinsurance
o A4–Delivery
38
o A5–Transferofrisks
o A6–Allocationsofcosts
o A7–Noticestothebuyer
o A8–Deliverydocuments
o A9–Checking–packaging–marking
o A10–Assistancewithinformationandrelatedcosts
• B–Thebuyer’sobligations
o B1–Generalobligationsofthebuyer
o B2–License,authorizations,securityclearances,andotherformalities
o B3–Contractsofcarriageandinsurance
o B4–Takingdelivery
o B5–Transferofrisks
o B6–Allocationsofcosts
o B7–Noticestotheseller
o B8–Proofofdelivery
o B9–Inspectionofgoods
o B10–Assistancewithinformationandrelatedcosts
2.4LITERATUREREVIEWMETHODOLOGY
TheABI/InformComplete1971–Presentdatabasewasusedtoidentify
academicjournalsandpractitionerpublicationsonthetopicofIncoterms®.Multiple
39
ABI/InformCompletesearcheswereconductedusingthe“AdvancedSearch”
functionality.Theinitialkeywordsearchfocusedonthesingularform(incoterm)or
pluralform(incoterms)ofIncoterms®.Noadditionallimitationsonthesearchwere
used.Thisinitialsearchyielded199resultsintheperiodthroughJune2017.Asecond
keywordsearchwasthenconductedonthesingularform(shippingterm)orpluralform
(shippingterms)ofshippingterms.Onceagain,noadditionallimitationsonthesearch
wereused.Thissecondsearchyielded62results.Therefore,261totalarticleswere
foundfromthetwosearches.All261articlescitationswerethentransferredto
MicrosoftExcel.AppendixI–LiteratureReviewcontainsthiscompletelistofarticles.
Takingacomprehensiveapproach,all261articleswerereviewed.Upon
reviewingeacharticle,andwithintheMicrosoftExcelfile,eacharticlewasmarkedas
eitherrelevant“1”ornotrelevant“0”tothetopicofIncoterms®.Articlesweredeemed
relevantiftheycontainedanydiscussiononthetopicofIncoterms®.Additionally,itwas
notedwhethereacharticlewaspeerreviewed(“1”peerreviewed).Further,abrief
articlesummarywasrecordedinaseparateMicrosoftExcelcolumn.Byutilizingthe
MicrosoftExcelsortfunction,duplicatearticleswerefoundandnotedinaseparate
MicrosoftExcelcolumn.Byconductingotheradhocsearchesusingdifferentarticle
searchenginesandbyfollowingcitations,15additionalrelevantarticlesmerged.A
summarybytotalandpercentageisshowninTable2.1.Ofthe276articles,only25,or
9.06%,werefoundinpeerreviewedscholarlyjournals.Thirty-twoduplicate(i.e.same
articlelistedmorethanonce)articleswerefound.
40
Table2.1SummaryofArticlesReviewed
Relevant NotRelevant PeerReviewed Duplicate
154 122 25 32
55.80% 44.20% 9.06% 11.59%
Total 276
2.4.1ReviewProcess
UsingtheaforementionedExcelfileandafterremovalofduplicates,142total
articleswereascertainedasrelevanttothetopicofIncoterms®.Ofthe142remaining
articles,only14wereconsideredtoberelevant,peerreviewed,academicjournal
articles.Theremaining130articlesappearedinpractitionerpublications.
2.4.2Classificationframework
Bythoroughlyreviewingthe142articles,fourgroupingsoftheliteratureemerged.
1) ExplainsIncoterms®-ArticlesinthisgroupeitherattempttoexplainIncoterms®
overalloraspecificIncoterms®ruleorconcept.
2) NewIncoterms®version–Thesearticlesalertreadersthatanewrevisionis
forthcomingorwasrecentlyintroduced(i.e.Incoterms®2010takingeffect
January1,2011).
3) Training–Articlesinthisgroupalertorenticereaderstoparticipateintraining
workshopsinIncoterms®.
41
4) Other–Articlesnotfittingintotheotherthreegroupswereclassifiedas“other.”
2.4.3Results
Usingtheclassificationframework,the142articleswerecategorizedintothe
fourgroupings.AtotalandpercentsummaryofthesegroupsisshowninTable2.2.
Table2.2SummaryofArticleClassification
ExplainsIncoterms NewIncotermsVersion Training Other
69 41 13 19
48.59% 28.87% 9.15% 13.38%
Thelargestgroup,with69ofthe142articles(48.59%),isthe“Explains
Incoterms®”group.ThesearticleseitherattempttoexplainIncoterms®overallora
specificIncoterms®ruleorconceptinparticular.Forexample,from2002until2013,
ColinBarrett,thepresidentofBarrettTransportationConsultants,tookIncoterms®
questionsandprovidedanswers(Q&A)intwopractitionerpublications:Journalof
CommerceandTrafficWorld(Barrett,2002,2005,2006,2010a,2010b,2013).
Thenextlargestgroup,with41articles(28.87%),isthe“NewIncoterms®
version”group.ThesearticlesalertreadersthatarevisionoftheIncoterms®rulesis
forthcomingorhasrecentlybeenintroduced.Understandably,thesearticlestypically
appearedjustpriortoorshortlyafterarevisionoftheIncoterms®rules.Forexample,
manyofthesearticleswerepublishedaroundJanuary1,2011whenIncoterms®2010
42
becameeffective.
While110articles(77.46%)focusedoneitherexplainingIncoterms®or
describingnewIncoterms®versions,only13articles(9.15%)focusedonIncoterms®
trainingortrainingworkshops.Ofthese,onlytwoarticles(Holley&Haynes,2003and
Kocketal.,2008)discussednewtrainingdesignsormethodswithIncoterms®.Therest
ofthesearticlessimplyenticedreaderstofreeorpaidworkshopsorinstruction.
Theremaining19articles(13.38%)wereplacedintoan“Other”group.The
“Other”grouparticlesvariedgreatlyintopics.Manysuggestedmandatoryorglobal
supportforIncoterms®,whileothersrecommendedorintroducedtoolsforIncoterms
use.
2.4.4Discussion
Baseduponthisliteraturereview,itispossibletooffersomeobservations.First,
thereisscarcityofpeerreviewedacademicliteratureasitrelatestoIncoterms®.After
updatingtheliteraturereviewinJune2017,only14articleswereidentifiedinpeer
reviewedacademicjournals.Asshownbelow,the14articlescoveredallfourcategories:
ExplainsIncoterms,NewIncotermsversion,Training,andOther.However,beyondthese
articles,thereissomeotheracademicattentiononthesubjectofIncoterms®via
universitypublications,newsletters,andconferencepresentations(Stapleton&
Saulnier,2001;Căruntu&Lăpădusi,2010;Malfliet,2011;Bergami,2012;Stapleton,
2014).
43
Table2.3SummaryofAcademicArticlesonIncoterms®
Article
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion
Training
Other
Bergami(2011) 0 1 0 0
Bergami(2013) 1 0 0 0
Glitz(2011) 0 0 0 1
Holley&Haynes(2003) 0 0 1 0
Kocketal.(2008) 0 0 1 0
Kumar(2010) 0 0 0 1
McKinnon(2014) 0 0 0 1
Ramberg(2011) 0 1 0 0
Stapletonetal.(2014a) 1 0 0 0
Stapletonetal.(2014b) 1 0 0 0
Stapleton&Saulnier(1999) 0 1 0 0
Stapleton&Saulnier(2002) 1 0 0 0
Yao-Hua&Thoen(2000) 0 0 0 1
Zhai(2013) 0 0 0 1
4 3 2 5
28.57% 21.43% 14.29% 35.71%
Manyjournalandscholarlyarticles,universitypublications,newsletters,and
conferencepresentationsintroduce,provideahistory,andsummarizeIncoterms®rules
44
(Stapleton&Saulnier,1999,2001,2002;Căruntu&Lăpădusi,2010;Bergami,2011,
2012,2013;Glitz,2011;Malfliet,2011;Ramberg,2011;Stapleton,2014;Stapletonetal.,
2014a,2014b).Similarly,manyjournalandscholarlyarticles,universitypublications,
newsletters,andconferencepresentationsexplainthedifferencesbetweenthelatest
Incoterms®ruleversionandthepreviousversion(Stapleton&Saulnier1999,2001;
Căruntu&Lăpădusi,2010;Bergami,2011,2012,2013;Malfliet,2011;Ramberg,2011;
Stapletonetal.2014a,2014b).Yetotherjournalandscholarlyarticles,university
publications,newsletters,andconferencepresentations,moreinterestinglydiscuss
Incoterms®application(Stapleton&Saulnier,2001;Căruntu&Lăpădusi,2010;Bergami
2011,2012,2013;Malfliet,2011;Stapleton,2014;Stapletonetal.,2014a,2014b)and
commonusageerrorsintheirapplication(Stapleton&Saulnier,2001;Bergami,2011,
2012,2013;Glitz,2011;Malfliet,2011;Ramberg,2011;Stapleton,2014;Stapletonet
al.2014a,2014b).Thesearediscussedbelow.
RegardingtheapplicationofIncoterms®,Stapletonetal.(2014a)provide
importantconsiderationsthattheBuyerandSellershoulddifferentiateandclarify
amongstthedyadbystating:
a) Whopaysforthevariousdispatchanddeliveryelements;
b) Whoinitiallypaysforwhatinagivenprocess;obviously,theBuyer
alwayspaysintheendeithertothefreightmover(e.g.,carriers)directly
orwhenchargedbytheSelleronanexportinvoice;
c) Whereexactlydeliverytakesplace;remember,tradersalwaysneedto
45
definedeliverypointsveryprecisely;
d) Finally,whererisksandcostresponsibilitiespassfromtheSellertoBuyer,
whichnormallythoughnotalwaysoccuratthepointofdelivery.
TheBuyerandSellershouldhaveaclearunderstandingofwhattheyagreeto,
andthecontractofsaleshouldclarifyanynuances(Stapletonetal.2014a).Importantly,
andasnotedbytheICC(2010),Incoterms®usealonedoesnotconstituteacontractof
sale,anditshouldbeincorporatedintothecontractofsale(Stapletonetal.,2014a)to
bebinding(Bergami,2012).Bergami(2012)andRamberg(2011),alsopointoutthat
Incoterms®rulesdoexcludeaspectsofthesalescontract,suchasmethodofpayment
ortitletransfer,nordotheyexplainwhathappenswhenadyadicmemberfailsto
performanobligation(i.e.contractbreach).Stapletonetal.(2014a)mostsignificantly
noteanymemberoftheBuyer-Sellerdyadshouldonlytakeonresponsibilityfor
functionsthattheyeitherhavecontroloforcanexercisecontrolover.Similarto
Stapletonetal.(2014a),Căruntu&Lăpădusi(2010)providevariouscasestoillustrate
totalcostdifferencesincurredbyusingdifferentIncoterms®rules.
Beyondtheapplicationbenefitsalreadymentioned,Bergami(2011)citesthat
manytradingnationshavesignedtheUnitedNationsConventiononContractsforthe
InternationalSalesofGoods(CISG),alsoreferredtoastheViennaConventionof1980.
AsofDecember18,2015,84nationshadratifiedtheCISG,representingalargebreadth
oftradingnations(Wikipedia,2016).SinceIncoterms®rulesindicateaprecisedelivery
pointandvariousseller-to-buyerprocedures,theymayoverride,inapositiveway,
46
manyaspectsofArticle31oftheCISG(Bergami,2011).
LiteraturealsosuggestscommonIncoterms®usageerrors.Asmentionedby
Reynolds(2010)inanon-academicbook,thesemistakescanleadtomisunderstandings.
Muchoftheevidenceofcommonusageerrorisanecdotal(Stapletonetal.,2014a).
Stapletonetal.(2014a)suggestthatshippersmayuseless-than-optimalIncoterms®
strategiescreatedthroughalackofknowledgeofvulnerabilitiesandsloppy
implementations.Theyalsomentionthattradersare“creaturesofhabit”andmany
timesrepeatedlymakethesameIncoterms®usageerrorsleadingtopreventablerisk.
Bergamioffersasimilarsentiment“therearesignificantproblemsingettingtradersto
changefromtheestablishedroutinestomoreappropriateandcorrectuseof
Incoterms”(2012,p.37).
Stapletonetal.(2014a)listsixcommonusageerrorsasfollows:
1. UsingFOBorotherseaandinlandwaterwayIncoterms®forcontainerized
transport.
2. UsingIncoterms®ruleswithoutclearlyspecifyingageographicplace.
3. NotadoptingtoarecentIncoterms®ruleversion,suchasIncoterms®
2000/2010.
4. BelievingthatusingIncoterms®rulesleadstoalegalcontractofsale.
5. BuyersmisunderstandingthedeliveryandriskpointswhenusingCFR.
6. BuyersandSellersintheU.S.misunderstandingloopholesintheCarriageof
GoodsbySeaAct,orCOGSA,of1936.
47
Stapletonetal.(2014b)addothercommonusageerrors.
1. “Ship’srail”asatransferpointwaseliminatedinIncoterms2010.
2. ProblemsarecreatedwhenusingFOBwithdocumentarylettersofcredit(DLC).
3. Bankinginstitutionregulationsoftenrequiredifferentdutiesofshippers.
Stapleton(2014)andStapletonetal.(2014b)alsogointomoredetailsbeyondwhat
hasalreadybeenmentionedaboutFOB’sinappropriateuse.Forexample,theycitethe
widespread“naked”FOB(i.e.notfollowedbyaportname)useonAlibaba.com.
Additionally,theymentionthedistinctionbetweenFCA’s“loading,”whichisconsistent
withcontainerizedortruckfreightofthegoods,andFOB’s“placing,”whichisconsistent
withbreak-bulkfreightofthegoods.McKinnon(2014)alsoindicatesthesubstantial
importerandexporterinappropriateuseofFOB(andCIF,CFR,FAS)forcontainerized
freight.Bergami(2013)foundthatbankingpracticesmayplacerequirementsupon
sellersthatarecontrarytotheIncoterms®rules.Supportingthisfinding,Roos(2011),
althoughnotinanacademicbook,foundthatbanksplacesecondaryimportanceon
Incoterms®,andU.S.Customsdoesnotrecognizethem.Glitz(2011)reviewedcourt
casesinBrazilandfoundthatcourtsmayeventuallyprovide“thecustomary
interpretation”oftheshippinganddeliverytermsusedbytraders,asBraziliandoctrine
andjurisprudencemaybeunfamiliarwithIncoterms®rules.
Zhai(2013)investigatesIncoterms®ruleinfluenceintheP.R.ofChina’sdomestic
trade.Indoingso,Zhai(2013)providesanexampleofanIncoterms®errorthatoccurred
inAugust2004betweenacandleproducerinChangsha,HunanProvince,China(seller)
48
andawholesalerinYinchuan,QinghaiProvince,China(buyer).Thepartiesagreedtoa
contractfor200cartonsfor20,000YuanwithanOctober2004delivery,buttheplaceof
deliverywasnotclearlystated.Thesellertransported200cartonsinSeptemberviarail,
butuponbuyerinspection,60cartonshadbecomedeformedduetoheatdamage.The
buyerpaidthesellershort,andthecasewenttocourt,whichprovidedtwofindings.
First,thesellerisresponsible,asitdidnotfulfillthe200cartonscontract.Second,the
carriercausedtheissue,sothesellerisnotresponsible,andthebuyerowesthe
remainingamount.Theverdictbeyondtheseopinionsisnotclear.Zhaiexclaimsthat
“noriskpointinthecontractistheunforgivableerror”andthatIncoterms®impacton
China’sdomesticgoodtradeis“landmark”(Zhai,2013,p.13).
Kumar(2010)suggestsswitchingfromFOBtoFCAIncoterms®inordertoreduce
freightcostsforaglobalretailsupplychain.ThebenefitofFCAisgeneratedbycloser
portroutings,duetoBuyer’sandnotSeller’spreferenceofport,andareductioninduty
toBuyer.Interestingly,KumardescribesIncoterms®as“aseriesofsalestermsusedby
businessesthroughouttheworldprimarilytofacilitateeasiertransactionsin
internationaltradebyclearlydefiningtheterms,conditions,transactioncosts,and
ownership/transferofgoodsinatransaction”(2010,p.52)Whiletheoverallbenefit
(reducedU.S.Customsduty,moreflexiblelogisticsrouting,greaterretailerlogistics
control,andthepotentialtoleveragepreferentialU.S.importerstatus)isaccurate,
Kumar(2010)makesacommonIncoterms®errorbystatingthattheIncoterms®
indicateownershiptransfer,whiletheICCclearlystatesthatIncoterms®donotindicate
ownershiptransfer(ICC,2010).
49
McKinnon(2014)examinestheinfluencethatshipperscanhaveoncarbon
emissionsfromthedeep-seacontainersupplychain.Indoingso,McKinnonsurveys34
largeUnitedKingdomshipperswithsupplementedfocusgroupdiscussionsand
interviewsofkeydeep-seacontainersupplychainstakeholders.Oneitemexploredis
thechoiceoftradeterms,whicharenotedasIncoterms®.McKinnonconcludesthat“it
isnotknowntowhatextentthechoiceofIncoterms®iscurrentlyinfluencedby
environmentalconsiderations”(McKinnon,2014,p.16).Whilenotpointedoutinthe
article,thearticledidfindsubstantialimporterandexporterinappropriateuseofsea
andinlandwaterwayIncoterms®rules(CIF,CFR,FAS,andFOB)forcontainerizedfreight.
Yao-HuaandThoen(2000)indicatethatelectroniccommerce,doingbusinessvia
electronicnetworks,hasstartedtoreplacepaper-basedtradeasitrelatestoB2B.They
acknowledgetheimportanceofIncoterms®inthesetransactionsand,most
appropriately,findthat“differencesbetweenIncotermscanbeverysubtle.”They
mentionthatthenegotiationprocessbetweenBuyerandSellerintheirdetermination
thatselectingtheoptimalIncoterm®isabarrierininternationaltrade“becauseit
requiresanexpertknowledgeaboutIncoterms®thatmostsmall-andmedium-sized
companiescannotafford”(2000,p.391).WhileIncoterms®guidesandbooksmaybe
useful,Yao-HuaandThoenobserve,“itstillrequiresaconsiderableefforttofamiliarize
oneselfwiththecontent”(2000,p.391).Accordingly,theauthorsnotethat“when
negotiatingthedeliverytermsofacontracton-lineitwouldbeveryhelpfulwhenthe
negotiatorcouldconsultanon-lineautomatedexpertsystemthatgivessome
explanationaboutthemeaningofthespecificdeliverytermsproposedinthecontract”
50
(2000,p.390).Therefore,Yao-HuaandThoendevisedaProlog-based“INCotermsAdvise
System”(INCAS)togiveusersadviceontheIncoterms®(2000).
Inthe“Training”category,HolleyandHaynes(2003)devisedamultimediatool
toassistinlearningIncoterms®contentrelatedtotheInternationalPurchasingmodule
oftheBusinessOperationsManagementundergraduatedegreeofferedbytheBusiness
SchoolattheUniversityofNorthLondonandforpart-timeprofessionalstudents
preparingfortheCharteredInstituteofPurchasingandSupply(CIPS)examination.
Withinthiscontext,HolleyandHaynesidentifiedproblemsassociatedwithteachingand
learningIncoterms®includingitsperceiveddullness,lessperceivedvaluebystudents
comparedtootherbusinessknowledge,littleretentionofcontent,perceivedlimited
applicabilityofIncoterms®bystudents,noavailabletrainingvideos,onlybrief
explanationsavailableonline,andtherequirementtobuytheIncoterms®bookforin-
depthknowledge.WhileHolleyandHaynesfoundthattheirmultimediaIncoterms®
trainingtoolincreasedstudentlearning,theyalsoobservedthatstudentsstillrequireda
hardcopyofIncoterms®information.(2003)
SimilartoHolleyandHaynes,Kocketal.(2008)testedweb-basedlearningfor
Incoterms®.Humorously,theirtestsusedweb-basedsimulatedthreats,suchasa
pictureofasnakeinastrikingposition,tostimulateusers’increasedlearningof
Incoterms®,whichwereinferredtobeadullsubject.Thestudyparticipants,whohad
nopriorIncoterms®knowledge,tested28%betterwhentheyreceivedthethreat
stimuli(2008).
51
Interestingly,fewarticlessuggestfutureresearchdirections.Stapletonand
Saulnier(1999,2001)suggestedthatfutureresearchshouldinvestigatehowIncoterms®
influenceinternationaltradeandstrategybetweenthebuyerandsellerdyad,how
variousIncoterms®influencebuyerandsellerdyadicshippingpractices,andhow
transportationprovidersreacttovariousIncoterms®use.
Bergamiadvocateddiscoveryofanyproblemsexperiencedwithinindustryand
whetherornottheseproblemswerethesamegloballyorratherlocalizedtospecific
geographicareasorindustries,rightfullypointingoutthatsuchresearchcannotbe
conducteduntilthemostrecentversionofIncoterms®ruleshavebeenusedfortwoto
threeyears(2012).Bergamisuggestedthatfutureresearchopportunitiesexistin
studyingthepowerrelationshipsbetweenbanksandtraders,inconductingresearch
throughoutmanyindustriesandcountriesforenrichingdataandrigorousanalysis,and
intheinfluencethatbankscanhaveoncontractsincludingtheadditionalcoststhat
exportersmayface(2013).
Stapletonetal.proposethatfutureresearchshouldcreateanexpertsystemto
betterguideBuyersandSellersinappropriateIncoterms®use.Theyrecommendthat
thesystembegroundedinTransactionCostEconomicswithGameTheorymechanisms
(2014a).
52
2.5MIXEDMETHODSRESEARCH
2.5.1Definition
Mixedmethodsresearchisanincreasinglychosenareaofmethodologyformany
researchersanddisciplines(Miller&Cameron,2011;Cameron&Molina-Azorin,2014).
Nosingle,widelyaccepteddefinitionofmixedmethodsresearchexists,andmany
researchersprovidevariousdefinitions(Creswelletal.,2003;BurkeJohnson&
Onwuegbuzie,2004;JournalofMixedMethodsResearch,2006;Creswell&PlanoClark,
2007;Thurstonetal.,2008;Teddlie&Tashakkori,2010;Davisetal.,2011;Cameron&
Molina-Azorin,2014).Creswelletal.definemixedmethodsresearchas“thecollection
ofanalysisofbothquantitativeandqualitativedatainasinglestudyinwhichdataare
collectedconcurrentlyorsequentially,aregivenapriority,andinvolvetheintegrationof
thedataatoneormorestagesintheprocessofresearch”(2003,p.212).BurkeJohnson
&Onwuegbuzie(2004)definemixedmethodsresearchformallyas“theclassof
researchwheretheresearchermixesorcombinesquantitativeandqualitativeresearch
techniques,methods,approaches,conceptsorlanguageintoasinglestudy”(2004).
CameronandMolina-Azorin(2014)recallthattheJournalofMixedMethodsResearch,
initscallforpapers,specifiedmixedmethodsas“researchinwhichtheinvestigator
collects,analyzes,mixes,anddrawsinferencesfrombothquantitativeandqualitative
datainasinglestudyoraprogramofinquiry”(2006).CreswellandPlanoClarkstated
that,
53
Mixedmethodsresearchisaresearchdesignwithphilosophicalassumptionsas
wellasmethodsofinquiry.Asamethodology,itinvolvesphilosophical
assumptionsthatguidethedirectionofthecollectionandanalysisofdataand
themixtureofqualitativeandquantitativedatainasinglestudyoraseriesof
studies.Itscentralpremiseisthattheuseofquantitativeandqualitative
approachesincombinationprovidesabetterunderstandingofresearch
problemsthaneitherapproachalone.(2007,p.5)
AsnotedbyCameronandMolina-Azorin(2014a),Thurstonetal.statethat
“mixedmethodsstudiescaneithercombinemethodsfromdifferentparadigmsoruse
multiplemethodswithinthesameparadigm,ormultiplestrategieswithinmethods”
(2008,p.3).Whereas,MillerandCameron(2011)presentTeddlieandTashakkori’s
(2010)definitionofmixedmethodsmethodologyas“thebroadinquirylogicthatguides
theselectionofspecificmethodsandthatisinformedbyconceptualpositionscommon
tomixedmethodspractitioners(e.g.,therejectionof‘either-or’choicesatalllevelsof
theresearchprocess”(2010,p.5).MillerandCamerondistinguishtheMMRapproach
toconductingresearchfromthatpracticedineitherthequantitativeorqualitative
approach(2011).
Mixedmethodsresearchisnottobeconfusedwithmultiplemethodsresearch.
Davisetal.helpclarifythat“multiplemethodsstudiesmayemploytwoormore
qualitativemethods,twoormorequantitativemethods,oracombinationofqualitative
andquantitativemethodsinwhatiscalledamixedmethodsapproach”(2011,p.468).
54
Miller&Cameron(2011)alsoattempttoclarifythedifferencesbycitingthe
InternationalJournalofMultipleResearchApproachescallforpapersbyLeechet.al
(2008),whichstated,
Mixedmethodologiesisdistinguishedfrommultiplemethodologies,wherein
mixedmethodologiesreferstoapproachesinwhichquantitativeandqualitative
researchtechniquesareintegratedintoasinglestudy,whereasmultiple
methodologiesrefertoapproachesinwhichmorethanoneresearchmethodor
datacollectionandanalysistechnique(includingtwoormoremethodswithin
thesameparadigm)isusedtoaddressresearchquestions.(2011,p.389)
Bysimplifyingtheoverlappingcharacterizationsfromabove,mixedmethods
researchisdefinedhereastheuseofbothquantitativeandqualitativeresearchina
singlestudy.
2.5.2History
Hansonetal.statethat“thehistoricalevolutionofmixedmethodsresearchhas
notbeentracedcompletelybyanyoneauthororsource,althoughDatta(1994)and
TeddlieandTashakkori(1998,2003)haveidentifiedmanyofthemajordevelopmental
milestones”(2005,p.225).Themethodofmultipledatacollectionistracedbackto
earlysocialscienceresearch(Hansonetal.,2005).AsshowninHansonetal.(2005),the
CampbellandFiske(1959)validationstudyofpsychologicaltraitsbroughtmultipledata
collectionmethodsintothelimelight.Althoughnotpuremixedmethodsasdefined
above(multiplequantitativedatawereused),thestudyencouragedmultiplemethods
55
andformsofdatawithinasinglestudyandhence,influencedresearchers(Sieber,1973;
Hansonetal.,2005).Later,theterm,triangulation,lentfromnavalsciencesignifyingthe
useofmultiplereferencepointstouncoveranobject’sexactposition,wasusedto
supportthecomplementarymethodologyofusingbothquantitativeandqualitative
datatoexploreaphenomenon’sexactnature(Denzin,1978;Jick,1979;Hansonetal.,
2005;Davisetal.,2011).Theuseofbothquantitativeandqualitativedatacould
unearth“someuniquevariance”thatcouldotherwisebeoverlookedbyanyone
particularapproach(Jick,1979;Hansonetal.,2005).
AsshowninbothMillerandCameron(2011)andCameronandMolina-Azorin
(2014),CreswellandPlanoClark(2007)alsoplottedabriefhistoryofmixedmethods
researchandfoundfour,sometimesoverlappingtimeperiodsofmixedmethods
researchevolution.Theseare1)theformativeperiod(1950sto1980s);2)theparadigm
debateperiod(late1970sto1990s);3)theproceduraldevelopmentperiod(late1980s
to2000);and4)theadvocacyasaseparatedesignperiod(2000+).
Mixedmethodsresearchhasbecomea“viablealternative”asasupplemental
researchmethod(Hansonetal.,2005)aswellasastand-alone,legitimateresearch
design(Greeneetal.,1989;Tashakkori&Teddlie,1998,2003,2010;Creswell,2002,
2003;Hansonetal.,2005),andprominentmixedmethodsresearchscholarshave
emerged(Greene&Caracelli,1997;Mingers&Gill,1997;Tashakkori&Teddlie,1998;
2003,2010;Creswell,2003;Hansonetal.,2005;Mertens,2005;Creswell&PlanoClark,
2007;Bazeley,2008;Bergman,2008;Bryman,2008;Miller&Cameron,2011;Cameron
56
&Molina-Azorin,2014).Beyondacademicjournalpublications(Miller&Cameron,2011;
Cameron&Molina-Azorin,2014),mixedmethodsresearchinteresthasalsospilledover
tochapterswithinresearchtexts(McMillan&Schumacher,2006;Sheperisetal.,2010),
andtoentiretextbooks(Cook&Reichardt,1979;Bryman,1988;Brewer&Hunter,1989;
Reichardt&Rallis,1994;Greene&Caracelli,1997;Newman&Benz,1998;Tashakkori&
Teddlie,1998,2003,2010;Bamberger,2000;Creswell,2002,2003;Toddetal.,
2004;,Creswell&PlanoClark,2007;Greene,2007;Bergman,2008;Andrew&Halcomb,
2009;Morse&Niehaus,2009;NagyHesse-Biber,2010).Specificacademicjournalshave
alsoemerged,suchastheJournalofMixedMethodsResearch,theInternationalJournal
ofMultipleResearchApproaches,theInternationalJournalofMixedMethodsinApplied
BusinessandPolicyResearch,QualitativeSocialResearch,andtheFieldMethodsand
QuantityandQuality(Hansonetal.2005,Miller&Cameron2011,Cameron&Molina-
Azorin2014).Practicalmixedmethodresearchguideshavealsoappeared(Hansonetal.
2005,Miller&Cameron2011,Cameron&Molina-Azorin2014).TheHandbookofMixed
MethodsinSocialandBehavioralResearch,currentlyinitssecondedition(Tashakkori&
Teddlie,2003,2010),isnotedasthe“mostcomprehensivepublicationofmixed
methodstodate”(Miller&Cameron2011,Cameron&Molina-Azorin2014).Specialized
conferencesandSpecialInterestGroups(SIGs)onmixedmethodsresearcharealso
emergingacrossdisciplines(Miller&Cameron2011).
2.5.3PhilosophicalFoundation
Afewauthorshaveendeavoredtodescribethephilosophicalfoundationfor
57
mixedmethodsresearch.TheseeffortsstartwithLee’s(1991)proposalforaframework
integratingpositivistmethods,suchasinferentialstatistics,withinterpretive
approaches,suchascasestudies.Leerefutedthenotionthatpositivistandinterpretive
approachesareopposedandirreconcilable,demonstratinginfacthowthesetwo
approachescouldbemutuallysupportiveratherthanmutuallyexclusive(1991).
Figure2.1-Lee’s(1991)framework
TheLeeframework,whichisdescribedverbatimbelow,containsthreelevelsof
understanding.
1. Thesubjectiveunderstanding,whichconsistsoftheeverydaymeanings
andeverydaycommonsensewithwhichtheobservedhumansubjects
seethemselvesandtheorganizationalworldaroundthem,
2. Theinterpretiveunderstanding,whichconsistsoftheorganizational
researcher’sreadingorinterpretationofthesubjectiveunderstanding,
Theinterpretiveunderstanding
Thepositivistunderstanding
Thesubjectiveunderstanding
58
developed,withthehelpofsuchmethodsasthoseofphenomenological
sociology,hermeneutics,ethnography,andparticipant-observation,and
3. Thepositivistunderstanding,whichconsistsoftheoreticalpropositions,
manipulatedaccordingto
a. Therulesofformallogic
b. Therulesofhypothetico-deductivelogic
sothattheresultingtheorysatisfiestherequirementsof
i. falsifiability
ii. logicallyconsistency
iii. relativeexplanatorypower
iv. survival.
Lee,1991,p.364
Lee’s(1991)frameworkcreatesatriangle,whichisdepictedinFigure2.1.Arrow
1goesfromsubjectiveunderstandingtotheinterpretiveunderstanding,whileArrow2
goesinthereversedirection.Arrow3goesfrominterpretiveunderstandingtothe
positivistunderstanding.Arrow4goesinreverseofArrow3.Arrow5goesfrom
positivistunderstandingtosubjectiveunderstanding.Arrow6travelsthereverseof
Arrow5,fromsubjectiveunderstandingtopositivistunderstanding.IncomparingLee’s
(1991)framework,Arrow1showsthat“subjectiveunderstandingprovidesthebasison
whichtodevelop[the]interpretiveunderstanding”(Lee,1991,p.351).Lee’sdirective
“totestthevalidityoftheresultinginterpretiveunderstanding,theresearchermay
59
referbacktothesubjectiveunderstanding”(p.352)isdepictedbyArrow2.WithArrow
3,“interpretiveunderstanding,oncejudgedtobevalid,maythenprovidethebasison
whichtodevelop[the]positivistunderstanding”(p.352).Leestipulatesthreeteststhat
wouldresultinpositivistunderstanding.Forthefirsttest,followingArrow4,“the
researcherrefersbacktothesubjectivemeaningsearlierrecordedintheinterpretive
understanding,[..]whichwouldthenserveasthepointofcomparisonforjudgingthe
subjectivemeaningscontainedinthepositivistunderstanding”(p.352),which
consequentlyfollowsArrow3.
Thirteenyearslater,BurkeJohnsonandOnwuegbuzie(2004),whenreferringto
mixedmethodsresearch,statethat,“philosophically,itisthe‘thirdwave’orthird
researchmovement,amovementthatmovespasttheparadigmwarsbyofferinga
logicalandpracticalalternative”(p.17).Theyfurtherexpandbysayingthatmixed
methodsresearch“isanattempttolegitimatetheuseofmultipleapproachesin
answeringresearchquestions,ratherthanrestrictingorconstrainingresearchers’
choices(i.e.,itrejectsdogmatism)”(p.17).Theygoontopostulatethat,“mixed
methodsresearchshould,instead(atthistime),useamethodandphilosophythat
attempttofittogethertheinsightsprovidedbyqualitativeandquantitativeresearch
intoaworkablesolution”(p.16).Theysuggestthatpragmatismwillnotendthe
philosophicaldebatesnorshouldthedebatesend.However,theyagreewithothersthat
forthemixedmethodsresearchmovement,thediscussionofpragmatismwouldbe
productive.Theyfurtherexclaimthat,“werejectanincompatibilist,either/orapproach
toparadigmselectionandwerecommendamorepluralisticorcompatibilistapproach”
60
(p.17).
BurkeJohnson&Onwuegbuzie(2004)“endorsepragmatismasaphilosophythat
canhelptobuildbridgesbetweenconflictingphilosophies,pragmatism,likeallcurrent
philosophies,hassomeshortcomings”(p.17).Someofthepragmaticshortcomings
mentionedare:1)Receivinglessattentionthanappliedresearch,whichmayappearto
producemoreimmediateandpracticalresults;2)Promotingincrementalchangerather
thanmorefundamental,structural,orrevolutionarychangeinsociety;3)Failingto
provideasatisfactoryanswertothequestion“Forwhomisapragmaticsolution
useful?”(Mertens,2003);4)Creatingambiguityinworkabilityorusefulnessunlessthe
researcherexplicitlyaddressesthem;5)Enduringdifficultyindealingwiththeoriesof
truthusefulnesscases;6)Failingasasolution(logical,asopposedwithpractical)to
manyphilosophicaldisputes;7)Enduringcompleterejectionbyneo-pragmatists,such
asRortyandpostmodernists,forcorrespondenceoftruthinanyform.BurkeJohnson&
Onwuegbuzie(2004)suggestthatresearchersshouldbe“reflexiveandstrategic”to
avoidpotentialconsequencesofpragmaticweaknessesintheirworks.
FollowingBurkeJohnson&Onwuegbuzie(2004),Hansonetal.(2005)identify
twoitems,paradigm-methodfitand“best”paradigm,thathavearousedconsiderable
debateastothephilosophicalbasisofmixedmethodsresearch.Hansonetal.(2005)
statethattheparadigm–methodfitissuerelatestothequestion,“Dophilosophical
paradigms(e.g.,postpositivism,constructivism)andresearchmethodshavetofit
together?”Thisfirstdebatesurfacedinthe1960sand1970s,whichsawthepopularity
61
ofqualitativeresearchincreasealongwithphilosophicaldistinctionsbetweentraditional
postpositivistandnaturalisticresearch.Thiseventuallyledtoaseparationbetween
traditionalinquiryparadigmsandnaturalisticparadigms.Forexample,somehave
arguedthatapostpositivistphilosophicalparadigmshouldonlybecombinedwith
quantitativemethods,andanaturalisticparadigmshouldonlybecombinedwith
qualitativemethods.ReichardtandRallis(1994)referredtoissueasthe“paradigm
debate.”Thisledtotheviewthatmixedmethodsresearchwasincompatiblebecause
nolegitimatefitexistsbetweencertainparadigmsandmethods(Smith,1983).However,
ReichardtandCook(1979)counteredthatcompatibilitydoesexistbetweendifferent
philosophicalparadigmsandmethodsbyarguingthatparadigmsandmethodsarenot
inherentlylinked.Theperspectivestillexiststhatmixedmethodsresearchcanbeused
withinoneresearchstudytakingadvantageofthepositiveaspectsofbothquantitative
findings,suchastherepresentativenessandgeneralizability,andofqualitativefindings,
suchasitsin-depth,contextualnature(Greene&Caracelli,2003).
Hansonetal.(2005)alsoaddressedthe“best”paradigmissuebyaddressingthe
question“Whatphilosophicalparadigmisthebestfoundationformixedmethods
research?”Multipleperspectivesalsoexistforthisquestion(Tashakkori&Teddlie,
2003).Oneviewisthatmixedmethodsresearchintentionallyusescompeting
paradigmsbygivingeachoneequalmeritandfooting.However,Hansonetal.(2005)
suggest“honoringandrespectingthedifferentparadigmaticperspectives”inastudy.
Theyidentifiedsixdifferentmixedmethodsresearchdesigns,andtheirperspective
suggeststhatmixedmethodsresearchbeviewedasa“method”thatallowsresearchers
62
tojustifyitsusebyanynumberofphilosophicalfoundations,andhence,the“best”
paradigmisdeterminedbytheresearcherandtheresearchproblemnotthemethod.
Hüttingeretal.(2014)remarksthatMatthyssens(2007)encouragesdisablingthe
methodologicaldividesbydisplayingparadigmatictoleranceandpluralism,hence
advocatingmixedmethodsresearch.
2.5.4Rationale
Buildingontheschemesofothers(Greeneetal.,1989),Bryman(2006)identifies
18differentrationalesforutilizingmixedmethodsresearch.TheyarelistedinTable2.4.
Table2.4-Rationalesforutilizingmixedmethodsresearch
1) Triangulationorgreatervalidity–referstothetraditionalviewthatquantitativeandqualitativeresearchmightbecombinedtotriangulatefindings,sothattheymaybemutuallycorroborated.
2) Offset–referstothesuggestionthattheresearchmethodsassociatedwithbothquantitativeandqualitativeresearchhavetheirownstrengthsandweaknesses,sothatcombiningthemallowstheresearchertooffsettheirweaknessesbydrawingonthestrengthsofboth.
3) Completeness–the“notionthattheresearchercanbringtogetheramorecomprehensiveaccountoftheareaofinterestifbothquantitativeandqualitativeresearchmethodsareemployed.
4) Process–quantitativeresearchprovidesanaccountofstructuresinsociallife,butqualitativeresearchprovides[a]senseofprocess.
5) Differentresearchquestions–Theargumentthatquantitativeandqualitativeresearchcaneachanswerdifferentresearchquestionsbutthisitemwascodedonlyifauthorsexplicitlystatedthattheyweredoingthis.
6) Explanation–onemethodisusedtohelpexplainfindingsgeneratedbytheother.
7) Unexpectedresults–quantitativeandqualitativeresearchcanbefruitfullycombinedtogeneratesurprisingresults.
8) Instrumentdevelopment–qualitativeresearchcanbeemployedtodevelopquantitativeinstruments,suchasquestionnairesandscaleitems,sothatbetterwordingormorecomprehensiveclosedanswerscanbegenerated.
9) Sampling–onemethodcanbeusedtofacilitatethesamplingofrespondentsorcases.
63
10) Credibility–employingbothapproachesenhancestheintegrityoffindings.11) Context–thecombinationofresearchmethodscanprovidecontextual
understandingcoupledwitheithergeneralizable,externallyvalidfindingsorbroadrelationshipsamongvariables.
12) Illustration–qualitativedataisusedtoillustratequantitativefindings,oftenreferredtoasputting”meatonthebones”of”dry”quantitativefindings.
13) Utilityorimprovingtheusefulnessoffindings–combiningthetwoapproachesismoreusefultopractitioners,asuggestion,whichismorelikelytobeprominentamongarticleswithanappliedfocus.
14) Confirmanddiscover–qualitativedataisusedtogeneratehypotheses,whilequantitativeresearchisusedtotestthemwithinasingleproject.
15) Diversityofviews–thisincludestwoslightlydifferentrationales–namely,combiningresearchers’andparticipants’perspectivesthroughquantitativeandqualitativeresearchrespectively,anduncoveringrelationshipsamongvariablesthroughquantitativeresearchwhilealsorevealingmeaningsamongresearchparticipantsthroughqualitativeresearch.
16) Enhancementorbuildinguponquantitative/qualitativefindings–quantitativeorqualitativefindingscanbeaugmentedbygatheringdatausingaqualitativeorquantitativeresearchapproach.
17) Other/unclear18) Notstated
Bryman,2006,p.105-107
Bryman(2006)suggeststhatresearchersclearlyindicatethegroundsformixed
methodsresearchuse.However,thereisanunderstandingthatresultsmaybe
unpredictable,andhence,actualpracticemayvaryfromtherationalegiven(Bryman,
2006).
2.5.5ComparisonofQualitative,Quantitative,andMixedMethodsResearch
Morgansumsupthereasonforusingmixedmethodsverywellbystating,
“virtuallyeverydiscussionofthereasonsforcombiningqualitativeandquantitative
methodsbeginswiththerecognitionthatdifferentmethodshavedifferentstrengths”
(1998,p.362).BurkeJohnsonandOnwuegbuzie(2004)provideausefulcomparisonof
64
qualitative,quantitative,andmixedmethodsresearch.Foreffectivemixedmethods
research,theysuggestthatresearchersconsideralloftherelevantcharacteristicsof
quantitativeandqualitativeresearch.Theyconsiderthemajorcharacteristicsof
quantitativeresearchtobefocused“ondeduction,confirmation,theory/hypothesis
testing,explanation,prediction,standardizeddatacollection,andstatisticalanalysis”
(BurkeJohnson&Onwuegbuzie,2004,p.18).Contrastingly,qualitativeresearchfocuses
on“induction,discovery,exploration,theory/hypothesisgeneration,theresearcheras
theprimary“instrument”ofdatacollection,andqualitativeanalysis”(BurkeJohnson&
Onwuegbuzie,2004,p.18).
BurkeJohnsonandOnwuegbuzie(2004)listthestrengthsandweaknessesfor
quantitativeandqualitativeresearchmethods.Thestrengthsandweaknessesof
quantitativeresearchmethodsarelistedinTable2.5.
Table2.5:StrengthsandWeaknessesofQuantitativeResearch
Strengths1)Testingandvalidatingalreadyconstructedtheoriesabouthow(andtoalesserdegree,why)phenomenaoccur.2)Testinghypothesesthatareconstructedbeforethedataarecollected.Cangeneralizeresearchfindingswhenthedataarebasedonrandomsamplesofsufficientsize.3)Cangeneralizearesearchfindingwhenithasbeenreplicatedonmanydifferentpopulationsandsubpopulations.4)Usefulforobtainingdatathatallowquantitativepredictionstobemade.5)Theresearchermayconstructasituationthateliminatestheconfoundinginfluenceofmanyvariables,allowingonetomorecrediblyassesscause-and-effectrelationships.6)Datacollectionusingsomequantitativemethodsisrelativelyquick(e.g.,telephoneinterviews).7)Providesprecise,quantitative,numericaldata.8)Dataanalysisisrelativelylesstimeconsuming(usingstatisticalsoftware).9)Theresearchresultsarerelativelyindependentoftheresearcher(e.g.,effect
65
size,statisticalsignificance).10)Itmayhavehighercredibilitywithmanypeopleinpower(e.g.,administrators,politicians,peoplewhofundprograms).11)Itisusefulforstudyinglargenumbersofpeople.
Weaknesses1)Theresearcher’scategoriesthatareusedmaynotreflectlocalconstituencies’understandings.2)Theresearcher’stheoriesthatareusedmaynotreflectlocalconstituencies’understandings.3)Theresearchermaymissoutonphenomenaoccurringbecauseofthefocusontheoryorhypothesistestingratherthanontheoryorhypothesisgeneration(calledtheconfirmationbias).4)Knowledgeproducedmaybetooabstractandgeneralfordirectapplicationtospecificlocalsituations,contexts,andindividuals.
(BurkeJohnson&Onwuebuzie,2004,p.19)
BurkeJohnsonandOnwuegbuziealsoclarifythestrengthsandweaknessesfor
qualitativeresearchmethods.TheseareshownbelowinTable2.6.
Table2.6-StrengthsandWeaknessesofQualitativeResearch
Strengths1)Thedataarebasedontheparticipants’owncategoriesofmeaning.2)Itisusefulforstudyingalimitednumberofcasesindepth.3)Itisusefulfordescribingcomplexphenomena.4)Providesindividualcaseinformation.5)Canconductcross-casecomparisonsandanalysis.6)Providesunderstandinganddescriptionofpeople’spersonalexperiencesofphenomena(i.e.,the“emic”orinsider’sviewpoint).7)Candescribe,inrichdetail,phenomenaastheyaresituatedandembeddedinlocalcontexts.8)Theresearcheridentifiescontextualandsettingfactorsastheyrelatetothephenomenonofinterest.9)Theresearchercanstudydynamicprocesses(i.e.,documentingsequentialpatternsandchange).10)Theresearchercanusetheprimarilyqualitativemethodof“groundedtheory”togenerateinductivelyatentativebutexplanatorytheoryaboutaphenomenon.11)Candeterminehowparticipantsinterpret“constructs”(e.g.,self-esteem,IQ).12)Dataareusuallycollectedinnaturalisticsettingsinqualitativeresearch.
66
13)Qualitativeapproachesareresponsivetolocalsituations,conditions,andstakeholders’needs.14)Qualitativeresearchersareresponsivetochangesthatoccurduringtheconductofastudy(especiallyduringextendedfieldwork)andmayshiftthefocusoftheirstudiesasaresult.15)Qualitativedatainthewordsandcategoriesofparticipantslendthemselvestoexploringhowandwhyphenomenaoccur.16)Onecanuseanimportantcasetodemonstratevividlyaphenomenontothereadersofareport.17)Determineidiographiccausation(i.e.,determinationofcausesofaparticularevent).
Weaknesses1)Knowledgeproducedmaynotgeneralizetootherpeopleorothersettings(i.e.,findingsmaybeuniquetotherelativelyfewpeopleincludedintheresearchstudy).2)Itisdifficulttomakequantitativepredictions.3)Itismoredifficulttotesthypothesesandtheories.4)Itmayhavelowercredibilitywithsomeadministratorsandcommissionersofprograms.5)Itgenerallytakesmoretimetocollectthedatawhencomparedtoquantitativeresearch.6)Dataanalysisisoftentimeconsuming.7)Theresultsaremoreeasilyinfluencedbytheresearcher’spersonalbiasesandidiosyncrasies.
(BurkeJohnson&Onwuebuzie,2004,p.20)
Byunderstandingthestrengthsandweaknessesofquantitativeandqualitative
researchmethods,theresearcherispositionedtomixmethods(Johnson&Turner,
2003;BurkeJohnson&Onwuegbuzie,2004,).Thisiscalledthe“fundamentalprinciple
ofmixedresearch”byJohnsonandTurner(2003).Thefundamentalprincipleofmixed
researchservesasamajorjustificationformixedmethodsresearchprovidingasuperior
studycomparedtomonomethods(BurkeJohnson&Onwuegbuzie,2004).
BurkeJohnsonandOnwuegbuzie(2004)alsoprovideanexcellentsummaryof
thestrengthsandweaknessesofmixedmethodsresearch,andthesearelistedinTable
67
2.7.
Table2.7-StrengthsandWeaknessesofMixedMethodsResearch
Strengths1)Words,pictures,andnarrativecanbeusedtoaddmeaningtonumbers.2)Numberscanbeusedtoaddprecisiontowords,pictures,andnarrative.3)Canprovidequantitativeandqualitativeresearchstrengths(i.e.,seestrengthslistedinTables3and4).Researchercangenerateandtestagroundedtheory.4)Cananswerabroaderandmorecompleterangeofresearchquestionsbecausetheresearcherisnotconfinedtoasinglemethodorapproach.5)Thespecificmixedresearchdesignsdiscussedinthisarticlehavespecificstrengthsandweaknessesthatshouldbeconsidered(e.g.,inatwo-stagesequentialdesign,theStage1resultscanbeusedtodevelopandinformthepurposeanddesignoftheStage2component).6)Aresearchercanusethestrengthsofanadditionalmethodtoovercometheweaknessesinanothermethodbyusingbothinaresearchstudy.7)Canprovidestrongerevidenceforaconclusionthroughconvergenceandcorroborationoffindings.8)Canaddinsightsandunderstandingthatmightbemissedwhenonlyasinglemethodisused.9)Canbeusedtoincreasethegeneralizabilityoftheresults.10)Qualitativeandquantitativeresearchusedtogetherproducemorecompleteknowledgenecessarytoinformtheoryandpractice.
Weaknesses
1)Canbedifficultforasingleresearchertocarryoutbothqualitativeandquantitativeresearch,especiallyiftwoormoreapproachesareexpectedtobeusedconcurrently;itmayrequirearesearchteam.2)Researcherhastolearnaboutmultiplemethodsandapproachesandunderstandhowtomixthemappropriately.3)Methodologicalpuristscontendthatoneshouldalwaysworkwithineitheraqualitativeoraquantitativeparadigm.4)Moreexpensive.5)Moretimeconsuming.6)Someofthedetailsofmixedresearchremaintobeworkedoutfullybyresearchmethodologists(e.g.,problemsofparadigmmixing,howtoqualitativelyanalyzequantitativedata,howtointerpretconflictingresults).
(BurkeJohnson&Onwuebuzie,2004,p.21)
Theintentofthislengthyreviewistoaidresearchersintheirdecisionaboutwhetherto
68
usemixedmethodsinaresearchstudy.
2.5.6BasicSteps
Researchsuggeststhatsomebasicstepsareneededwhendesigningamixed
methodsstudy.Hansonetal.observesthreebasicsteps.First,theysuggestdeciding
aboutwhethertouseanexplicitparadigm.Theirsecondstepinvolvesimplementation
andprioritizationofdatacollection.Thelaststepisadecisiononthepointatwhich
dataanalysisandintegrationwilloccur(2005).Evenmoresimplistically,BurkeJohnson
andOnwuegbuziebelievethatresearchersshouldmakejusttwoprimarydecisions:
whethertheresearcheroperateswithonedominantparadigmandwhetherthe
researcherconductsphasesconcurrentlyorsequentially(2004).
2.5.7ResearchDesigns
Mixedmethodsresearchdesignscantakevariousforms.Sincemixedmethod
researchisrelativelynew,designtypologiesarecontinuallybeingdeveloped(Hansonet
al.,2005).Someofthemoreprominentdesignsaredescribedbelow.
OneexamplecomesfromTashakkoriandTeddlie(1998),whoobservedfour
basicresearchpurposesformixedmethodsresearchasfollows:1)Development–the
useofonestudytoinformasubsequentstudy;2)Initiation–theuseofapreliminary
studytolaunchamainstudy;3)Complementarity–concurrentexaminationofvarious
facetsofaphenomenonthroughtwoormorestudies;4)Interpretation–concurrent
useofasecondstudytoexplainorconfirmtheresultsfromamainstudy.
69
AnotherexampleisofferedbyCreswelletal.(2003),whodescribesixprimary
designtypes:threesequential(explanatory,exploratory,transformative)andthree
concurrent(triangulation,nested,transformative).Thedesigntypesvaryaccordingto
“[the]useofanexplicittheoretical/advocacylens,[the]approachtoimplementation
(sequentialorconcurrentdatacollectionprocedures),[the]prioritygiventothe
quantitativeandqualitativedata(equalorunequal),[the]stageatwhichthedataare
analyzedandintegrated(separated,transformed,orconnected),andprocedural
notations”(Hansonetal.,2005,p.228).
Usinguppercaseletterstoindicatehighpriorityandlowercaseforlower
priority,Creswelletal.(2003)alsodescribedsixprimarydesigntypesasfollows:“Qual”
standsforqualitative,and“quan”standsforquantitative.1)Sequentialexplanatoryis
Quanàqual.2)SequentialexploratoryisQUALàquan.3)Sequentialtransformativeis
anadvocacylenswitheitherQuanàqualorQUALàquan.4)Concurrenttriangulation
isQUAN+QUALleadingtoresults.5)Concurrentnestediseitherqualnestedwithin
QUANorquannestedwithinQUAL.Lastly,6)concurrenttransformativeiseitheran
advocacylenswithQUAN+QUALleadingtoresultsoranadvocacylensQUALàquan
(Creswelletal.,2003).
Athird,moreelaborateexampleisdescribedbyBurkeJohnsonand
Onwuegbuzie(2004).Theirtypologyincorporatesninemixedmethoddesignsusingthe
followingnotations,baseduponMorse(1991).“Qual”and“quan”indicatequalitative
andquantitative,respectively.Aplus-sign“+”standsforconcurrent,andaright-arrow
70
“à”standsforsequential.Uppercaseindicateshighpriority,andlowercaseshows
lowerpriority.QUAL+QUANrepresentsaconcurrenttimeorderdecisionandtheequal
statusofparadigmemphasis.QUALàQUANandQUANàQUALrepresenta
sequentialtimeorderdecisionandtheequalstatusofparadigmemphasis.QUAL+quan
andQUAN+qualrepresentaconcurrenttimeorderdecisionandthedominantstatusof
paradigmemphasis.Lastly,QUALàquan,qualàQUAN,QUANàqual,andquanà
QUALareallsequentialtimeorderdecisionsandshowthedominantstatusofparadigm
emphasis.Withthisapproach,theresearchersremark,“onecaneasilycreatemoreuser
specificandmorecomplexdesigns”(p.20)directingmixedmethodsresearchersto
“mindfullycreatedesignsthateffectivelyanswertheirresearchquestions”(p.20).In
usingtheirmatrix,theytellresearcherstodeterminetwoprimaryfactors;1)whether
theresearcheroperateswithonedominantparadigmand2)whetherornotthe
researcherconductsphasesconcurrentlyorsequentially(BurkeJohnson&
Onwuegbuzie,2004).
2.5.8PrevalenceandUseinBusinessResearch
Traditionally,businessresearchhasbeenundertakenquantitativelywiththe
emergingpresenceofqualitativeresearch(Miller&Marchant,2009;Miller&Cameron,
2011).Forexample,CameronandMolina-Azorinconcludethattheoverwhelmingly
dominantmethod,usedin76%oftheempiricalarticlessampledfrompeer-reviewed
journals,isquantitative(2014).Recentlyhowever,mixedmethodsresearchhasbecome
partofbusinessresearchandhaseventakenasignificantroleindoctorallevelbusiness
71
research(Miller&Marchant,2009;Miller&Cameron,2011).Ofconcernistheslight
delayintheoveralladoptionofmixedmethodsresearchinbusinessdisciplines
comparedtoothersocialscienceareas(Miller&Cameron,2011).
Fortunately,mixedmethodsresearchhasgainedattentioninbusinessandas
such,prevalenceratestudieshaveemerged(Roccoetal.,2003;Hurmerinta-Peltomaki
&Nummela,2006;Hanson&Grimmer,2007;Bazeley,2008,Molina-Azorin,2008,2009;
Grimmer&Hanson,2009;Molina-Azorin&López-Fernández,2009;Cameron,2011,
Cameron&Molina-Azorin,2014).MillerandCameron(2011)investigatedthesestudies,
andtheyfindthattheprevalenceofmixedmethodsresearchratesrangefrom8%-25%
dependingonthefield.Fromtheirpointofview,thearealacksacknowledgement,and
thisposesabigchallengeforbusinessresearcherswhowanttousemixedmethods.The
empiricalevidenceinMillerandCameron(2011)showsthata“transitionalcreep,”
whichtheydefineas“aperiodicreflectionoftheevolutionofmixedmethodsasathird
methodologicalmovement”(p.398),hasenteredthebusinessdiscipline.Millerand
Cameron(2011)lamenttheimmaturityofthemixedmethodsmovement,asithasnot
yetenteredmainstreamuniversityteaching.However,theyacknowledgethatmixed
methodsresearchisagrowingmethodologychoiceforbusinessdisciplines,andthey
expectwideruseofmixedmethodsinthefuture.AsfoundinHüttingeretal.(2014),
Caddenetal.(2013)statesthatmixedmethodsaregainingimportanceinthefieldof
supplychainmanagement.Thoseinyoungfieldsofstudy,suchaspurchasingandsupply
management,agreethattheyshouldlearnfromadjacentfieldsandcombine
quantitativeandqualitativemethods,whichcouldofferthepotentialforaccelerated
72
knowledgegrowth(Tazelaar,2007;Hüttingeretal.,2014).Similarly,asfoundin
Hüttingeretal.(2014),Matthyssens(2007)encouragestheuseofmixedmethodsin
purchasingandsupplymanagementstudies.
2.5.9Recommendations
Hansonetal.(2005)provideseightveryusefulrecommendationsfordesigning,
implementing,andreportingamixedmethodsstudy.ThisissummarizedinTable2.8.
Table2.8-RecommendationsforDesigning,Implementing,andReportingMixedMethodsStudies
• Paycloseconsiderationtotheoretical/paradigmaticissues• Givecarefulconsiderationtodesignandimplementation• Becomefamiliarwithdataanalysisandintegrationstrategiesasthesemayoccur
anypointintime• Workinresearchteamstoprovideexpertiseforbothqualitativeand
quantitativemethods• Usethephrase“mixedmethods”inthestudytitletohelpfocustheresearch• Statetherationaleforusingmixedmethodsintheintroduction• Specifythetypeofmixedmethodsresearchdesigntobeused• Discussthelegitimacyandviabilityofmixedmethodsresearchcandidly
Hansenetal.,2005,p.233
2.6EXPERIMENTS
Experimentsarethetraditional,researchmethodsemployedforinvestigations
ofbuyer-sellerrelationshipslikenegotiation(Mestdagh&Buelens,2003),andthistrend
hascontinued(Buchanetal.,2004;Wolfe&McGinn,2005;Bottometal.,2006;Krause
etal.,2006;Huangetal.,2008;Friend,2010;Thomasetal.,2010;Nairetal.,2011;
Thomas,2013;Özeretal.,2014).Experimentationissuitablefortheorytestingofcause-
and-effectrelationships(Thye,2007;Siemsen,2011;Thomas,2013)whilemaximizing
73
controlandassessingcausality(McGrath,1982;Beatty&Ferrell,1998;Thomas,2013).
Unlikeotherresearchapproaches,asfoundinThomasetal.(2010),BeattyandFerrell
statethatexperimentsaretheonlyresearchapproachthatprovides“unequivocal
assessmentofcausality”(1998).Internalvalidityisaconcernwhentestingcausality
(Huangetal.,2008)asiscontroloverinternalvaliditythreats(Cook&Campbell,1979;
Huangetal.,2008).Experimentationiswellmatchedtoovercometheseconcerns
becauseexperimentsallowsdirectmanipulationoftreatmentsbyresearchersto
randomlyassignrespondentstoconditionsandtocontrolforconfoundingfactors
(McGrath,1982;Wacker,1998;Huangetal.2008).
Acommontypeofexperimentaldesignisscenario-basedexperimentation
(Huangetal.,2008;Friend,2010;Thomasetal.,2010;Thomas,2013).Scenario-based
experimentationcanhelptoreducebiases,memorylapses,rationalizationtendencies,
andconsistencyfactors(Greweletal.,2008;Thomasetal.,2010;Thomas,2013).Itis
also“lessthreateningtoparticipantsandallowsresearcherstoexploreinterfirm
relationshipphenomena”(Thomasetal.,2010).
Participantsinexperimentalresearchonbuyer-sellerrelationshipsaregenerally
MBAstudents(Mestdagh&Buelens,2003).ExamplestudiescanbefoundinHuanget
al.(2008),Friend(2010),Nairetal.(2011),Thomasetal.(2010),Thomas(2013),and
Özeretal.(2014).However,theuseofundergraduatestudentsisalsopresentinmany
studies(Buchanetal.,2004;Wolfe&McGinn,2005;Bottometal.,2006;Krauseetal.,
2006).Incontrast,theuseofnon-studentparticipantsisverylimited(Mestdagh&
74
Buelens,2003).MestdaghandBuelensfoundthat“only5%ofstudiesusepracticing
managersasparticipants”(2003),whichtheystateis“notexactlygoodnews”(2003).
75
CHAPTER3
METHODOLOGY
3.1INTRODUCTION
Thisstudyusesamixedmethodsresearchapproach,definedhereastheuseof
bothquantitativeandqualitativeresearchinasinglestudy.Byunderstandingthe
strengthsandweaknessesofquantitativeandqualitativeresearchmethods,the
researcherispositionedtomixmethodstherebyprovidingasuperiorstudycompared
tomono-methodresearch(Johnson&Turner,2003;BurkeJohnson&Onwuegbuzie
2004).Byconductingmixedmethodsresearch,hencebecominga“mixed-
methodologist,”researchersarecapableofnotonlyemployingqualitativeand
quantitativemethods,butalsoofintegratingbothmethodstogetherina“third
methodology”(Bazeley,2003,2006;Halcomb&Andrew,2009).Mixedmethods
researchalsoprovidesresearcherstheopportunitytobecreativeinresearch
presentation(Halcomb&Andrew,2009).
UsingthemixedmethodsresearchofBurkeJohnson&Onwuegbuzie(2004),this
studytransactsqualàQUALàQUANviaapilotcasestudyandmultiplecasestudies,
followedbyanexperiment.Thissequentialmixedmethoddesignsupportsmore
compellingfindings(Halcomb&Andrew,2009).Bothcasestudyandexperimental
researchmethodsareappropriateforthe“how”and“why”typeofresearchquestions
(Yin,2014).
76
Study1isaqualitativepilotcasestudythatseeksevidenceofoutcomesdueto
logisticsmanagementcommunicationerrors(i.e.Incoterm®usageerrors)withina
purposefulsampleofananonymoussingle,large,internationalcorporationoperatingin
multipleindustrialmarkets.
Study2conductsmultiplequalitativecasestudiesthatexplorehowbuyer-seller
dyadsnegotiateandcommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisionsandthe
communicationerrorsthatoccurwithinbuyer-sellerdyads.Dyadsaredrawnfroma
purposefulsampleofcaseswhereatleastonedyadicmemberisassociatedwiththe
anonymouslarge,internationalcorporationoperatinginmultipleindustrialmarkets.
Interviewswithbothmembersofeachselecteddyadareconducted.U.S.tonon-U.S.
dyads,U.S.toU.S.dyads,andnon-U.S.tonon-U.S.dyadsareidentified,selected,and
explored.Thisprovidesaholisticviewofglobaldyads.Duetotheexploratory
characteristicsoftheresearchquestion,groundedtheoryisdeemedappropriateto
allowtheflexibilityneededforappropriateexplorationinStudyoneandStudytwo
(Glaser&Strauss,1967;Patton,1990;Eisenhardt,1989;Yin,1989;Pappu&Mundy,
2002;Thomas,2013).Groundedtheoryallowstheorydiscoveryfromsystematically
obtaineddata(Pappu&Mundy,2002).
Study3quantitativelytestshypothesesdevelopedfromanalysisoftheresultsof
Studytwoandseekstofindwaystoimprovethequalityofcommunicationoflogistics
managementdecisionsinbuyer-sellerdyads.Thishypothesistestingisconductedvia
experimentscompletedattheanonymouslarge,internationalcorporationoperatingin
77
multipleindustrialmarkets.Anexperimentalresearchdesignisanappropriatesetting
forthesystematictestingoftheory(Thye,2007;Siemsen,2011;Thomas,2013).
Buyer-sellerrelationshipscandifferduetoindustrialcircumstances(Goffinetal.,
2006;Autry&Golicic,2010).Therearesignificantdyadicrelationshipmeasurement
differencesandvariancesfromindustrytoindustryandfirm-to-firm(Goffinetal.,2006;
Autry&Golicic,2010).Researchdesignandexecutionacrossmultiplefirmsand
industriesaresubsequentlyaggregatedorcomparedandarethuslikelytoencounter
errorsduetotheartificiallyimposeduniformityofmetricswhichmayunderestimate
thetrueeffectsinonecontextwhileoverstatingtheminothers(Autry&Golicic,2010).
Restrictingthisstudytodyadswhereatleastonememberisassociatedwithasingle
companyenhancesinternalvalidityatsomeexpensetoexternalvalidity.
RecognizingtheresearchquestionsandthequalàQUALàQUANresearch
approachstatedabove,therationalessuggestedbyBryman(2006)areappliedtothis
mixedmethodsresearch.ThefollowingsevenBryman(2006)rationalesarerelevantto
thisstudy:1)“Triangulation”istheexpectationthatthequalitativeandquantitative
portionswillmutuallycorroborateoneanother.Thisstudywillbuilduponcasestudy
researchandthenuseexperimentalresearchtofurthersubstantiateorrefutethe
qualitativefindings.Brymanalsoremarkedthatseparatingandsequencingthe
qualitativeandquantitativetechniqueswilldrawontheirstrengthsanddiminishtheir
weaknesses(2006).Strengthsandweaknessesofbothresearchapproacheswillbe
noted.2)With“Completeness,”acomprehensiveaccountisexpected(Bryman,2006).
78
Forthisstudy’spopulation,usingbothqualitativeandquantitativemethodswillprovide
afullerexaminationofthephenomenonwithinthepopulationsetofbuyer-sellerdyads
intheanonymouslarge,internationalcorporationintheindustrialmarket.3)
“Explanation”isthatthequantitativemethodisexpectedtoexplainqualitativefindings
(Bryman,2006).Baseduponthequalitativefindings,furtherexplanationwillberealized
fromthequantitativefindings.4)“Instrumentdevelopment”appliesbecausethe
qualitativecasestudieswillbeusedtodevelophypotheses.Throughthisstudy’scase
studies,hypothesesandtreatmentswillbecomeevidentandfine-tunedpriorto
experimentalresearch.5)“Credibility”meansthatthefindingswillhavemoreintegrity.
6)“Utility”appliesbecausefindingsareexpectedtobeusefulforpractitionersandtheir
appliedfocus.ElucidationofIncoterms®challengeswillhelppractitionersand
researcherstofindwaystoovercomethesechallenges.7)“Confirmanddiscover”
meansthatthequalitativecasestudieswillassisthypothesisgenerationwiththe
quantitativeexperimenttestingthehypothesis.Thisstudy’scasestudyresearchwill
formthehypothesestobetestedviaexperimentalresearch.Theaboverationaleswill
bemoreevidentbytheendofthischapter.
Usingthemixedmethodsresearchmodel,bothqualitativeandquantitative
componentsareemployedtoaddresstheresearchquestion(Halcomb&Andrew,2009;
O’Cathain,2009).Theresearchquestionsareinvestigatedviathreesequentialand
integratedstudies.Study1isaqualitative,pilotcasestudyfocusingonthecorporate
perspective.Study2involvesqualitative,multiplecasestudiesfocusingonbuyersand
sellersbothfromtheindividualandcorporateperspectives.Study3isaquantitative,
79
experimentalstudythatalsofocusesonbuyersandsellersfromtheindividualaswellas
corporateperspectives.Allstudiesaredescribedindetailbelow.
3.2STUDIESONEANDTWO:QUALITATIVEDESIGNOVERVIEW
Qualitativeresearchisappropriateforexploratoryresearch(Maholtra&
Peterson,2006;Yin,2011;Thomas,2013;Yin,2014).Thisresearchmethodisusedto
inquireintomeaningregardingsocialorhumanproblemsthataffectindividualsor
groups(Creswell,2007;Thomas,2013).Researchershavesuggestedthatqualitative
methodsbeemployedwithinbuyer-sellerrelationshipresearch,especiallyduetothe
subtlenuancesexhibitedwithinnegotiations(Rinehart,1989;Hopmann,2002;Ramsay,
2004;Thomas,2013).Withinqualitativeresearchmethods,casestudyresearchis
deemedmostappropriate.
Casestudyresearchhasbeendescribedinvariousways.Yindescribesthescope
ofacasestudyas,“anempiricalinquirythatinvestigatesacontemporaryphenomenon
(the‘case’)indepthandwithinitsreal-worldcontext,especiallywhentheboundaries
betweenphenomenonandcontextmaynotbeclearlyevident”(2014,p.16).In
essence,Yin(2014)suggestsusingacasestudytounderstandthereal-worlditems
importanttoyourinquiry.Yinfurtherstates,“acasestudyinquirycopeswiththe
technicallydistinctivesituationinwhichtherewillbemanymorevariablesofinterest
thandatapoints,andasoneresultreliesonmultiplesourcesofevidence,withdata
needingtoconvergeintriangulatingfashion,andasanotherresultbenefitsfromthe
priordevelopmentoftheoreticalpropositionstoguidedatacollectionandanalysis”
80
(2004,p.17).ThisindicatesthatYin(2014)believesthatcasestudyresearchisan“all-
encompassingmethod”thatincludesdesign,collection,anddataanalysis.Gableadds
that“casestudiesdifferfundamentallyfromsurveys(andfromlaboratoryexperiments,
fieldexperimentsandfieldstudies)inthattheresearchergenerallyhaslesspresumptive
knowledgeofwhatthevariablesofinterestwillbeandhowtheywillbemeasured”
(1994,p.5).
Acommonmisconceptionofconductingcasestudyresearchisthatitisnot
“rigorous”becausevariablesmaynotbemathematicallyquantifiedandindependently
manipulated(Meredith,1998).However,asmanyresearchershavecommented,the
scientificmethoddoesnotrequirestatisticalcontrolsandmathematicalpropositions
(Reichardt&Cook,1979;Bonoma,1985;Lee,1989;Yin,1989;McCutcheon&Meredith,
1993;Meredith,1998).PerMeredith,casestudyresearchachievesrigorthrough
differentmeans(1998).AsdescribedbyMeredith(1998),Lee(1989)explainstheways
thatcasestudiesattaineachofthefourrequisitesofrigor:controlledobservations,
controlleddeductions,replicability,andgeneralizability.Asopposedtolaboratoryor
statisticalcontrols,casestudyresearchutilizescontrolledobservationsvianatural
controls,whicharesimilartothoseusedbyastronomersorgeologists.Secondly,as
formallogicencompassesmathematics,thecontrolleddeductionsrigorrequirementis
satisfiedbyapplyingtherulesofformallogictoverbalpropositionscomingfromacase
study.Accordingly,itisnotarequirementtomathematicallyquantifyallstudyvariables.
Regardingreplicability,identicalcasestudyconditionscannotbeduplicatedinanother
situation.However,replicabilityisachievedbyapplyingthecasestudytheoryattained
81
toadifferentconditionset,whichmayresultinadifferentprediction.Accordingly,
whilethepredictionisdifferent,thesametheoryistested(Meredith,1998).According
toMeredith,theoreticgeneralizability,“wherethetheoryitselfindicatesthatitwould
beapplicableinaparticularsituation”(1998,p.450),isusedtovalidatetheabilityofa
casestudytobegeneralized.
3.2.1GroundedTheory
Groundedtheoryisappropriatefortheseexploratorystudies,asitis
recommendedwheninvestigatinguncharteredphenomenonorforatakingafreshlook
atanexistingphenomenon(Stern,1994;Pappu&Mundy,2002;Glaser&Strauss,
2008).Itallowstheflexibilityneededtoachievethelevelofexplorationappropriatefor
thisstudy(Pappu&Mundy,2002).GlaserandStrauss(1967)describegroundedtheory
asthatwhichisdiscoveredfromsystematicallyobtainedresearchdata.Straussand
Corbin(1990,1998)furtheraddthatthedatagoesthrougha“constantcomparative
method,”whichiswhentheresearchercontinuallymovesbackandforthbetweendata
codingandanalysislookingatdatafornewpropertiesandtheoreticalcategoriesineach
researchstage.PappuandMundydescribegroundedtheorybestbystating,the
“groundedtheoryprocessisverymuchlikeaniterativespiralconstantlyflitting
betweenenquiryandanalysis”(2002,p.38).Itisexpectedtoprovidemorerigorousand
robustresultsthanotherqualitativemethodologies(Stern,1994;Pappu&Mundy,
2002).CorbinandStraussnowgenerallyrefertogroundedtheoryastheoryoriginating
fromqualitativedataderivedviatheoreticalconstructs(2008).
82
3.2.2Design
Acasestudydesignhasbeendeemedappropriateforthesestudies.Thisdesign
offersasignificantcontributiontotheorybuildingandknowledge(Yin,2014).An
anonymouslarge,internationalcorporationoperatinginmultipleindustrialmarketswas
chosenasthedomainofthisdesign.Study1usesaunitofanalysiswherepurposeful
personnelwithinthecompanyofferinformationfromacompanyperspective.Study2
usesinterviews,orcases,astheunitofmeasurewheredyadicbuyersandsellersoffer
informationfrombothindividualandcompanyperspectives.Thisallowsforcontrolof
spuriousevidence,andhenceafurtherincreaseininternalvalidity.
Yin(2014)identifiesfiverationalesforconductingasingle-casestudy:critical,
unusual,common,revelatory,andlongitudinal.Forthisstudy,fourofthefiverationales
apply(critical,common,longitudinal,andrevelatory).Thesingle-casestudyiscriticalto
thetheoryandtheoreticalpropositions(Yin,2014).Thecommoncaserationaleapplies
becausethisstudycapturesconditionsandcircumstancesofeverydaysituationsasthey
relatetotheoreticalinterests.Thelongitudinalrationalepertainsbecausesomeaspects
ofthesingle-casestudyoccurattwoormoredifferentpointsintime.Lastly,andmost
importantly,therevelatoryrationaleappliesbecausethisstudyisabletoaccess,
observe,andanalyzeaphenomenonwithuninhibitedaccesstothelarge,(anonymous)
internationalcorporation.Asmentionedabove,Study1isasingle,pilotcasestudy,
whereasStudy2involvesmultiplecasestudies.
83
3.2.3DataCollectionProcedures.
Darkeetal.describeshowtocollectcasestudydataeffectivelyandefficiently,
notingthatit“requirescarefulplanningandjudicioususeofbothcaseparticipants’and
theresearcher’stime”(1998,p.282).Backgroundinformationoncasesubjects,which
maybefoundviapublicinformationorcompanypublicrelationsdepartments,is
neededpriortodatacollection.Thekeytopropercasestudyresearchisorganization
andcategorizationforbothanalysisandfuturereferencepurposes.Thisdatabasemay
includesuchcasedataasdocuments,video,audio,andfieldnotes(Darkeetal.,1998).
Yin(2014)listssixsourcesofcasestudyevidence:documentation,archival
records,interviews,directobservations,participantobservation,andphysicalartifacts.
Allbutphysicalartifactsapplytothisstudy.Emailsandothercompanydocumentshave
beenincluded.Archivalrecordsviaorganizationalrecords,suchasSAPreports,have
beenreviewed.Directobservationsoftheresearcher,suchasobservedIncoterms®use
onasalesorderwhileviewingaSAPR/3screenandparticipantobservationsprovided
totheresearcher,suchasverbalmisuseexamples,havebeenreported.Study1
primarilyincludesarchivalrecordsanddirectobservationsoftheresearcher.However,
mostdatacollectionespeciallyforStudytwohasbeenviainterviews.
Followingtheappropriategroundedtheoryguidelines(Glaser&Strauss1967,
2008;Strauss&Corbin1990,1998;Corbin&Strauss,2008),interviewshavebeen
completedwithbothmembersofbuyer-sellerdyadstoexplorehowthebuyer-seller
dyadsnegotiateandcommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisionsaswellascommon
84
communicationerrors.Dyadshavebeencharacterizedasinternalorexternalfacingto
thefocalcorporationaswellasbycountry.Anin-depth,semi-structuredinterview
approachhasbeenusedtomaintainfocusonthephenomenonofinterestwhile
allowingtheflexibilitytoproperlyexploreandelaborateit.Foruseduringthe
interviews,orcases,theresearcherhasformedanin-depthsemi-structuredinterview
guide.Thestreamofquestioningisfluidratherthanrigid,meaningthatthequestioning
ismeanttobeconversationalratherthaninorganic(Rubin&Rubin,2011;Yin,2014).
Theinterviewguidehelpstofacilitatediscussions,whiletheinterviewerallows
broadeneddiscussionifitrelatestothephenomenon.Whenpossible,audiorecording
hasbeenusedwiththepermissionoftheinterviewee,andtheconversationhasbeen
meticulouslytranscribed.Whenaudiorecordingwasnotpossible,detailednoteshave
beentaken.Study2wasassignedprojectnumber885996-2bytheUniversityof
Missouri-St.LouisInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB),anditwasapprovedunder
exemptioncategory#2.
3.2.4Analysis.
Followinggroundedtheoryguidelines(Glaser&Strauss,1967,2008;Strauss&
Corbin,1990,1998;Corbin&Strauss,2008),rigorousanalysisofinterviewtranscripts
andnotesisessential.Priortoanalysis,interviewtranscriptsandnoteswerereadmany
timestodevelopacompleteunderstandingoftheinformationandconceptsdeveloped.
AsfoundinPappuandMundy(2002)andThomas(2013),StraussandCorbin(1990,
1998)furtherexpandbystatingthatthedatagoesthrougha“constantcomparative
85
method,”whichiswhentheresearcherconstantlymovesbackandforthbetweendata
codingandanalysislookingatdatafornewpropertiesandtheoreticalcategoriesineach
researchstage.Thisconstantcomparisoncanoccursimultaneously(Locke,1996;
Thomas,2013).Words,sentences,andparagraphsarecodedandeventually,concepts
emerge.Thesameoccursforothersourcesofevidencedocumentation,archival
records,interviews,directobservations,andparticipantobservation.Study1reports
evidenceforoutcomesoflogisticsmanagementcommunicationerrorsorIncoterms®
usageerrors.Study2exploreshowbuyer-sellerdyadsnegotiateandcommunicate
logisticsmanagementdecisions.Italsoexpandstheknowledgeonlogisticsmanagement
communicationerrorsgainedfromStudy1andexploreswaystoimprove.Theoutcome
isaprocessdescriptionofthenegotiationtoarriveatlogisticsmanagementdecisions
withinthebuyer-sellerdyads.Further,thelogisticsmanagementtradeoffs(e.g.risk,
control,costs,etc.)andeventualIncoterms®consideredbythedyadsaredescribed.In
addition,waystoimprovecommunicationbetweenbuyer-sellerdyadsform
hypotheses.AsGlaserandStraussstate,“generatinghypothesesfromthedatarequires
onlyenoughdatatosuggestthehypothesis,notproveit”(1967,p.40).Thefollowing
hypothesesaretestedinStudy3:
H1:Incoterms®trainingleadstoadecreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbya
reductionininappropriateIncoterms®application.
H2:ProvidingfullyspecifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsleadstoadecreasein
communicationerrorsevidencedbyareductionininappropriateIncoterms®
application.
86
H3:ProvidingfullyspecifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsandIncoterms®
trainingleadstoafurtherdecreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbya
furtherreductionininappropriateIncoterms®application.
Inaddition,otherobservationsarelikelyforinclusionwithinfutureresearchstudies
beyondthescopeofthisstudy’sresearchquestions.Forexample,Incoterms®areused
forpurposesotherthanthosestatedbytheICC.AnotherexamplemaybeIncoterms®
importanceforusewithatransportationmanagementsystem(TMS)thatallowsthe
TMStoclearlydefinethecompany’stransportationobligations.
3.2.5Sampling.
Followinggroundedtheoryguidelines(Glaser&Strauss,1967,2008;Corbin&
Strauss,2008;Strauss&Corbin,1990,1998),thisstudyhasutilizedpurposiveand
theoreticalsampling.Purposivesamplingistheselectionofspecificindividualsor
settingsbelievedtohaveknowledgeorexperiencerelevanttothephenomenon
(Thomas,2013).Buyers,sellers,andotherlogisticsfunctionswithinandexternaltothe
anonymouslarge,internationalcorporationintheindustrialmarkethavebeenselected
asmostlikelytohaveknowledgeofthephenomenon.Participantswereselected
throughtheresearcher’sknowledgeofthecorporation.Subsequentparticipantswere
selectedviatheoreticalsampling.Theoreticalsamplingiscollectingdatatoexploit
opportunitiestocultivateconcepts(Corbin&Strauss,2008;Thomas,2013).Sampled
participantsdirecttheresearchertootherindividualswhowerelikelytohave
knowledgeoftheconceptofinterest.Thekeyhereisthatconcepts(individualslikely
87
havingconceptualknowledge)aresampledasopposedtopeople(Corbin&Strauss,
2008;Thomas2013).Theoreticalsamplingparticipants,ofwhichthereisnomagical
number,aredirectedtotheresearcher(Thomas,2013).Conceptsaturation,whichis
thecontinualemergenceofanotion,iseventuallymet.
3.2.6ResearchTrustworthiness.
Quantitativeassessorsofresearchrigor(internalvalidity,reliability,objectivity,
andexternalvalidity)arelessappropriateevaluationcriteriaforqualitativeresearch,
especiallygroundedtheory(Thomas,2013).Thomas(2013)developedninecriteriafor
groundedtheorytrustworthiness.Theyarecredibility,transferability,dependability,
confirmability,integrity,fit,understanding,generality,andcontrol.These
trustworthinesscriteriawereevaluatedaftercompletionofStudy2.
3.3STUDYTHREE:QUANTITATIVEDESIGNOVERVIEW
AsstatedbyCarterandStevens,“experimentsprovideavaluablecomplementto
existingfieldstudiesbyprovidinghighlycontrolledteststoexaminetheeffectsof
independentvariables.Althoughsomefacetsofexternalvaliditymaybecompromised,
thetradeoffinincreasedcontrolaffordsresearchersasoundbasisforinferringcasual
relationships”(2007,p.1039).Internalvalidityisaconcernwhentestingcausality
(Huangetal.,2008),asiscontroloverinternalvaliditythreats(Cook&Campbell,1979;
Huangetal.,2008).Experimentsarewellsuitedtoovercometheseconcernsbecause
theyallowdirectmanipulationoftreatmentsbyresearcherstorandomlyassign
88
respondentstoconditionsandcontrolforconfoundingfactors(McGrath,1982;Wacker,
1998;Huangetal.2008).
TotestthehypothesesdevelopedinStudy2,hypotheticalscenariobased
experimentaldesignshavebeenutilizedwithinpurposefuldyadicbuyer-sellersamples
ofananonymouslarge,internationalcorporationintheindustrialmarket.Participants
couldfindascenariobasedapproachlessthreatening(Thomasetal.,2010).SinceStudy
3wasconductedwhollywithinthesameanonymouslarge,internationalcorporationin
theindustrialmarket,itwasimportantthatthesubjectsdidnotfeelthreatenedbythe
study.AnotheradvantageofthescenariobasedapproachstatedbyGreweletal.isthat
it“reducesbiasesfrommemorylapses,rationalizationtendencies,andconsistency
factors”(2008,p.428).
3.3.1Sample.
Withinbuyer-sellerrelationshipresearch,theuseofreal-lifeparticipants,as
opposedtostudents,isverylimited.AccordingtoMestdaghandBuelens,“only5%of
studiesusepracticingmanagersasparticipants,[whichis]notexactlygoodnews”
(2003,p.34).Thepresentstudyhadaccesstoananonymouslarge,international
corporationintheindustrialmarket.Thecorporationagreedtoextensiveaccessforthis
researchstudy.Therefore,theparticipantshavebeendrawnfromemployeeswholly
withinthislarge,internationalcorporation.Bothbuyers,whoareprimarilypartofthe
corporation’ssupplymanagementfunction,andsellers,whoarepartofthe
corporation’ssales,marketing,andcustomerservicefunctions,havebeenpurposefully
89
sampled.Additionally,theanonymouslarge,internationalcorporationhadinternally
conductedIncoterms®trainingviatheirinternaltraininguniversityandgrouptraining
sessions.Bothtrainedanduntrainedindividualshavebeenpurposefullysampled.
3.3.2Procedure.
BaseduponthehypothesesdescribedinStudy2,thefollowingexperimental
procedurewasdevelopedforStudy3toquantitativelytesttheproposedhypotheses.
Aninternalemailcontaininganinvitationtoparticipateandalinktoaquestionnaire
initiatedStudy3.Theanonymouslarge,internationalcorporationprovidedaccesstoan
emaildistributionlistofemployeesinallbuyerandsellercorporatefunctions.The
emailsubjectandbodydescribedthestudyimportanceandinvitedemployeesto
participate.Thesameemailprovidedawebsitelinktostartthequestionnaire.
Voluntaryparticipantswererandomlyassignedtocompleteoneoftwoquestionnaires
presentingfiveidenticalhypotheticalscenariosregardingtheappropriateuseof
Incoterms®ineachscenario.Bothquestionnairesaskedrespondentstoanswersome
demographicquestionsincludingwhethertherespondenthadbeenrecentlytrainedin
theuseofIncoterms®.Thetwoquestionnairesweredifferentiatedbyproviding1)
operationaldefinitionsofcandidateIncoterms®whenselectingthecorrecttermto
employinthescenarioor2)onlythreecharacterIncoterms®withoutprovidingdetailed
operationaldefinitions.
Thisrandomassignmenttoaquestionnairewasimportanttomaximizeinternal
validityandminimizegroupdifferences(Webster&Sell,2007;Huangetal.,2008;
90
Thomas2013).Asrespondentsself-reportedIncoterms®training,norandom
assignmentwasrequiredonthisbasis.Therefore,fourtreatmentcellsresultedfromthe
2(Trained:Yes,No)x2(operationaldefinitionsfullyspelledoutorIncoterms®used)
experimentaldesign.The“trained”treatmentdifferentiatedbetweenthosetrainedand
thoseuntrained.The“operationaldefinitionsfullyspelledoutorIncoterms®used”
treatmentidentifiedwhetherthreecharacterIncoterms®orafulloperationaldefinition
withinagivenscenariocouldprovidebetterresults.
Withinthequestionnaire,abriefintroductiononceagaindescribedthestudy
anditsimportance.Initially,demographicinformationwasrequested,suchassex,age
range,role,yearsofexperience,etc.Participantsthenreadasetofinstructions
followedbyscenarios.Eachdependentvariablehadanassociatedscenario.The
participantsrespondedtoeachscenario.Thismethodassumesthattheparticipants
projectthemselvesintothescenarioandprovideanswersastheywouldnormally
respondinreallifeworksituations(Fisher,1993;Chandyetal.,2003;Antiaetal.,2006;
Thomasetal.,2010;Thomas,2013),basedupontheirownbehaviorsandvalues(Mick
etal.,1992;Thomasetal.,2010),andthetotalityoftheirentirecareerexperienceas
opposedtojusttheircurrentjobsandcompanies(Thomasetal.,2010).Thestructured
projectivetechniquehasbeenshowntosuccessfullyprovidemanagerialattitudeand
corporatestrategyinsights(Fisher,1993;Chandyetal.,2003;Antiaetal.,2006;Thomas,
etal.,2010).Thisresearchinstrument,thestructuredprojectivetechnique,hasbeen
showntobereliable,valid,andtrustworthy(Ramseyetal.,2006;Thomasetal.,2010).
91
Withinexperimentaldesigns,writtenscenariosarewidelyusedtooperationalize
independentvariables(Scheer&Stern,1992;Pillingetal.,1994;Dabholkar&Baggozi,
2002;Thomasetal.,2010;Thomas,2013).Writtenscenariobasedmanipulationsare
notreadingcomprehensiontestsbutratherverydescriptivepassages,administeringthe
participantwiththeexperimentaltreatmentcondition(Thomasetal.,2010).For
example,theword“risk”didnotappearinthewrittenscenarios.Termssuchas“likely
tohavedamage”forashipment“notincontrolof”wereusedinstead.
3.3.3Pretest.
Experiencedbuyersandsellerswithinthelarge,internationalcompanyaswellas
academicsubjectmatterexpertsreviewedthescenariobasedquestionnaireand
evaluateditsfacevalidity,readability,andrealism.Theexperimentalmanipulation
treatmentswerealsochecked.Revisions,werecompletediterativelyuntilthefinal
questionnairewasdeemedsuitableforreleasetothesample.
3.3.4InstrumentsandMeasures.
Theelementsofinformedconsent(45CFR46.116)werepresentwithinthe
questionnaire(U.S.DepartmentofHealth&HumanServices2010).Participantsreada
briefintroductiondescribingthepurposeofthestudyanditsimportance,includingthe
potentialbenefitstotheindividual,corporation,orothers.Participantswerereminded
thattheirparticipationwasvoluntaryandwereprovidedwiththeconditionsof
participation,includingtherighttorefuseorwithdrawwithoutpenalty.Confidentiality
protectionsfortheindividualswereprovidedviatheweb-basedquestionnaire.Since
92
thisstudywassentviaaninternalemail,participantswereremindedthattheir
responseswereanonymousandtheirindividualresultswouldnotbesharedwiththe
corporation.Noforeseeablerisks/discomfortstotheindividualortheircompensation
plansweretobeexpected.Lastly,contactinformationwasprovidedforquestions
regardingthestudy,participants’rights,andincaseofinjury.Study3wasassigned
projectnumber885996-3bytheUniversityofMissouri-St.LouisInstitutionalReview
Board(IRB)andwasapprovedunderexemptioncategory#2.
Theintroductionwasfollowedbyrequestsfordemographicinformation,suchas
sex,agerange,jobrole,andyearsofexperience.Next,participantswereaskedifthey
hadreceivedIncoterms®training,andifso,thetimingofthistraining.Participantsthen
readasetofinstructionsfollowedbyfivehypotheticalscenariosdesignedtoexplore
theirunderstandingoftheappropriateuseofIncoterms®.Theparticipantswereasked
torespondtothescenariobasedonhowtheywouldreactifthescenariowerereal.The
questionnairewascompiledafterStudy2toallowStudy3tobeinformedby
informationidentifiedinStudy2,andhence,allowingproperlyderivedhypothesestobe
tested.
3.3.5DataAnalysis.
First,descriptivestatisticswerecompiledtosummarizethedemographic
informationprovidedbytheparticipants.Second,asrespondents’participationwas
voluntary,twonon-responsebiastestswereperformedtoascertainthe
representativenessofrespondentsoftheunderlyingpopulationofquestionnaire
93
recipients.Thefirsttestexploresthedemographicsimilarityofthosewhoresponded
beforeandafterareminderemail,andthesecondtestexploresthedemographic
similarityofthosewhoprovidedfulloronlypartialresponsestothequestionnaire.The
demographicinformationwascomparedofthesetwopartitioningofrespondentsusing
simplet-tests.
Next,toexploretheeffectsofIncoterms®training,providingoperational
definitions(whenusingIncoterms®),andthepresenceofbothfactorsonreducing
inappropriateIncoterms®applicationonindividualscenariosexaminedbythe
questionnaire,fivebinarylogisticregressionmodelswereformulatedandestimated.
Eachlogisticregressionmodelemploysasitsdependentvariableabinarycategorization
ofwhethertherespondentcorrectlyansweredthatscenario’squestion(yesorno).The
independentvariablesthataffecttheprobabilityofarespondentcorrectlyanswering
thequestionarethreecategoricalvariablesassociatedwitheachrespondent:(1)has
therespondentbeentrainedinIncoterms®usageornot;(2)weretheoperational
definitionsassociatedwiththeIncoterms®providedinthescenarioresponsesornot;
and(3)isthereaninteractionvariableindicatingthattherespondentisbothtrainedin
Incoterms®usageandtheoperationaldefinitionswasprovidedtotherespondentwhen
answeringthequestion.Thisanalyticalapproachisappropriatewhenmodeling
questionresponsesasbinarycategoricalvariables(Robertset.al,1987).
ToexploretheeffectsofIncoterms®training,providingoperationaldefinitions
whenusingIncoterms®,andthepossibleinteractionofbothonreducinginappropriate
Incoterms®applicationacrossallthescenariosexaminedbythequestionnaire,an
94
ordinallogisticregressionmodelwasformulatedandestimated.Theordinallogistic
regressionmodelemploysasitsdependentvariablethecorrectnumberofresponsesto
allfivescenarioquestionsbyeachrespondent(0,1,2,3,4,or5).Thiscategorical
variablehasanaturalrankordermakinganordinallogisticregressionmodelagood
candidatetoevaluatetheeffectsofIncoterms®trainingandprovidingoperational
definitionsinreducinginappropriateuseofIncoterms®.Theindependentvariablesthat
affecttheprobabilityofarespondentcorrectlychoosingacrosscategoricalvariablesare
threecategoricalvariablesassociatedwitheachrespondent:(1)hastherespondent
beentrainedinIncoterms®usageornot;(2)weretheoperationaldefinitionsassociated
withtheIncoterms®providedinthescenarioresponsesornot;and(3)istherean
interactionvariableindicatingthattherespondentisbothtrainedinIncoterms®usage
andtheoperationaldefinitionswereprovidedtotherespondentwhenansweringthe
question.Thisanalyticalapproachisappropriatewheneverthedependentvariableina
regressionisqualitativeandusedtoexplainchoicesinvolvingmultiplecategorical
variablesinnaturalrankorder(Becker&Kennedy,1992;Greene,2000;Burnset.al,
2013).
95
CHAPTER4
DATAANALYSISANDRESULTS
4.1STUDYONE:PILOTCASESTUDY(QUALITATIVERESEARCHFINDINGS)
Study1isanexploratorycasestudyfocusingononeglobalcorporation,
employingover100,000peopleandoperatinginmultiplemarketsinapproximately100
countries.First,thestudyutilizedactualcorporatedatatoobservetheglobal
corporation’schallengeswithnegotiatingandcommunicatinglogisticsmanagement
responsibilities,especiallythoseinvolvingshippingtermssuchasIncoterms®.Further,it
identifiedthemisuseofIncoterms®usingrealcorporatedata,fromwhichitalso
uncoveredexamplesoftheconsequencesofmisuse.Lastly,Study1explainedthe
outcomesofthismisuse.
Toexplorethedyadicagreementsonlogisticsmanagementresponsibilities,a
dataextractfromSAP,whichisthecorporation’senterprise-resourcesystem(ERP)in
theU.S.,wasconductedusingoneyearofsalesandpurchasingdata.WithinSAP,two
Incoterms®fieldsexistforsalesandpurchaseorders:IncotermsField1containsadrop-
downlistoftwo-to-three-charactershippingterms,andIncotermsField2isafree-form
textfield.TheTables4.1and4.2belowdescribethefrequency,percent,cumulative
frequency,andcumulativepercentforIncoterms®Field1ofcustomerandsupplier
masterdata.“Blank”indicatesnothingpresentinField1.
96
Table4.1CustomerUsage
Customer Usage
Incoterms® Field 1 Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent
Blank 89 0.06% 89 0.06%
CC 1036 0.65% 1125 0.70%
CFR 142 0.09% 1267 0.79%
CIF 278 0.17% 1545 0.97%
CIP 301 0.19% 1846 1.16%
CPT 922 0.58% 2768 1.73%
DAF 41 0.03% 2809 1.76%
DAP 185 0.12% 2994 1.87%
DDP 1526 0.96% 4520 2.83%
DDU 368 0.23% 4888 3.06%
EXW 97145 60.83% 102033 63.89%
FAS 12 0.01% 102045 63.90%
FCA 25571 16.01% 127616 79.91%
FOB 24590 15.40% 152206 95.31%
NON 11 0.01% 152217 95.32%
PA 4091 2.56% 156308 97.88%
PC 3387 2.12% 159695 100.00%
97
Table4.2SupplierUsage
Supplier Usage
Incoterms® Field 1 Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent
CC 3004 11.55% 3004 11.55%
CFR 63 0.24% 3067 11.79%
CIF 26 0.10% 3093 11.89%
CIP 14 0.05% 3107 11.95%
CPT 268 1.03% 3375 12.98%
DAF 4 0.02% 3379 12.99%
DAP 373 1.43% 3752 14.43%
DAT 2 0.01% 3754 14.44%
DDP 128 0.49% 3882 14.93%
DDU 19 0.07% 3901 15.00%
DES 6 0.02% 3907 15.02%
EXW 8623 33.16% 12530 48.18%
FAS 2 0.01% 12532 48.19%
FCA 1056 4.06% 13588 52.25%
FOB 9475 36.43% 23063 88.68%
NON 771 2.96% 23834 91.65%
PA 884 3.40% 24718 95.05%
PC 1288 4.95% 26006 100.00%
Itisalsointerestingtoviewthecombinedcustomerandsupplierusage.Thisis
showninTable4.3.
98
Table4.3CombinedUsage(CustomerandSupplier)
Combined Usage (Customer and Supplier)
Incoterms® Field 1 Frequency Percent Cumulative Frequency Cumulative Percent
Blank 89 0.05% 89 0.05%
CC 4040 2.18% 4129 2.22%
CFR 205 0.11% 4334 2.33%
CIF 304 0.16% 4638 2.50%
CIP 315 0.17% 4953 2.67%
CPT 1190 0.64% 6143 3.31%
DAF 45 0.02% 6188 3.33%
DAT 2 0.00% 6190 3.33%
DAP 558 0.30% 6748 3.63%
DDP 1654 0.89% 8402 4.52%
DDU 387 0.21% 8789 4.73%
DES 6 0.00% 8795 4.74%
EXW 105768 56.96% 114563 61.69%
FAS 14 0.01% 114577 61.70%
FCA 26627 14.34% 141204 76.04%
FOB 34065 18.34% 175269 94.38%
NON 782 0.42% 176051 94.80%
PA 4975 2.68% 181026 97.48%
PC 4675 2.52% 185701 100.00%
FromthisinitialexploratorylookatactualIncoterms®usage,itisclearthat
Incoterms®2010rulesareoverwhelminglyused(91.92%)bythecorporation’s
99
practitionersforsalesandpurchases.AfurtherbreakdownbyIncoterms®rulesis
presentedinTable4.4.
Table4.4FrequencyofIncoterms®2010Use
Incoterms® Frequency Percent
CFR 205 0.11%
CIF 304 0.16%
CIP 315 0.17%
CPT 1190 0.64%
DAT 2 0.00%
DAP 558 0.30%
DDP 1654 0.89%
EXW 105768 56.96%
FAS 14 0.01%
FCA 26627 14.34%
FOB 34065 18.34%
Total 170702 91.92%
Onthesurface,theIncoterms®usageappearssubstantial.However,acloser
examinationofthecombinedusagetablesuggestssomeoftheproblemsassociated
withIncoterms®.First,threeUCCshippingtermacronyms(FOB,FASandCIF)overlap
withIncoterms®2010rules(LegalInformationInstitute,2015).Itisnotclearinthedata
whethertheIncoterms®ruleortheUCCshippingtermisintendedtoapplybutis
mistakenlyenteredintheIncoterms®field.TheICCsuggestsspecifyingtheIncoterms®
versions,suchasIncoterms®2010,toaddressthisexactsituation(ICC,2010).Dueto
100
SAP’sstructureandcharacterlimitations,specifyingtheIncoterms®version(e.g.
Incoterms®2010)inField2isgenerallynotpossiblewhenalsospecifyingthenamed
placeorport.Additionally,SAPdoesnotbydefaultspecifytheIncoterms®ruleversion.
Second,threeearlierIncoterms®rules(DAF,DES,andDDU)arestillinuse.These
Incoterms®2000ruleshavebeenreplacedintheIncoterms®2010rules.Table4.5
presentsthefrequencyofuseoftheseterms.WhilepreviousIncoterms®rulesversions
maybeused,whendoingso,theversionshouldbespecified(ICC,2010)and,inthis
exampledata,applicableversionsarenotspecifiedanywhere.
Table4.5FrequencyofuseofIncoterms®2000,DAF,DES,andDDU
Incoterms® Frequency Percent
DAF 45 0.02%
DES 6 0.00%
DDU 387 0.21%
Total 438 0.24%
Third,othershippingterms(i.e.non-Incoterms®)arebeingused7.84%ofthe
time.Table4.6providesdetailsofothershippingtermusage.
Table4.6FrequencyofOtherShippingTermUse
Other Shipping Terms Frequency Percent
Blank 89 0.05%
CC 4040 2.18%
NON 782 0.42%
PA 4975 2.68%
PC 4675 2.52%
Total 14561 7.84%
101
Interestingly,noneofthefourothershippingtermsareUCCshippingterms
(LegalInformationInstitute,2015).Infact,theyappeartobecreatedwithinthe
corporation.
Fourth,uponfurtherexaminationofthedifferenttextualdatainIncotermsField
2,whicharetoonumeroustousefullyshowinatable,consistencyandclarityisnot
present.TheICCsuggeststhatifyouuseIncoterms®rulesinacontract,youshoulddo
sobyclearlyspecifyingtheIncoterms®rule,followedbythenamedplaceorport,and
thenspecifyingtheIncoterms®versions,suchasIncoterms®2010(ICC,2010).This
suggestedapproachisnotevidentwithinthiscorporatedatasample.Furthermore,the
ICChighlyrecommendsthattheplaceofportbespecifiedaspreciselyaspossible(ICC,
2010).Onceagain,thiscorporatedatasampledoesnothaveclearandpreciseplacesor
portsnamed.
Lastly,basedupontheIncoterms®ruleused,thecorporationusessome
Incoterms®three-characterterms,butwithdifferentmeaningscomparedtothose
statedbytheICC.Forexample,EXWisusedfor33.16%ofpurchases.EXWrepresents
theleastobligationsthatasellermayagreeto,asthesellerisnotresponsibleforexport
formalitiesorloadingtheoncomingvehicle.However,perthecorporation(andits
freightpaymentdata),thebuyerdoesexpectthesellertoloadtheoncomingvehicle
andclearforexport,ifapplicable.ThisisanFCAIncoterms®rule.Conversely,sellersuse
EXWin60.83%ofsales.Withthisterm,thebuyerisexpectedtoarrangetheloadingof
themeansoftransportandclearexport,whereapplicable.However,duetoliabilityand
102
insurancerisk,thecorporationwillnotallowcustomerstobringtheirownforkliftor
craneontocorporatepropertytoloadthevehicle.Furthermore,duetoUnitesStates
exportobligations,thecorporationmaystillberequiredtoarrangeexportformalities,
andthisconflictswiththeIncoterms®EXWruleused.Onceagain,thisisanFCA
Incoterms®rule.
Duetothefiveproblemsidentifiedinthecorporatedatasample,buyerand
sellermiscommunicationseemslikely.Toinvestigatefurther,first-handaccountsofthe
consequencesofproblematicIncoterms®usagehavebeenprovidedbythecorporation.
Thesearebrieflydescribedbelow.
AcorporatelocationinSt.Louis,Missouri,U.S.A.placedapurchaseorderfroma
supplierinEurope.ThestatedIncoterm®onthepurchaseorderwas“FCASt.Louis.”The
corporatelocationinSt.Louiswasperplexedthatoncethematerialwasreadytoship,
thesupplierinsistedthattheywouldonlytakecareofexportformalitiespertheFCASt.
Louisagreement.Thebuyermaintainedthatthesuppliershouldberesponsiblefor
shipmenttothelocationinSt.Louis.Afterfurtherinvestigation,thesupplierinEurope
wasfoundtobeinSt.Louis,France!Consequently,thematerialwasshippedlateand
neededtobeexpeditedviaairshipment,whichcostthecorporationsignificantlymore
money.Thus,thebuyerpaidtoomuchforthematerialduetocommunication
breakdownoverIncoterms®interpretations.
AcorporatelocationintheU.S.repairedacustomer’sunitintheU.S.and
shippeditbacktothecustomerinMexicousingDDP(delivereddutypaid),whichisthe
103
maximumobligationforsellersrequiringthemtoberesponsibleforbothexportand
importcustomsformalitiesandduties.However,whentherepairedunitarrivedin
Mexico,itwashaltedbyMexicanCustomsagents.TheU.S.locationwasunableto
arrangeimportintoMexicobecausetheydidnothaveawaytoimportandpayduty.
Thishaltedtransportoftherepairedunit,whichwasalreadylate.Afterseveralweeksof
backandforthdiscussions,thecustomereventuallyagreedtoimporttheitem
themselves,andtheIncoterms®werechangedtoDAP(deliveredatplace).However,
thissubstantiallyaffectedthecustomer-sellerrelationship.
AU.S.localbusinessunitCategoryTeamLeaderadvisedthattheirbusinessunit
“standardlyusedEx-Worksasterms;eventhoughthesupplierisloadingforthem.”This
CategoryTeamLeaderwasunawarethatEXWdoesnotrequirethesellertoloadthe
collectingvehicleorcleargoodsforexport,whereapplicable.ThisU.S.localbusiness
unitwasunwillingtochangeIncoterms®rulesevenafterlearningofthedifferenceswith
FCA.ThisputtheU.S.localbusinessunitatriskofextraloadingcosts,exportcustoms
clearancedelays,orshipmentdelaysduetoadditional,unanticipatedshipping
requirements,suchasexportpackaging.ThissupportsStapletonetal.(2014a)
suggestingthattradersare“creaturesofhabit”andmanytimesrepeatedlymakethe
sameIncoterms®usageerrorsleadingtopreventablerisk.
Finally,Study1helpedtoidentifyotherconsequencesofmisuse.First,the
outcomeofinsuranceclaimsisdiscussed.Next,thecomplicationsoftheIncoterms®
ruleCIFareprovided.Lastly,twoexamplesofCIFcomplicationsareprovided.
104
Insurancecosts,risks,andresponsibilitiesarecriticaltotheoperationsofthis
globalcorporation.Manyofthecorporation’slargevaluesalesandpurchasesareatrisk
oflossuntilfinaldelivery.However,only2%oftheirsalescontractsclearlystate
insurabilityrequirements.Inmanycases,thecorporationnotesthatthechoiceof
Incoterms®,especiallyCIF,isdrivenbypaymenttermsandcustomsitems.Insurance,
andperhapsevenrisk,maynotbeconsidered.Thismakessalesorpurchaseorder
articles,suchasIncoterms®,increasinglyimportant.Inmanycases,logistics
managementpersonnelorothersknowledgeableaboutlogisticsmanagementriskare
notconsultedorinvolvedinthesalesprocess.Thesameoccurswiththepurchaseof
materialfromsuppliers;logisticsmanagementpersonnelarenotinvolvedorconsulted.
Duetotheabove,andotherfactorsexploredinStudy2,theriskexposureofthe
globalcorporation,alongwiththatofitsinsurer,haveincreasedinrecentyears.The
corporationhasseenannualinsuranceclaimpayoutsclimbashighas$13millionU.S.
dollarsinrecentyears,andthesearepaidonlyforclaimsthatexceedahighdeductible
threshold.Whenannualinsuranceclaimspaidorreservedexceedannualinsurance
premiumspaid,thereisalossratioover100%,andthisputsthecorporationatriskfor
increasedinsurancepremiumsinsubsequentyearsaddingtothecorporation’scost.
Insurancecompaniescannotsustainaconsecutivelossratioover100%.Anythingthat
canhelpreduceriskwillbenefitthefirm.Claimsbelowthehighdeductiblethreshold
aregenerallyabsorbedbylocalbusinessunits,andtheseclaimsareestimatedtobeat
leastthree-foldofactualinsuranceclaims.
105
Asmentionedabove,formanysalesandpurchasestheriskoflossisextended
untilfinalportofdeliveryordestination.ThisriskincreaseswhentheIncoterms®rule
CIFisused.BeyondtheformerlymentionedinappropriateuseofCIFforcontainerized
transport,CIFisrathervaguestatingthatthegoodsshouldbedeliveredinthemanner
customaryattheport,sothiscanvarysubstantiallyfromporttoport.Thisvagueness
canexposethecorporationtounintendedrisk.Further,CIFisfurthercomplicatedfrom
theportofdeliverytothepointoffinaldestination,astherearecircumstanceswhere
theremaynotbeinsurancecoverageduringtheinlandtransportsegment(e.g.portof
deliverytofinaldestination)tofinaldestination,ifthenamedplaceisbeyondtheport
ofdestination.WhiletheIncoterms®ruleCIFstatesthenamedportofdestination,
sometimesthisisignored,andthefinaldestinationisnamedinstead.Fortheportof
deliverytofinaldestinationleg,thecorporationhasnoinfluenceonriskcontrolduring
thattransportportion.Whiletheportofdeliveryhandlingisofgraveconcern,sotoois
thetransportationbeyondtheportuntilfinaldestination.Thisisevenmorecomplicated
withprojectcargo,asthegoodsmayawaitultimatedispositionatfinaldestinationfor
daystomonths.Additionally,thecorporationnotesthatthecertificateofinsurance
requiredforCIFhasheldupshipments,especiallywhenthecargoissubjecttofinancing
orsupportedbyaletterofcredit.Acquiringacertificateofinsurancetakestime,andit
isessentiallyalegaltenderthat,whichwhenpresentedtothelocalclaimsagentofthe
insurer,canbeconvertedintocash.
ThecorporationprovidedexamplesofCIFcomplications.Oneexampleisa
situationwherecargofelloffadrayagetruckduringterminalhandlingattheportof
106
delivery.Thecontractbetweenthecorporationandbuyerdidnotclearlydetailwhere
therisktransferredfromthecorporationtothecustomerattheportofdelivery.As
mentionedabove,thesetransferscanvaryfromporttoport.Ultimately,the
corporationaccommodatedthecustomer,sothelosswasabsorbedbythecorporation.
AsecondexamplerelatestoashipmentfromtheU.S.toHaitithatwassoldtoanagent
viatheIncoterms®ofCIFPortauPrince.PertheIncoterms®ruleofCIF,thecorporation
providedevidenceofinsuranceviacertificateofinsurance.Thelargesaleitemshipped
inAugust,anditwasdestinedtoarrivewithin5weeks.However,inOctober,the
corporationwasnotifiedbytheagentthattheitemhadbeendamaged.Asurveyorwas
sent,andthesurveyorreportedthatitappearedaforklifthaddamagedtheitem.After
numerousattemptstosecuremoreinformation,thecorporationeventuallycontacted
theharbormastertorequestthecaptain’slogregardingoffloaddataandconditions.
Eventually,aftermanyweeksofresearchandreviewofthecaptain’slog,PortauPrince
dock-workersadmittedtodamagingtheitemviaforklift.Oncetheitemwasoffloaded
fromthevessel,thedock-workershadmoveditmultipletimescausingthedamage.The
investigationwascostlyandabsorbedmanyweeksoftimeofnumerouscorporate
personnel.Theuseofanother,moreappropriateIncoterms®rulecouldhaveavoided
thiscostbyclearlyspecifyingthepointoftransferofriskorinsurabilitytoapointwhere
thecorporationhadmorecontrol,ratherthanatapointwherethecorporationhadno
control,suchasataforeignport.
107
4.1.2DiscussionofthePilotCaseStudy
ThepilotcasestudyforStudy1providesapreliminarylookataglobal
corporation’schallengesinnegotiatingandcommunicatinglogisticsmanagement
responsibilities,especiallythoseinvolvingshippingtermssuchasIncoterms®,usingreal
corporatedata.Asshown,Incoterms®areusedandlikelymisusedinobserved
transactions,andexamplesofmisuseareprovidedbythecorporation.Consequencesof
useandmisusearedetailed,whichincludeincreasedinsuranceclaimsandpremiums
andunintendedcomplicationsassociatedwithCIFusage.Twospecificexamplesofthe
misuseofCIFareidentifiedanddiscussed.ThecomplicationsofCIFmisusagearenewto
theliterature,addingtoitemstoexploreandinvestigateinStudies2and3.
Thecorporation,duringvariousknowledge-mappingefforts,observedthe
internallackofsufficientIncoterms®knowledge.Toaddresstheproblem,the
corporationhasbeenworkingtoincreaseIncoterms®knowledgethroughinternalweb-
basedtraining.Inaddition,internalIncoterms®expertshaveemergedasreference
resourcesforthoseseekingclarityoradvice.Furthermore,theirinternalenterprise-
resourcesystem(ERP),SAP,usedtoinitiatepurchaseordersisbeingupdatedtoallow
only“true”Incoterms®rules.
108
4.2STUDYTWO:MULTIPLECASESTUDIES(QUALITATIVERESEARCHFINDINGS)
4.2.1Introduction
Study2hasconductedmultiplequalitativecasestudiesthatexplorehowbuyer-
sellerdyadsnegotiateandcommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisionsandthe
communicationerrorsthatoccurwithinbuyer-sellerdyads.Caseshavebeendrawn
fromapurposefulsampleofdyadswhereatleastonememberisassociatedwithan
anonymouslarge,internationalcorporationoperatinginmultipleindustrialmarkets.
Interviewswithmembersofselecteddyadshavebeenconductedandrepresentthe
casestudies.SelecteddyadsinvolveU.S.andnon-U.S.dyads,U.S.toU.S.dyads,and
non-U.S.tonon-U.S.dyadstoprovideatrueglobalandculturalperspectivefrom
samplesinNorthAmerica,Asia,andEurope.Ultimately,14individualshavebeen
interviewedinStudy2from12cases.
Followinggroundedtheoryguidelines(Glaser&Strauss,1967,2008;Strauss&
Corbin,1990,1998;Corbin&Strauss,2008),thisstudyhasutilizedpurposiveand
theoreticalsamplingtoselectthe14participantsinthetwelveinterviews.Purposive
samplingistheselectionofspecificindividualsorsettingsbelievedtohaveknowledge
orexperiencerelevanttothephenomenaunderinvestigation(Thomas,2013).Seven
buyersandtwosellerswithintheanonymouslarge,internationalcorporationinthe
industrialmarkethavebeenselectedasinitialsubjectsmostlikelytohaveknowledgeof
thephenomena.Therefore,ninepurposefulparticipantshavebeenselectedthrough
theresearcher’sknowledgeofthecorporation.Subsequentparticipantswereselected
109
viatheoreticalsampling.Theoreticalsamplingiscollectingdatatoexploitopportunities
tocultivateconcepts(Corbin&Strauss,2008;Thomas,2013).Ninesampled
participants,manyofthosechosenbytheresearcher,directedtheresearchertoother
individualslikelytohaveknowledgeoftheconceptsofinterest.Throughtheoretical
sampling,theoreticalsaturationcanbeachieved(Mello,2006;Williams,2014).
4.2.2DataCollection
Anin-depthsemi-structuredinterviewguidewasusedtoensurefocusofthe
researcherandparticipantsonthefourresearchquestions.Thecontentofthein-depth
semi-structuredinterviewguideisderivedfrominformationavailablefromthe
literaturereviewandtheresearcher’sknowledgeofthephenomena.Whenanin-depth
semi-structuredinterviewguideisused,conversationscoulddeviatewithopenand
flexiblediscoursethatallowsparticipantstosteerconversationswithintopicareas.The
interviewguideispresentedinAppendixII–StudyTwoIn-DepthSemi-Structured
InterviewGuide.Participantshavebeenencouragedtodrawoneitherrecentoratypical
experiencesintopicareasandwereprovidedacopyofthestructuredquestionswellin
advanceoftheinterviewallowingthemsomepreparationtimetoreflectonrelevant
experiences.
Thein-depthsemi-structuredinterviewguidefacilitatedthecodingof
intervieweeresponses.Mentorreviews,expertreviews,andapilotinterviewwereused
toverifytheinterviewguideforcompletenessandtoalleviateanypotentialissueswith
usingtheinterviewguide.Thementorreviewsconsistedofthisdissertationcommittee
110
reviewingandprovidingfeedbackontheinterviewguide.Similarly,expertreviewsfrom
withintheanonymouslarge,internationalcorporationoperatinginmultipleindustrial
marketshavebeenconducted.Onefinalpilotinterviewwasusedtofurtherfine-tune
thein-depthsemi-structuredinterviewguide.Thisiterativeprocesshasresultedinthe
finalin-depthsemi-structuredinterviewguidefoundinAppendixII.
4.2.3Sample
Atotalof12interviewswith14participantshasbeencompletedviatelephone
andrecordedwitheachparticipant’spermission.Theinterviewslastedbetween42and
84minutes.Usingtheaudiorecording,allinterviewshavebeentranscribedverbatimto
enablefurtheranalysis.Transcriptionhasresultedin158pagesofinterviewsplus36
pagesofinterviewernotes.Table4.7describestheparticipantsanddyads.Asshownin
Table4.7,sevenindividualsrepresentthe“buyer”inadyad,andsevenindividuals
representthe“seller.”Bothsidesoffourtruebuyer-sellerdyadshaveparticipated,
whilefourparticipantswhoseopposingdyadicpartnerswerenotavailablehavealso
beeninterviewed.Participants’yearsofexperiencerangedfromaminimumof9years
toamaximumof41yearswithanaverageof19yearsofexperience.Mostparticipants
statedthattheynegotiatedlogisticsdecisionsonaglobalbasis,whileonlyone
participantnegotiatedlocally,andoneothernegotiatedregionally.Thelevelof
negotiationsvariedbyparticipantwithagoodmixofstrategic,strategic/transactional,
andtransactionallogisticsdecisions.Thisrepresentedwelltherangeofallnegotiation
levelswithinthefocalorganization.Allparticipantshadnegotiatedlogistics
111
arrangementsforgoodsusedinmanufacturingproductionwithanannualspend/sales
pernegotiationrangingfrom$125,000to$600,000,000USD.
Table4.7-ParticipantandDyadTable
*Opposingdyadnotavailable
**Unknown/wouldnotdisclose
4.2.4DataCodingandAnalysis.
NVivoforMac©wasusedtofacilitatequalitativedatacodingandanalysis.The
researcherhasbeencarefultoproceedconsistentlywithgroundedtheoryguidelines
112
(Glaser&Strauss,1967,2008;Strauss&Corbin,1990,1998;Corbin&Strauss,2008;
Thomas,2013).Theprocessflowchart,Figure4.1,describesthemajoractivities
involvedinthedatacodingandanalysis.ThenumbersinFigure4.1indicatetheactual
numberofitemsprocessedineachstep.
Figure4.1ProcessFlowfromInterviewtoDiscussion
EachinterviewwastranscribedandimportedintoNVivoforMac©asacase.
Demographicinformation,suchasyearsofexperience,internalorexternaltofocalfirm,
andbuyer/sellerdyadhavebeenappendedtoeachcase.Initially,thirtyinformational
nodeswerecreatedcorrespondingtointervieweeresponsestothequestionsandsub-
questionscontainedinthestructuredinterviews.Thesenodeshavebeenanalyzedand
combinedtorepresenttheultimateresearchquestions,orcategories,thatemergefrom
thecasestudies.Tofirstfamiliarizetheresearcherwiththecases,awordfrequency
querywasrunonallthecases,andthenawordcloud,availableinAppendixIII–Word
CloudBeforeCoding,wascreated.WithinNVivoforMac,eachcasehasbeenthen
examinedmultipletimestofacilitateafullunderstandingofthedataineachcase.
Participants’responsestoeachquestion,whichcouldbeindividualwords,sentences,or
paragraphs,havebeencodedtoappropriatenodes,whichrepresenttheinitial
categoriesorthemesoftheresearch.Thisinitialcodingfromcasestonodesfollowed
theinterviewguidequestionsfoundinAppendixII.Tables4.8and4.9presentthe
Interview12
Trascription12
Case12
CodingCasestoNodes30
NodetoNodeCoding10
Category10
ResearchQuestion/Other
Categories4/4
113
codingfromcasestonodesinmoredetail.InTable4.8,thelargerboxesindicate
multiple-partquestionsmappedtomultiplenodes.InTable4.9,thecellentriessignify
thenumberofresponsesfromeachcase(words,sentences,orparagraphs)recordedfor
eachnode(questionorpartofaquestion).Followingthisinitialcoding,asecondword
frequencyquerywasrunfromjustthenodes,andthenanotherwordcloud,whichis
availableinAppendixIV–WordCloudAfterCoding,wascreated.TheresultofAppendix
IV–WordCloudAfterCodingindicatesmorerefinementcomparedtoAppendixIII–
WordCloudBeforeCoding.
Table4.8-CasetoNodeCodingTable
114
Table4.9-CasetoNodeCodingTable
WithinNVivoforMac©,nodalresponsesacrossthecaseswerethenexamined
tofullyunderstandtherelationshipbetweentheinformationcontainedintheindividual
115
nodesandtheoriginalresearchquestions(asgroupsorcategoriesofnodes).Further
codingforwords,sentences,orparagraphswasconductedtoidentifyrelationships
betweenexistingnodalcategoriestoidentifyemergentcategoriesnotpreviously
identifiedintheoriginalresearchquestions.Thefollowingtwotables,NodetoCategory
CodingTable4.10andNodetoCategoryCodingTable4.11,presenttheresultsofthe
subsequentre-codingsfromtheoriginalnodestothefinalsetofcategoriesidentifiedin
thedata.IntheNodetoCategoryCodingTable4.10,largerboxesindicatemore
complexcategories,andintheNodetoCategoryCodingTable4.11,cellentriessignify
thenumberofresponsesinnodesmappedtoeachfinalcategory.Additionally,thefirst
rowoftheNodetoCategoryCodingTable4.11showstherelationshipofthefinal
categoriestothefouroriginalresearchquestionsandtheemergentcategories.
Followingthisinitialcoding,anotherwordfrequencyquerywasrunfromjustthenodes,
andthenawordcloud,whichisavailableinAppendixV–WordCloudAfterNodeto
CategoryCoding,wascreated.TheresultofAppendixV–WordCloudAfterNodeto
CategoryindicatesmorerefinementcomparedtoAppendixIV–WordCloudAfter
Coding.
Table4.10-NodetoCategoryCodingTable
116
Table4.11-NodetoCategoryCodingTable
R1=Howdobuyer-sellerdyadsnegotiatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?R2=Howdobuyer-sellerdyadscommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?R3=Whydologisticsmanagementdecisioncommunicationerrorsoccurbetweenbuyer-sellerdyads?R4=Whatcanimprovethequalityofbuyer-sellerdyads’communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions?Other=OthercategoriesdiscoveredDemographic=Demographicinformation
ThefollowingsampleprocessFigure4.2presentsthedetailsofanexampleof
themappingfromtheoriginal30nodesineachinterviewtothefinalcategoryof
researchquestionR4,“Whatcanimprovethequalityofbuyer-sellerdyads’
communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions?”
117
Figure4.2-SampleProcess
Theanalyticalprocessdescribedaboveisconsistentwiththeconstant
comparativemethodinwhichtheresearcherconstantlymovesbackandforthbetween
datacoding,analysis,andwithin/betweentranscriptslookingatdatafornewproperties
andtheoreticalcategories(Strauss&Corbin,1990,1998;Pappu&Mundy,2002;
Thomas,2013).
4.2.5TheoreticalSaturation
AsposedbyWilliams(2014),“akeyquestioningroundedtheoryresearchis:
Howwilltheresearcherknowwhentheresearchiscomplete?”Followinggrounded
theoryguidelines(Glaser&Strauss,1967,2008;Strauss&Corbin,1990,1998;Goulding,
2002;Mello,2006;Corbin&Strauss,2008;Thomas,2013;Williams,2014),data
collectioncontinuesuntiltheresearcherdeterminesthattheoreticalsaturationhas
beenmet.Theoreticalsaturationisreachedwhennonewinformationisobtainedfrom
asubsequentinterview(Goulding,2002;Thomas,2013;Williams,2014).Asnoted
furtherbyWilliams(2014),CorbinandStrauss(2008)andMello(2006),theoretical
saturationariseswhenthreecircumstancesareachieved:“a)noneworrelevantdata
seemtoemerge,b)thecategoryiswelldevelopedintermsofitspropertiesand
dimensiondemonstratingvariation,andc)therelationshipsamongcategoriesarewell
establishedandvalidated”(p.92-93).
Interview#2 Transcription#2
NVivoforMACCase#2
CodetoQuestion9&
14node
CodetoImprove
Qualitynode
DiscussImproveQualitycategory
118
PerGlaser(1978),asillustratedbyWilliams(2014),theresearchershouldtake
theresearchasfarasnecessarytoreachsaturationandnotcometoclosuretooearlyto
reachtheoreticalcompleteness.Goulding(2002)pointsout,asdemonstratedby
Williams(2014),thatnospecificrulesexisttopointhowlongaresearchershould
continuedatacollectionotherthantoachievedatasaturation,whichindicatesthatthe
datasampleencompassesthewidestandmostdiversifiedrangeofinformation
possible.This“saturation”occursthroughmaximizeddifferencesamongcasesunder
research(Glaser&Strauss,1967;Mello,2006;Williams,2014).Therefore,theoretical
saturationresultsincorevariableemergence,categoricalpropertiesidentification,and
clarificationofcategoricalrelationshipsandhence,behavioralexplanationsofthe
phenomenon(Mello,2006;Williams,2014).
PerMcCracken(1988),asnotedbyThomas(2013),theoreticalsaturationmay
generallybereachedinlessthaneightinterviews.Aftercompletingeightinterviews,
thisresearcherdeterminedthattheinvestigationhadreachedtheoreticalsaturation.
However,fouradditionalinterviewswerecompletedtoconfirmthattheoretical
saturationhadbeenachieved.Nonewdata,categories,variations,orrelationships
emergedintheadditionalinterviews.Thisincreasedconfidenceinthefindingof
theoreticalsaturation.Therelationshipsamongthecategorieswerewellestablished,
andwerevalidatedbytheadditionalsetoffourcases.
119
4.2.6ResearchTrustworthiness
AsnotedbyWilliams(2014),“itisnecessarytouseacceptedcriteriatoassess
therigorandtrustworthinessoftheresearch.”Asmentionedearlier,theassessorsof
quantitativeresearchrigor(internalvalidity,reliability,objectivity,andexternalvalidity)
aredifferentfromtheevaluationcriteriaforqualitativeresearch,especiallygrounded
theoryqualitativeresearch(Thomas,2013).Followingtheworksofotherresearchers
(Hirschman,1986;Lincoln&Guba,1985;andStrauss&Corbin,1990;Flint&Mentzer,
2000;Flintetal.,2002),Thomas(2013)developedanddefinedninecriteriafor
groundedtheorytrustworthinesspresentedinTable4.12withadiscussionofthe
applicationofthecriteriatoevaluatethetrustworthinessofthisresearch.
120
Table4.12ResearchTrustworthiness
TrustworthinessCriteria
Definition AppliedinthisStudy
Credibility Extenttowhichresultsappeartobeacceptablerepresentationsofthedata
Interviewswereconductedwithcontinueddataanalysis
Mentorreview,expertreview,andpilotinterviewwereusedtoverifyinterviewguide
Transferability Extenttowhichthefindingsmaytransfertoothercontexts
Usedtheoreticalsamplingtechniques
Avarietyofinternalandexternalbuyersandsuppliersfromdifferentindustries,firmsizes,andyearsofexperiencewereused
Dependability Extenttowhichfindingsareuniquetotimeandplace;thestabilityoftheexplanations
Participantsdiscussedrecentaswellaspreviousexperiences.Someexperiencesoccurredmanyyearsprior.
Internalandexternalbuyersandsupplierswererepresented
Confirmability Extenttowhichinterpretationsaretheresultoftheparticipantsandphenomenonandnottoresearcherbias
Mentorreview,expertreview,andpilotinterviewwereusedtoverifyinterviewguide
Verbatimtranscriptionof158interviewpagesplusadditionalnotes
Integrity
Extenttowhichfindingsaretheresultofmisinformationorevasionbyparticipants
Researcherconductedtheinterviewsinanonthreatening,professionalwayfollowingIRBprocedures
Participantsanonymitywasinsured
Fit Extenttowhichfindingsfitsubstantivearea
Addressedinresponsestocredibility,dependability,andconfirmability
Understanding
Extenttowhichtheorymakessensetoparticipants
Threeverificationtypes(mentorreview,peer/expertreview,pilot)wereusedfortheinterviewguide
Findingssummarywaspresentedtoparticipantsallowingthemtodetermineinterpretationrealism
Generality
Comprehensivenessofconstructandtheorydevelopment
Interviewlengthvariedbetween42and84minutesindicatingthattheyallowedtheemergencepertinenttothephenomenonineachinterview
Bothbuyerandsellerdyadswereinterviewed
Control
Extenttowhichaspectsofthetheorycanbeinfluenced
Participantshadsomedegreeofcontrolovervariablesthatleadtothetheory
121
4.2.7DiscussionofQualitativeStudyTwoResults
Study2involvedemploying12qualitativecasestudiestoexplorethefollowing
fourresearchquestions:
• Howdobuyer-sellerdyadsnegotiatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?
• Howdobuyer-sellerdyadscommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?
• Whydologisticsmanagementdecisioncommunicationerrorsoccurwithin
buyer-sellerdyads,andwhataretheconsequencesoftheseerrors?
• Whatcanimprovethequalityofbuyer-sellerdyadscommunicationoflogistics
managementdecisions?
Allfourofthefindingsfromtheanalysisofthecasestudiesaswellasemergentand
relatedtheoreticalconceptsuncoveredintheanalysisarediscussedbelow.Itis
importanttonotethatthedata,categories,andrelationshipsthatemergedwere
consistentacrosscasespecificparameterssuchasbuyer-seller,dyad,internalor
externaltofocalfirm,yearsofexperience,dollarresponsibility,negotiationlevel,and
scope.
4.2.7.1Howdobuyer-sellerdyadsnegotiatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?
GeneralNegotiationProcess.Participantsindicatedbroadfrequenciesof
negotiationwiththeirdyadiccounterpartsthatrangedfromweekly,monthly,and
quarterlytoannuallyorless.Negotiationfrequencyappearslinkedtothetypeoflogistic
negotiation,suchastransactionalnegotiations,newcontract/frameagreement
negotiations,orrenewalofcontract/frameagreementnegotiations.Frameagreements
122
refertocontractsthatprovideageneralagreementontermsandconditions
(framework)thatallowstheflexibilitytoaddfurthernegotiationresultslater
throughouttheframeagreementvalidityperiod.Forexample,morefrequent
negotiationswerecitedbyindividualsusingonlypurchaseordersalongwithtermsand
conditionstonegotiatetransactions.Thiscontrastswithparticipantswhonegotiate
yearlyforcontract/frameagreementrenewals,wheretheirprimaryfocusispriceas
opposedtotermsandconditions,whichwerepreviouslyagreedtointheirprior
agreements.Fornegotiatingnewcontract/frameagreements,participantsgenerally
citedtheuseofa“template”providedbyeithertheircompanyortheoppositepartyto
guidethenegotiations.Atleastonebuyerstatedthataninformalpricingagreement
wasusedwithsomesuppliersduringandafternegotiations.However,eventhosewith
contract/frameagreementsstatedthatnewproductsorlogisticneedsarisingduringthe
lifecycleofthecontract/frameagreementrequirenegotiations,astheymayfalloutside
ofexistingagreements.Fortheseinstances,participantsaddeditemsasanaddendum
totheagreements.Beyondpartprice,whichiswhatmostparticipantsfocusedon,
participantsnotedthattheyalsonegotiatepaymentterms,currency,warranty,and
Incoterms®.ForbothpaymenttermsandIncoterms®,mostbuyersreferencedastrong
pushbytheircompanytotargettheminimumnumberofpaymentdays,suchasnet90
days,andpreferenceofspecificIncoterms®,suchasEXW,FCA,FOB,DAP,orDDP.
Allparticipantswereaskedtodescribearecent,typicalnegotiationprocess.
123
Figure4.3portraysthefour-stagenegotiationprocessforcontractsdescribedinthe
cases.Acriticalobservationisthatallcasesdescribedusingprimarilyemailto
communicateandhence,negotiatewiththeiropposingparty.Verylittlein-personor
verbalcommunicationwasmentioned.In-personmeetingsappearlinkedto“verylarge”
negotiationswheremanyroundsofnegotiatingoccur.
Figure4.3-NegotiationProcess
Whenabuyerinadyadwasasked,whatisincludedintherequestforquote
(RFQ),thebuyerstated:
So,let'ssee,you'regoingtohaveaprice.You'regoingtohavealeadtimeinthere.It'sprettymuchatotalcostanalysis,andthereisatemplatethatweuseforthetotalcostanalysis.So,ifthereisgoingtobetransportation--we'regoingtolookatprice,quality,leadtime,andon-timedelivery.ButintheinitialquotingandRFQ,wewouldhaveleadtime,ifthere'saminimumorderquantity.There
124
willbealogisticscomponent.Therewillalsobecomparingthecosttodoanassessmentandqualifythesupplieriftheyarenew.It'slookingatsizingandbackgroundinformation,sothereisafinancialanalysis.
Morespecifically,whenthebuyerinitiatesanRFQ,notonlydoestheRFQ
includearequestforpricesoftheproductionitems,italsoincludesproposedtermsand
conditionsfromthepurchaser’sperspective.Mostparticipantsnamedpaymentterms
andIncoterms®astypicaltermstheyrequireorprefer.Otheritemsortermsmentioned
included:technicaldetails,SupplierCodeofConduct,supplierqualification
questionnaire,lead-time,quality,warranty,letterofcredit,consignmentstock,supply
chainfinancingprogram,andkeyperformanceindicators(KPI),suchason-timedelivery.
Inotherwords,buyerstendedtooutlinetheirfulltermsandconditionsrequests,not
onlytheirpricerequest,intheinitialRFQphase.Theserequestswerethenreviewedby
thesellers,whoeitheraccepted,proposedalternativeterms,orprovidedadditional
terms.Asmentionedbyseveralbuyers,theRFQinformationisusedtoinformatotal
costofownershipanalysisthatisemployedtocompareoptionsofferedbysellers.
Bothbuyersandsellersmentionedapropensitytoformalizeagreementswitha
contractorframeagreement.Oneexperiencedbuyerexplained:
Ifeelourculturewithinthecompanyismorepro--infavorofcontractsthanitwas10-15yearsago.Well,really20years.So,ifyoutalkaboutsomebody'sbeenaroundawhile,aveteranorwhateveryouwanttocallme,that'sbeenaroundawhile,Ilookbackintheearly'90s,andthere'salotofwhatIwouldcallhandshakeagreements,whereasnowIthinkthegeneralcultureismorecontract-driven.
Thereafter,ordersaretransactedonpurchaseorders.
125
NegotiationProcessforTransportation.Asshownintheprocessflowdiagramin
theprevioussection,negotiationfortermsandcostsoftransportationstartsintheRFQ
stagewithback-and-forthcommunicationthereafter.Onebuyerparticipantstatedit
best:
ItstartsintheRFQprocesswheretheyidentifytheircostfortransportationandhowthey'lldoit.Itypicallywillgivethepreferredtermsthatmycompanywilluse,andhere'sourcarriers,butIwillalsoaskthemfortheirpricing,andwhotheyusejusttomakesurethatwe'recompetitive.But,itusuallystartsatthepricing,andthenfromthere,itreallyiscoveredwhenwegettotheagreementstage.It'sprettymuchalreadydefinedintheagreement.
Thebuyerwentontomention:
SomycompanyintheGSA(meaningglobalsupplyagreement)hasasetofpreferredfreightterms,andalsoIknowwhattheIncoterms®isthatwetypicallyuse,butthenthereiscertainlyboilerplatelanguagethatisinourtemplatethatwewilltypicallytrytogetapprovedwiththesupplier.Hopefully,ifit'sasmallersupplier,usuallytheydon'thavetoomanyissueswithourtermsandconditionsinouragreementlanguage.Ifitisalarger,thatiswherewegetintoalotmorebackandforth.
Thebuyerelaborated:
Sotypically,whatI'lldoisI'llspecifythepreferredIncoterms®andthewaytoprovideit.So,IwillspecifythatIwouldliketohaveeverythingquotedinFCA.AndIcanalreadycalculatebecausewehaveafreightcalculator,soIcandeterminewhatourcost'sgoingtobeforthatfreight,butIwillaskthemtoquotethefreightbasedonthoseIncoterms®.Insomecases,I'llfindthesupplierdoesn'twanttouse,say,anFCAortheIncotermswe’vedefined,sotherefore,theywanttoputinExWorks,ortypicallyit'sExWorks.Thatbecomesalittlemorechallengingbecausenowyou'vegottosomewhatequatetheirpricequotedbacktotheFCA.So,thepreferenceisthateveryonequotesperFCAsoyouhaveagoodbenchmarkofprice-to-price.
Whenaskedtoclarifyfurther:
126
I'mspecificallysayingthatI'mlookingatthecostofthetransportit'saseparateelementintheagreementthatwelookat.So,itisaseparatecostitem.So,no,it'sspecificallycomparingpriceoftransportbetweenthesuppliers,andgiventheirdistancethat'sgoingtoadjust.So,it'sakeyelementinthetotalcost,orthedeliveredcostfortheproduct.
Anotherbuyerclearlyindicated,“Normally,whenwestartthesourcingprocess,wewere
lettingsupplierknowwhatkindofIncoterms®.”Adifferentbuyerspecified:
LikeIsaid,ifthere'snotanagreementalreadyinplace,andImightinsomeinstanceswhenIknowthecostfortransportationwillbesignificantbecausetheproductisbigorbecauseit'sheavy,thenIwillmaybegobackandaskthesupplier,"Okay,soifIweretoaskyoutotakethetransportationwhatwouldbeyournewpricing?"Andthenhe'llcomebackwithaprice,andthenI'llevaluatewhetherornotit'smoretomyadvantagetotakeonthetransportationorleaveitwiththesupplier.Butagain,you'llhaveothersubjectivefactorsthatcomeintoplace.IfIwantthefullcontroloverit,thenImightjustsay,"Okay,no,Iprefertotakeonthetransportation,"andtakeiteventhoughitmightbemoreexpensivethanifthesuppliertakesit.
Asdescribedbytheparticipants,thebuyersgenerallystateeithertheirpreferred
Incoterms®oraskformultiplealternativesavailablefromthesuppliers.Multiple
alternativesareusedbythebuyertosupportatotalcostofownership(TCO)analysis.
Onebuyerexplaineditthisway:
YeahbutIguesswearecomparinglikeifwehavesomethingthatwouldbeshipped,let'ssay,inEuropefromonecountrytoanother,sowe'rejustcomparingourowntransportationcostsversussuppliers'transportationcosts.So,wedojustlikeaprice-to-pricecomparisonforthatsectiontransportation.butweliketheTCOisactuallydoneforthetotalcostlikethepriceofthegoodwiththetransportation,ifthere'sanydutyonthatinventory,andsoon,andpaymentterms,andthisisall.Butifwe'rejustcomparingfreightcosttofreightcost,wedoourowncostandthencompareittothesupplier'scost.Andthenwedecideifwewilltaketheresponsibilityofthetransportationdependingonthesecosts.
Whenasked,“Whatifyoucomparesuppliersfromdifferentareas?”thebuyerreplied:
127
Thatwouldbe,Iguess,thesamething.Butthatwouldbe--theTCOwillactuallydrivethefinalcost.So,ifit'sdifferentfromadifferentcountry,thenitwillgiveus--wecouldinsomecasessay,"Okay,thissupplyisfromthatcountry.Transportationcostslookprettyhigh.Maybewecanjustlookatourinternalcoststoseeifwecouldgetsomemorebenefit."Andthenwe'lldothefinalTCOtocompareonesuppliertoanother.
Incontrast,asellerinadyadcommentedonTCO:
Thesebuyersarelookingto--they'restartingtocomparetransportationcost.So,it'snotuncommonwiththefewcustomersthatIhaveforthemtoaskmetoquoteaproductthatcangivethemmultipleoptionsfortheirshippingterms.Andthat'squiteproblematicforme.Itaddsalotmoreworkto--ormoreefforttowhatI'mdoing.
Theseller’sresponsesalsosupportedthecommentsbythebuyersindyads.Oneseller,
whostateditbest,explainstheseller’sperspective:
Well,withmostofthecustomers,theyagreewhatIproposeinmyquote.Fromexperience,Iknowmycustomers,andIknow,okay,theyusuallyacceptEx-Works,forexample.Theycanacceptmydeliverytime.They'renotnegotiatingtherebecausetheyknowus.So,usually,ifhetalksaboutpricing,thenheusuallyacceptsalltherest.
Thesellercontinued:
Sometimes,ofcourse,hedoesn'twanttohaveanEx-Worksstate,buthewantsFreeonBoard,orevendelivered,andthen,again,Ipickupthephoneandsay,"Well,okay,youcanhavetheFreeonBoardordelivered,butthenI'mgoingtoraisemyprice,"whichtheyusuallyunderstand,ofcourse.
Anothersellerindicated,“Inofferstage,orwhenheplacestheorder,onceitisconfirmed
whichIncoterms®hewants,thenthere'snofurthernegotiation,”whileathirdseller
commented:
128
Usuallyit'sonthefrontend.Solet'sjustsayabrand-newcustomercomestometoday,sendsmeaquoterequest."Hey,IgotyournamefromJoeBlowoveratXYZcompany.Okay,here'smyproject.Here'swhatitis,Isubmitpricingthatsays,"Hey,ourpricingisFOBourdock."Whichmeans,hey,you'refiguringouthowtogetitfrommydocktoyourdockatyourexpense.Theycomebacktomeandsay,"Hey,canyouincludefreight?"thenweincludefreight.Iftheysay,"Hey,everythinggoingforward,pleaseincludefreight,"thenweincludethefreight.Iftheysay,"Hey,letmeknowwhenthepartsaredone,we'llarrangetohaveatruckthere,"wedothataswell.It'sreallydeterminedonthefrontend,andthenonceweunderstandwhatthecustomerneeds,andhowtheyoperate,wecontinuetooperatealongthoseterms.
Regardingtransportation,bothbuyersandsellersstatedthattheyconsidernot
onlythecosts,suchastransportandduty,buttheyalsoconsiderthetasksandrisks
associatedwithmovingthegoodsfromsellertobuyer.UsingtheIncoterms®,many
buyersandsellersmentionedthattheycomparethetaskstheyareresponsiblefor
versusthetaskstheotherpartyisresponsibleforintheirnegotiations.Tasksmentioned
includeitemssuchascustomsclearance,documentation,andpackaging.Whenthe
valueofthegoodsishigh,thenbothbuyersandsellersprefertheotherpartytotakeon
theriskduringthetransportation.Onebuyercommented,“Itreallycomesdowntothe
Incotermsandthepassingofrisk.”Asecondbuyerstated:
IwouldsaythatbecausemostofthetimegoodsthatIpurchaseareunderglobalagreements,theinsuranceiscoveredbyourglobalfreightforwarder,soIdonotconsiderthatinmynegotiationsconsideringthatthetransportationiswithus.Ifit'swiththesupplier,mostofthetime--I'mtryingtosee.Itwilldependonthevalueofthegoodtoo,right?Ifit'sjustsomethingthat'snotworthmuch,thenIwon'tbothertothinkaboutriskandinsurance.Ifit'ssomethingthat'sworthalotofmoney,thenyesIwillconsiderit.It'sreallydependingonthevalueofthegoodsalso.
Thebuyercontinued:
Localpurchasesaremorelow-valueitemsIwouldsay.SoIwouldn'treallytakeinconsiderationriskorinsurancebecausethegoodsareoflesservalue.
129
Anotherbuyerstated:
BecausedependingontheIncotermthatwe'llbeusing,customclearanceanddocumentationwilleitherfalloneitherthesellerorthebuyer.SointhesensewhereIagreedtoanIncoterm®,it'stakenintoconsideration.Sometimesifweknowthatsomethingisveryurgentorthatthetransportationistimesensitive,thenwemightseekon--itmightinfluencemynegotiationinthesensethatI’llwanttotakeonthetransportationtohaveabettercontroloverit.Sointhatsenseitwillinfluence.
Restatingthiscomment,buyersmaysometimeprefertouseanIncoterms®rule
thatallowsthemtohandletransportationtoprovidemorecontrolandvisibilityover
deliveryanditsassociatedcosts.ThissupportsKumar(2010),whosuggestsswitching
fromFOBtoFCAIncoterms®toreducefreightcoststhataregeneratedbycloserport
routings,duetobuyer’sandnotseller’spreferenceofport,andreductionindutytothe
buyer.
Asellercommented:
Thebuyer.So,IknowthatwithFCAnotunloadedtoafirstUSdestination,thereissomecostsassociatedwithusandrisksoftransportingthegoodsfromourfactorytothatlocation.So,that'ssomethingthatwe'reawareof.
4.2.7.2Howdobuyer-sellerdyadscommunicatelogisticsmanagementdecisions?
Asmentionedearlierinthegeneralnegotiationprocesssection,buyersand
sellersindyadsprimarilyuseemailtocommunicatewiththeiropposingparty.Within
theseemailcommunications,allparticipantsmentionedIncoterms®rules,orwhatthey
thoughtwereIncoterms®rules(e.g.UCCtermsofsale),andtheirthreecharacter
acronyms,asthemethodwithintheemailcommunicationstorepresentoptionsand
130
choicesregardingtheassignmentsoflogisticsresponsibilities.Thiswasthesameforall
negotiationstypes.Onebuyercommented:
TheIncoterms®areclearwhenwesendoutthepurchaseorder.Inthepurchaseorder,it'swrittenourIncoterms®,andhewillconfirmtheacknowledgmentwiththesameIncoterms®.Ifit'ssamething,thenwekeepit,andwearethinkingaboutthatit'sclear.Andiftheacknowledgmentiswrong,sowehavetocheckitwiththesupplierwhyhewon'tadoptourIncoterms®.Butafterreceivingtheacknowledgmentinforthewholetransportation,it'sclearwhohastopay.
Threeotherbuyershadsimilarcomments:
1. Butit'sactuallyagreedduringnegotiationandthenwejuststateitonthefinalagreementwhatwouldbetheIncoterms®.---Basically,wejustuseIncoterms®.
2. TheIncoterms®isprettycomprehensiveonwhodoeswhat,when,how,why,blah,blah,blah.Itanswersallthat,sono.Typically,onceyouagreeontheIncoterms®,it'sprettyclearwho'sdoingwhat.
3. Whenyoutalkabouttransportation,theIncoterms®arethebigdeal.Communicationofablackandwhiteagreementonthatisthebigdeal.Andfromthere,you'vegottobeabletomanageit,monitorit,whatever.
Sellersprovidedsimilarcomments.Onesellerstated,“[..]everybodystickstothe
Incoterms®.Thisisaglobalstandardfortransportation.”Anothersellerrationalized:
Exactly,we'reverystrictlyworkingtotheIncoterms®2010.Basically,we'reobeyingtotherulesthatmakesiteasybecausethey'retheworldwidetermsandeverythingissolvedinthatbasically.
ThisuseofIncoterms®placesaveryheavyrelianceonboththebuyer’sand
seller’sunderstandingsofIncoterms®rules.Otherwise,communicationerrorscan
occur.Onebuyerdescribedthis,“Ifit'ssaysCPT,thenthereisanIncoterms®thatguides
that.IdonotspelloutwhatCPTmeans.”Anotherbuyercommented:
131
WiththeIncoterms®mainly,ifyoudoitwell,thereshouldbelittleroomformiscommunicationunlessthesupplierdoesn'tunderstandtheIncotermterminology.
Sellerscommentedsimilarly.Onesellerexplained,“Yeah.Ithinkthisoneshould
beverycleartofollowtheIncoterms®.”Thesellercontinuedtotalkaboutlistingout
detailsinthecustomeragreement:
Ithinkno,evenfromthecontractperspective.Nomoredetailslefttoexplainwhat'saFOB,what'sresponsibilitiesthatyouneedtotake.Yeah,Incoterms®thesuppliersalsounderstandveryclear.
Anothersellerstated,“ImeantheIncoterms®theybasicallystateeverything.There's
nothingbetteryoucouldreallyuse.”
AtleastonebuyerrecognizedthatIncoterms®rulesarenottobeconfusedwith
theUniformCommercialCode(UCC)1951shippinganddeliverytermsthatareprimarily
usedwithinNorthAmerica,especiallytheUnitedStates(LegalInformationInstitute,
2015;Bergami,2011;Bergami,2012).TheCanadian-basedbuyerexplained:
Iwouldsayitdependsonthesupplier.Ifit'saninternationalsupplierwho'susedtosupplyingglobally,thenIncoterms®mostofthetimeissufficientforbothpartiestohaveagoodunderstandingofwhatitimplicates.ButoftenlocalorU.S.suppliersarelessfamiliarwiththeseinternationalIncoterms®andyouhavetogointothespecificationsandsay,"Okay,I'dliketochangeforIncoterm®such-and-such,henceyouwillberesponsiblefordeliveryuptothispoint,"etcetera,etcetera.So,itreallydependsonthefluencyofthesupplierintermsofIncoterm®knowledge.BecauseintheU.S.,youhadthisprevious-Idon'tknowwhatsystemtheycalledit-buttheFOBterminologyandthelessinternationalterminology.Sosometimesyou'llgetrequestsforquotationsthatindicateFOBsuch-and-such,butweprefertousetheinternationalstandardoftheIncoterms®.So,notallsuppliersarefluentintermsofthoseterminologies.So,itwilldepend.IfIseethatthesupplierisnotgettingwhatI'masking,I'llhavetospellitoutforhim.Otherwise,iftheyagreetomyIncoterm®,FCAforinstance,orDDPwouldbemoreto--DAP
132
wouldbemoretomyadvantage.Andifhesaysyes,thenmycomprehensionisthatheunderstandsoratleastlookedituptomakesurethatheunderstandswhatI'maskingfor.Otherwise,Iguesshe'stightwiththelegalimplicationsofit.
4.2.7.3Whydoerrorsinlogisticsmanagementdecisioncommunicationoccurwithin
buyer-sellerdyads,andwhataretheconsequencesoftheseerrors?
ItbecameapparentthatathoroughunderstandingofallIncoterms®rules
aspectsisexceedinglyuncommon.Forexample,asellermistakenlycommentedthat
Incoterms®donotclarifyinsurance,sotheynegotiatethisseparately:
Andofcourse,apartfromtheIncoterms®theotherthingisinsurance.Incoterms®don'tcoverinsurance,soeachcustomerthatweselltohastobeinsuredbyourcreditinsurancecompany.Iftheydon'tgetinsurancethenwedon'tdothetransportation,weratherinsistforthiscustomerto,forinstance,payinadvanceandtakecareofthetransportationthemselves.Thiscompletelytakestheriskoutofourbusinessbecausewe'redealing[witha]productthat’squiteexpensive.Inordertominimizetherisk,thenthisisthebestwaytodo.Butit'squiterareIthink.90%ofourcustomersarefullyinsuredonthequitehighvalues.
Whenaskedifownershipofgoods,whichisalsoreferredtoastitletransfer,is
consideredduringtransport,theresponsesvaried.Onesellerremarked:
ThisshouldbecoveredagainwiththeIncoterms®.Normally,ifitisExWorks,weconsiderthatthetitleofthe-howyousay-theownershipofthematerialchangeswhenweloadonthetruck.So,whenthemachineexitsfromhere,theowneristhecustomer,becausenormallywithExWorks,wedon'tdonothing.So,it'sthecustomerorganizingthetransportationandsoon.WhilewithDAP,thecustomerbecameowneronlywhenthemachineisdischargedathissite.Thentherearesomesituationinthemiddle,likethecashagainstdocuments.---So,inthiscase,weare--thetitlepassedfromustothecustomerwhenthecustomerpaysthebank,andthebankgivesthedocumentstothecustomer.Andthecustomerscantransferthemachinetothefinalsite.Sonormally,wefollowtheIncoterm,mostlyforthepassageofownershiponthematerial.
133
Anothersellerstated:
Wellyeah,thatreallydependsontheIncoterms®thatarebeingused.TheIncoterms®basicallymakeclearwhohasownershiporwhohasthetitleofthegoodsduringthetransport.
Abuyercommented:
ItisintheGSA.Alotoftimesitdoesgetdiscussed.Ofcourse,thepreferenceisthatwedon'ttaketitleuntilit'sdelivered.Alotoftimesthat'snotthecase.Bestcasewouldbethat--ormaybe,worstcase,butI'llsayitisbestcase.Bestcaseisthatthetitleandtransferisatthepointthatweactuallypickupthegoods,andthatmainlywilltakeplaceifwe'reusingourauthorizedtransportprovidersbecausethat'showwenegotiateitintheagreement.
Asecondbuyerexplained:
Typically,whilethat'sakeyelementinIncoterms®,rightorwrong,typicallynotreally.Andthat'sprobablyamistake.AndwhenIsayamistake,I'mtalkingamistakeonmypart.Butalotofmypeerswithinthecompany,Ikindofwonderhowmuchthey'reconsideringit,too.Idon'tthinkIorwedoagoodjobontrulyconsideringtheIncoterm,thedeals,andhowitdealswiththeownership.Sono,Idon'tthinkIdo.
Thevariedresponsesrelatingtotransferoftitleorownershipindicatea
misunderstandingofIncoterms®rules.Incoterms®donotindicatetransferoftitleor
ownership(LegalInformationInstitute,2015;Bergami,2012).
Furtherincreasingthelikelihoodofcommunicationerrorsandaspresented
earlier,soleuseofIncoterms®placesaveryheavyrelianceonboththebuyer’sand
seller’sunderstandingsofIncoterms®rules.Otherwise,communicationerrorscan
134
occur.BuyersandsellersdonotoperationallydefineIncoterms®ruleswhile
communicatingwiththeotherparty.Theyexpectthattheotherpartyfullyunderstands
theIncoterms®rule.SomeinthestudyalsorecognizedthatIncoterms®rulesarenotto
beconfusedwiththeUniformCommercialCode(UCC)1951shippinganddeliveryterms
thatareprimarilyusedwithinNorthAmerica,especiallytheUnitedStates(Legal
InformationInstitute2015,Bergami2011,Bergami2012).
Buildingonpaststudies(Stapleton&Saulnier,2001;Bergami,2011,2012,2013;
Glitz,2011;Malfliet,2011;Ramberg,2011;Stapleton,2014;Stapletonetal.,2014a,
2014b),Study2hasattemptedtoextendandvalidateexistingresearchon
communicationerrorsbetweenbuyersandsellers.Thecasestudieshaveprovided
extensiveexamplesofcommunicationerrorsandotherinterestingaspectsofthebuyer-
sellerrelationshipasrelatedtodecisionsaboutcommunicatinglogisticsmanagement.
Bothbuyersandsellersprovidedexamplesofcommunicationerrors.Onebuyer
notedtwoexamplesofcommunicationerrorsrelatedtotheIncoterms®rulesusedwith
aseller.Thebuyerbrieflyexplainedthefirstexample,whereaftermanysuccessful
repeatpurchases,thesellerraisedanissueaboutcustomsclearanceresponsibility:
Wehadissueswithwhowasresponsibleforthecustomsclearance.Anditmayhavebeenacasetheydidn'twanttodoitanymore.Eventhoughtheyhadbeendoingit.
Thesecondexamplecontainedanunclear“nameplaceofdestination”relatedtothe
Incoterms®ruleusedwithaseller:
135
AndthentheotherexamplewasthatwehadaplacewheretheyactuallyclosedtheirU.S.warehousing.Sonow,itputadditionalstrainontransportationcostandwhatnot.Becauseweneededtolookat,youknow,bringinginhalforfullcontainerloads.Andthenalso,wewereresponsiblefortheinventoryandtheshipmenttothelocationfromaninternational.
Thefirstexampleerrorresultedfromunclearcustomsclearanceresponsibilities,
andthesecondexampleerrorwascausedbynotspecifyingthepurchaseorigin,which
usedtobeaU.S.warehouse,andresultedinpurelydomestictransportation.Thebuyer
continuedtoexplainthatbothexamplescostsubstantialadditionalmonies.
Itwasanunfavorablechange,andthenthenegotiationswasreallyaroundhowdoweminimizethat.Inbothcases,itwasanadditionalcostorrisktothecompany.Inonecase,itwasaninventorycarryingcostrisk.Yeah,inbothcases,butthenegotiationreallywastotrytominimizetheimpact.
Aselleralsoindicatedthatdeliverylocationscanbeproblematic.
IfItakeTurkey,foranexample,wherewehaveonecustomerentity,it'sagoodexampletousethiscustomeractually.Wherewehaveonecustomerfactory,whowanttheirmaterialstobedeliveredtoawarehouse,whichisclosetotheirfactory.Butthisissomethingthatwascommunicatedwrongfromcustomeratfirst.Whenwegottherightinformation,then,ofcourse.Unfortunately,asitis,amistakehappenedhere.So,thenextdeliveryagainwentdirectlytothecustomer,sothatwasjustbasicmiscommunication,butsolvedveryfast.
Thesellercontinued:
Well,it'squitesimple.Whenwestartedthisbusiness,wereceivedthepurchaseorder.Thepurchaseorderhadadeliveryaddressonit.So,it'sastandardpurchaseorderwithadeliveryaddress,whichwastheaddressofthecustomerfacility.Thisistheinformationthatweusedtoshipoutthisshipmenttothefacility.Untilwegotanoticefromtheentitysaying,"Hey,wereceivedthetruck,butthistruckshouldn'thavebeenhere,"buthowshouldweknow?Wethengottheinformationthatnextshipmentpleasetothisandthiswarehouse,whichdidn'tactuallyhappen,whichwasalsoamiscommunicationwithinourcompanywherethe
136
customerservicebasicallystatedthenewaddress,butthelogistics,whichisadifferentdepartment,howdoyousay,didgettheinformation,butviaemail.
Theselleradded:
Weweren't,atthatpoint-thisisaboutthreeyearsago-wedidn'thavethesystem.WewereworkingwithSAP.Wedidn'thavethesystemsetuptohaveaninterfacebetweencustomerserviceandlogistics,soalotwasdonethroughemailwhenitcametodeliveryaddressesandsoon.Thingsliketerms,andquantities,deliverynotes,invoices,andstuff.That'scommunicatedbySAP,butatthattimeaddressesweren't.Thiswasarequestbyemail,whichbasicallywasn'treadbythepersonwhoreceivedit.So,itwentwrongasecondtime.Butfromthatpointon-becauseitdidgowrong-itdidn'tcausetoomuchangeroranything.Itwasjustabasicmistake,butfromthatpointonitwashandledinadifferentpriority,andsincetwoyears,wehaveacompleteinterfacebetweenlogisticsandsalesandcustomerservice.So,allinformationisbeingtransferredonetoone.Andofcourse,italwaysdependswhat'swrittenonthePO.That'stheinformationthat'smostrelevantforus.
OneotherbuyerofferedanexamplethatcausedissueswithaNorthAmerica
FreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA)qualifiedshipmentthatshouldhavebeenusinganFCA
Incoterms®rule,butinstead,theorderindicatedtheEXWIncoterms®rule.
Ibelieve,duringnegotiation,theIncotermswasFCAbutonthePO,IthinkitwasstatedExWorks.Ibelieve--I'mnot100%sureofthat,butthisiswhatIremember.Ibelievethatwaswhereitledthemiscommunication,Ithinkitwas,betweenthecontractadministratorandthebuyersthatweprobablydidnotmakesurethateverythingwasclear.Andevenfromthesupplierside,theyshouldhaveusedthecontractIncoterms®inthatcasebuttheyusedaPO.
Thebuyercontinued:
LikeIsaid,itwassomethingthatwedidnot,thatweoverlookedthisdetailforsurebackthen,andIthinkitwasbackin2013,somethinglikethator,Ican'trecallexactlythetime,butthisisnotimportant.Ithinkthethingwasthatweshouldhavevalidatedthatinformationupfrontbefore.Becausenowweknowthatfor
137
any--sincealsothatitwasinvolvingthefreetrade.Iguessit'salsofrombothsidesIbelievebecausesupplierisalso--theyhaveexperienceofshippingtoU.S.Ithinktheycouldhavecaughtthatalsobefore,butwecannotrelyonsuppliersonthis.Weshouldupfrontdotherightthingatthebeginning.So,wedefinitelymissedonthisexample.WedidnotdefinetherightIncoterms®atthebeginning.
Thebuyeradded:
Ishouldsaythatthenthemistakewassigningonthecontractside.ButnowweknowthatweshouldneveruseExWork,andIthinkitwasmaybealessonlearned.
WiththeEXWIncoterms®rule,thesupplierdidnotneedtocleargoodsfor
exportandhence,thesupplierdidnotfeelobligedtoprovideaNAFTAform,which
wouldhavesavedthebuyer’scompanyfrompayingimportduty.Thisresultedin$8,500
dutypershipmentonaproductthatshippedweekly.
AnotherbuyerlocatedinP.R.Chinaprovidedanexamplewherebothinternal
andexternalmiscommunicationwaspresent:
EvenfromUnitedStates,somepeople,really,theycannotunderstandwhat'smeaningofDAP.Eveniftwoweeksago,wehavesignedallthecontractsalready,thefinancecontrollersuddenlysaid,"…wecannotacceptDAP.YouhavetodotheDDP."Thisiseventhelastminute.Ithinkthisisveryinteresting.Formyunderstanding,aswementioned,whenwestartthisprojectwithsuppliers,wehavetoteachthem,trainthem,oreducatethemtogivethemexplanationofwhatisdefinitionofeachkindofIncoterms®,sosuppliercanunderstandwhatkindoftaskstheyneedtotake,whatkindofresponsibilitytheyneedtotake,especiallyforthecustomerrelated.ButsometimesfromtheU.S.side,it'scrazy."Oh,I'msorry,wecannotuseDAP."Thingslikethat.Soforsure,wehavethiskindofmiscommunication.Frombuyerside,becauseU.S.isimportedcountry,sofromcustomerunderstanding,youshouldhaveonecustomerspecialistwhocanleadthiskindofcommunicationstoavoidanymisunderstanding.So,fromsupplierside,sure,wecanhelpthemtounderstandthis.
Thebuyercontinuedtoexplainthat:
138
So,U.S.mostly(sources)goodscomefromlow-costcountrylikeChina,India,andothercountries.So,sometimeswhenweusethoseIncoterms®,sometimestheytellme,"WeneedthegoodswithFOBbehindit."Itmeansthattheydon'tunderstandthedefinitionoftheIncoterms®.Ithinkthisisachallengeforus,butfromthisglobalarea,theycanunderstandverywell.Butmaybefortheotherfunctionalitydepartmentlikelogistics,likefinance,likeother,theymaynotsoclearabouttheseterms,whatreallyisthedefinitionshouldhave.Whowillbechargedthecustomsrelatedcost?Whowillbechargedthetransportation,inlandtransportation?Orthingslikethat.So,westillneedtotakesometimetogetsupport…internally.Hecanunderstandandsupportit.Hecansendouttogetsomeadvice.Next,DDP,wecannotdothatbecauseChinesesupplierhasnolegalentityintheU.S.,right?So,theycannotdoDDP.So,Ithinkthere'sonlyonesolution--oneoption,DAP,starttodothat.Soafterthat,Ithinkeverybodycanbeagreewhatwediscussed.Stillneedsometime.
Thebuyercontinuedtopointout,“Miscommunicationisthatwe'llbeleadingtomis-
operationIthink.”Anadditionalbuyerprovidedamiscommunicationexample:
WehadpartscominginfromanIndiasupplier,anditwasn'tcleartothemifFCAimplicatedcustomsclearance.So,whenthegoodswereabouttoleave,wehadtohavesomeback-and-forthdiscussionsontryingtofigureoutwhowasresponsibleforwhatbecauseitwasn'tcleartothemoffthebat.Sobasically,weendeduppayingafeeforthemtotakeonsomeresponsibilitiesthatwehadunderstoodtobepartoftheirresponsibilityattheoutset.Butitwasaminimalfee,soitendedoutokay,Iguess.Haditbeenmoreimportant,thenImightnothavehadthesameresponse[chuckles].Disagreementsondeliverypoints,sometimesitmightnotbeclearifagoodiscomingfromoverseas.Itsdeliverypointis--you'vegotlotsofdeliverypointsatsaytheportatMontrealratherthandoordelivery,soitmighthappenwhereyouhaveadisagreement--well,notadisagreementbutunclearwhetherwhoisresponsiblefortakingonthelastportionofporttodoor.Sothen,again,whathappensinthoseinstancesisthatthere'scommunicationbecausethenthefreightforwarderwillaskquestionsandthenthesupplierandthebuyerwillhavetochatagaintoestablish,"Okay,sohowdowegetthisproductnowtothefinaldestination?"So,youreadjustontheway.Ifmiscommunicationhappenedattheoutset,youjusthavetodealwithitasitgoesalong.
Aselleralsocommentedonmiscommunication:
Therearetasksassociatedwithexportinggoodsthataren'tcoveredbytheseIncoterms.AndIguessanexampleofthosemightbelikecontainerizationfees,or
139
stuffingcharges,loadingcharges,thesekindsofthings.Andifit'sacustomerthatwehaven'talreadyestablishedaroutineoranormalpayment,abunchoftransactionsinarowwheresomethingdidn'tcomeup,thesecustomersmightconsiderthesefeestobesomethingthatmycompanyisresponsiblefor.Andthroughtheyears,whatI'vedoneischangemytemplateforaquotationtoincludefurtherclarificationonwho'sresponsibleforwhat,forthosethingsthataren'texclusivelyclarified,Iguess,injustthethree-letterIncotermsintermsofshipment.
Thesellercontinued:
Inthosecases,wheresomebodyknowsenoughaboutIncotermstosay,"Well,youquotedusCIF,butthisshufflingfeeorcontainerizationfeeisn'texclusivelydescribedinyourquotation."Aconcessionmightbemadeonmysidetoensurethatthatdoesn'tescalatetosomethingbiggerbecauseit'salessonlearnedthing,Iguess,formealongtheway.Sonow,ImakesurethatinmyquotationwhereIputtheseshippingterms,itdoesn'tjustsayFCAnotunloadedfirstU.S.destination,thenthere'sanothertwoorthreelinesbehinditthatclarifysomeofthoseotherchargesandwho'sresponsibleforwhat.
Thesellernotedthatfeescanadd$150to$300pershipment.Interestingly,this
examplealsoindicatesacommunicationerror,asIncoterms®rulesdoaddressthecosts
thatthesellerreferredto.Anothersellerexplainedageneralmiscommunication
example:
TheIncoterms®,theythoughtit'snotEx-Works,it'sFOB,andthentheyclaim,"Well,butyouknow,inmycountry,it'salwaysbeenlikethat."Thenyoutrytosellittohim,ofcourse,sohehastopaymore,butinmostcases,theywanttosticktotheirpricingtheyissuedtheorderfor,becauseheclaim,"Because…it’sbeenapprovedbymanagement.Icannotaskformoremoney,blah,blah,blah."Whathappensthen,wejusttrytogetthemoneyforthenextorder,sowemakeakindofhiddensurplusonthenextordertocompensatethelossofthelastone--ornottheloss,butthehigherexpendituresonourside.---ItisIncoterms,whichhe'llalsohavetochange.BecausehecannotmisinterpretanFCAterm.Thisisthesameforeverybody.Buthe'sgoingtoaskforanotherterm.
Thesellercontinued:
140
Yeah,probablybecausethebuyerdidnotpayenoughattention.Hewasfocusing,"IstheproductthecorrectproductoristhepricingwhatIneed?"Thenheprobablydoesn'tpaytoomuchattentionontheIncoterms,uptothepointwherewetellhim,"Well,it'sready.Youcanpickitup."Andhegoes,"Whoa,whatdoyoumeanbypickingup?Youhavetodeliver."So,itcanhappen,thenyoustartagain.
Anothersellerprovided:
Normallywhathappensis,asIsaidwiththeMiddleEast,theproblemisthatsometimes,wedon'texporttheirpartsaccordingtoAeroMed,andthenthecustomerclaimthathewantstohavethisdeclarationtoskipthedutypayments.So,thisis,Ithink,thecasethathappensmoreregularly,notalwaysduetous,butbecausesometimestheypromisetogettogetthiscertificate,youmustorderthepartswiththesamecertificatestothesupplier.Butifthecustomerasksforaveryrapiddelivery,soveryquick,tohavethepartsinaveryshorttime,weneedtodeliverfromourwarehouse,andinthiscase,wecannotapplytheAeroMed.Andsometimes,thesearegreyarea,becausemaybeweareincontactwiththeirtechnicalguy,andthenthepurchaseisadifferentguy.So,thetechnicalguyneedsthepartsreallyveryfast,butthepurchasingisnotaligned,andsothiscreatessomemistakes.
Whenaskedifthiscommunicationerrorcosttheircompanymoney,theresponsewas:
Yes,becauseifwehavetomakeadiscountinordertosolvenotperfectsituationwithmoney.
Abuyeralsoindicatedanexampleoffreightforwardererror:
Theywillreceivethepapersheetsfromthesupplier,andtheywilldotheirownairwaybill,andtheywillwritedown,maybeIdon'tknow,anExWorks,anditwouldbeDAPorwhatever,thenwehavetocheckitbeforewegivetheokayfortheimport,andthenwehavetoclarifywiththesupplierwhyhechangedit.Oritcouldbethefaultintheforwarder.
Thebuyercontinued:
Mostofthetimewegobacktotheforwarderandtellthemitcan'tbebecausethepapersheetsfromthesupplierarecorrect,buttheforwarderhasmissed,orhastyposinthesystem.Mostofthetimetheproblemisbytheforwarderteam.
141
Inthiscase,thebuyerindicated:
It'sreallythefaultoftheprovider,soit'sokay.So,wehavetodiscusswithourprovider,orweknowthatthenexttimewewon'thavethisprovider;werecommendanotherone.That'stheonlythingwheretheimpactis,thatwechooseanotherforwarder.
Participantswerealsoaskedabouttheimpactofmiscommunicationrelatedto
transportation.Abuyerstated,“Yes,definitely,maybeimpacttherelationshipwith
supplier.Absolutely.”Anotherbuyersupportedthisfurther:
Clearly.Clearly.Clearly.Miscommunicationofanysortisgoingtoaffectarelationship.So,itnotonlybehoovesyou,itbehoovestheotherpartytomakesurethateverythingisironedoutasmuchasitcanbeupfront.Andifyousoundlikeyou'rekeyingoffattransport,andthenfine.Butthatstatementappliestoeveryelementofit.Youdon'twanttobe,afterthefact,saying,"Hey,Ithoughtweagreedtonet90."Weeitherdidorwedidn't.What'sthecontractsay?
Thatbuyercontinued,“AnytimeIhavetocarryextrainventory,orIhavetospendmore
time,orthebuyerhastospendmoretimemanagingthedaytoday,that'smoney.”A
thirdbuyercommented:
Well,again,thisiswherewe'llnegotiate.IfIsayforinstance,"Well,yourquotesaidthisIncoterms®,soitwasunderstoodtobedeliveryatdoor,"andthesuppliersays,"Well,weonlyfigureditwasuptoport,"anditwasn'tclearlystatedattheoutset,oritwasandthenthesuppliersaid,"Well,weunderstooditonlytobeatport,"andit'sclearlystatedattheoutsetthatit'stodoordelivery,thenhe'lltakeontheextracostforwhateverhedidn'tcostintohistransportationfees.So,itdepends.Sometimesitwill,sometimesitwon't.Again,itreopensthedoorforanegotiation.
Stillanotherbuyerindicatedthatmiscommunicationaffectedtherelationship,andthus,
thebuyerkeptextrainventory,soitalsoaffectedcost.
142
Butdiditaffectmyfuturerelationship?Yes.DiditaffecthowmuchriskIwaswillingtocarryforthatsupplier?Inotherwords,ifItrustthatsupplierimplicitly,Imayonlykeeptwoweeksonthefloor.Ifhe'sscaringthedaylightsoutofme,Imaykeepsixweeksonthefloor.AndifIcan'tcommunicateproperlyonthatpackagingelementofthetransport,thenthatcouldleadmemoretocarryingextrainventory.Therefore,I'mdealingwiththeriskfactor.
Aselleralsonotedthatmiscommunicationcosttheircompanymoney.
Sometimes,wetrytonegotiate.Inthiscase,wegivehimadiscounttryingtocovertheduty.So,whenheisasking,wetriedtosolvetheprobleminhisway,andattheend,wearestillingoodrelations.
Finally,abuyerexplainedthelastingeffectsofmiscommunication:
Asabuyer,yousortofcategorizeyoursuppliersaseithermature,lessmature,reliable-maybeIshouldusethatterm-reliable,lessreliable,andyoulearntoknowthem,andyouknowthatsomesuppliersaresolid.TheyunderstandtheIncoterms®,theyunderstandyourneedsandwillbeproactive.You'vegotothersupplierswhereyoualwayshavetogivethemdirectionandalwaysinformthemandfollowthemclosely.So,whenthereismiscommunication,yousortofhaveatendencytoclassifytheminalessreliableclass.Youtrytoputeverythingattheoutsetveryclear.Maybefromlackofproactiveness?Theydidn'taskthequestionsattheoutsettomakesureeverythingwasclear.Iknowthatonmyendwhenyou'relookingtopurchasesomething,youwantitintime,right?So,IdoeverythingIcantomakesurethateverythingisclearoffthebat.That'swhyIwassayingIsortofevaluatethesupplier'sfluencyintermsofIncoterms®,andifIgetthefeelingthathe'snotclearlyunderstandingwhatI'maskingfor,thenIwillgointothenitty-grittyandsay,"Okay,soI'mexpectingyoutotakeresponsibilityforthis.I'mexpectingyoutotakethecostofthis,andjusttomakesure,Idoexpectthatyouwilltakeonport-to-doorportionofthetransportation."So,ifthereismiscommunication,eventhoughattheoutset,Idideverythingonmyendtomakesurethateverythingisclear,thenitwillimpactinthesensethatokay,nexttimewhenIdopurchasefromthissupplierIwillgoevenfurtherlengthstomakesurethateverythingisclear.Iwillcallhim.I'llmakesurethatwhateverwentwrongthefirsttime,Imakesurethatitwon'thappenagainbytellinghim,"Okay,soonpreviousoccasionsthishappened.So,whatwillbedonethistimesothatitdoesn'thappenagain?"
143
Buyersandsellersalsoindicatedthatmiscommunicationcostthem“time.”One
buyercommentedthatthis“time”costthecompanymoney.
OuroriginalplanwouldbestartedtheconsignmentprogramfromSeptember.Okay?ButnowwehavetochangeourscheduletoNovember.Sostillhavetwomonths’delay.So,thesetwomonths,Ithink,meansmoney,right?
Anotherbuyerremarkedthattimenotonlyimpactscosts,butitcanalsotranslateto
theircompany’sreputationwiththeircustomer:
Ofcourse,itcanimpactthedelivery.Forsure,wecanhavedelaysintheshipmentthatcanalsoimpactproduction.So,ifwehavemiscommunicationthenitcouldhaveamajorimpactintheproduction.That'scost,butthat'salso--ifwearelateingettingmaterials,thenwecanbelateinthedeliveryandimpactingourreputationaswell.So,thatcouldhavealsoabigimpact.
Asellercommented:
Well,yeah,ifyouhaveamisunderstandingoramiscommunicationrelatedtoIncoterms®,thenyou'regoingtodelaythematerial.Becausewetellthecustomer,"Okay,it'sreadyforpick-up,"butthenyouhavetonegotiateagain,wehavetotellthem,"Well,that'snottheway.Wehavetopreparenewpapersandyou'regoingtodelayit."So,attheend,thecomponentisnotbeingdeliveredaspromised.
Thesellercontinued:
Andhavingpurchaseordersthatclearlyidentifywhothecustomer'snominatedfreightforwardersareinadvanceofwhenthePOsprocessoratinitialsubmittalalsohelpsinthatbecauseitdoesn't--Itoldyou,thethingwevalueiswe'reabletoshipthegoodsearly.Well,ifIacceptaPOfromacustomerthatsaystheyagreedtoFCAterms,buttheydon'tidentifywhothatforwarderis--andsometimesIcanstillgetstuckwithgoodssittingonourdockandnotbeingabletomoveafterthey'recompletedfinishedgoods.
Thesameselleradded:
144
AndwhatIfindsometimesisthatbuyersdon'thavenominatedforwardersthattheytrustortheyhavearelationshipwiththatalreadyisestablished.So,whattheyendupdoingisweprocesstheorder,andtheyaskusforweightsanddimensionsofthegoodsbeforethey'rereadytoship.Icangivethemsomeroughestimatesforwhattheywouldbe,butwedon'tweigh--theproductthatwehave,wedon'talreadyknowwhattheweightandthedimensionofitisgoingtobebeforeit'spacked.So,whathappenssometimesisthey'llwaituntilwegivethemtheweightsanddimensionsofgoodsandtellthemit'sreadytogooutandstarttryingtonegotiatewithfreightforwardersforthebestpricetogettheproductthere.Andsometimes,thatcanlastweeks.
Anothersellermadesimilarcomments:
SomeoftheaccountmanagersthatIseearemore--andtheseguyschangeprettyfrequently,butIfindsomeofthemoreresponsibleoneswill--uponacceptinganorderandprocessingit,whentheysendtheorderacknowledgment,ifforwarderisn'tidentified,they'lladdanotetotheiremailcommunicationwiththeOA-orderacknowledgment-backtothebuyerthat,"Withintwoweeks,itisreadytoship.Weneedtoknowwhoitissowecansendittoyousoitleavesontime."AndI'vehadcasesinthepastwherethathasn'tbeenclarified,andthebuyer'sexpectingsomethingtohappenthatdoesn'thappen.
Thesamesellercontinuedbysaying:
Iguessthisgoesbacktooneofyourearlierquestionswhereyouaskedaboutifthere'sanythingthataffectstherelationshipwiththebuyer.I'vehadcustomerinThailandgetprettyupsetatmebecausethey'venominatedtheirfreightforwarderandidentifiedtouswhotheywere,buttheydidn'tgiveusanycontactinformationforthem.So,whenthegoodsareready,wegobacktothebuyerandsay,"Hey,thisisready.Tellyourforwardertocomeandgetit."Orwemightnotevensaythat.Wemightjustsay,"Hey,thesearereadytobepickedup.Wheredoyouwantustoshipit?
Thatsellerfurtherbellowedaboutbuyers:
Andtheydon'tunderstandthattheirresponsibilityistotakethatinformationandsendittotheirfreightforwarderandsay,"Hereitis.Gogetit."Theythinkthat--Idon'tknow.Inmyopinion,theythinkthatbecausetheywriteDHL,there'sone
145
personforDHLthatwecangoandtell,andthatpersonwillknowexactlywhattheirresponsibilitiesare,andthey'llcomegetthegoods,andeverythingwillshipontime.Andsometimes,thatdoesn'thappen.Thegoodsendupsittinghereforalongperiodoftime.Andtheythinkthatwe'relatewiththegoodsbecausetheyhaven'tshipped,andwe'relateintoproduction,wheninfact,thegoodswerereadyontime,buttheyneverleftbecausecertainactionsdidn’toccurinatimelyfashion.
Anothersellerexplainedaboutcoordinationwithboththeircustomerandfreight
forwarder:
Also,wecoordinatethetransportationtimebecauseanotherimportantthingisthatthecustomerhastopaytheVAT.Andifthecustomerisnotprepared,wecanlosetimeatthecustomsbecausewhenwetransfertheproductfromoursitetothefinal…..Whenthetruckarrivestothecustoms,youhavetopaytheVATtogettheimportation,togettothecustomclearance.Andinthepast,whathappenedisthatwelostdaysbecausethecustomerwasnotpayingtheVAT.
Itisapparentthatparticipantsplacedheavyimportanceonthebuyer-seller
relationshipaswellasonprice.Asellernotedthat:
Well,itistherelationship,becausethebrandname….isverywell-knownintheworld,andtheyassociatethiswithquality.So,thecustomerrelationistoppriority,ofcourse.
Abuyerindicated,“Relationshipwithsupplier,bothshouldbeveryimportant.”Another
buyerindicatedthatbothpriceandrelationshipareimportant:
Frombuyers'side,costisveryimportant.Butsometimeswestillneedtosupportfromsupplier.So,relationshipsstillveryimportantaswell.Icansayboth.
Inasimilarway,anotherbuyercommented:
Ithinktomethatthey'rebothimportant,therelationshipandthecost,butIthink--well,definitelywithastrategicandevenwithahighbuyfrom,atleastfrommid-
146
range,let'ssay,Ithinkit’sreallyimportanttofigureouthowtokeepbothofyouinbusiness.Inotherwords,makebothofyourbusinesses--howcanyoumakebothofyourbusinessessustainandgrowanddowellandnotkilltheotherguy?
Anotherbuyerasserted,“Ifeelstronglythatbothareimportant.”Asellercommented
that:
It'savariableofboth.Themostimportantthingis,ofcourse,therelationship.Becauseifyouwantareliable,safebusiness,alotisbasedontrust.So,you'vegottotrusteachother.Youhavetocommunicateveryopenly.Ifitgetstooopen,we'resigningNDAs…SowehaveNDAs…inplace,sothecommunicationisveryopen.Ifthere'squestionsconcerningourprocessesandsoon,it'sjusttrust,isbasicallythemainthing.And,ofcourse,secondthingisprice.Therecanbealotoftrust,butifthepriceistoohigh,it'snotgoingtowork.So,it'sgottobetrust,understandingonamutualbase,Iwouldsay.
Anothersellerremarked:
Idothinktherelationshipsareimpactedsomewhat,butthere--witheachproblem,there'sanopportunitytoevengetcloser.Somaybethemiscommunicationresultedinaninitialnegativefeelingbythecustomer.Butifwe'reabletoworkthroughthatprobleminawaythatleavesthemnotupset,it’sanopportunitytobringuscloser.
Athirdsellercommented:
Becauseagoodrelationshipcanbringusfurtherordersfromthesamecustomersandacustomercansuggesttoothercompaniestocometoustopurchase.Andofcourse,alsothecost.Ifwearecompetitive,ithelpsustoconcludemoreorders.Andso,alltheseaspectsareveryimportantduringandafterthenegotiationsforus.
Afourthselleralsoremarked,“Therelationshipsareimportantallthetime.That'squite
clear.Thecosts,exactlythesame.”
147
Itisalsonotedthatforone-timesales,therelationshipisnotasimportant.A
buyerstated,“Ifit'saone-timesupplier,therelationshipisn'tthatsignificant.”Similarly,
anotherbuyercommented,“Honestly,whenwebuyonceinthesupplier,soit'sthecost
relianceforme.”
4.2.8Othercategoriesdiscovered
Fourunanticipatedcategoriesoftheoryhaveemergedfromanalyzingthecases
inStudy2.Theuncoveringofthesefindingsisadirectconsequenceofthechoiceto
employsemi-structuredinterviewsinthisexploratoryresearch.Thefourcategories
relatedtologisticsnegotiationsarediscussedindetailbelow.
4.2.8.1Sellersfocusonsale,notexecution
Ithasbeenobservedthatsellersindyadsoftenhaveastrongfocusonthe
completionofthesaleitselfandnotnecessarilyontheexecutionoftheorder.This
lesserfocusonorderexecutionincludesthelogisticsmanagementactivitiesassociated
withcompletingthetransactions.Onesellerremarkedregardingorderexecution:
Yeah,sothisisnotonmytable.Yougoastepfurthernow-whenevertheyhavequestionsaboutpackaging--whatisit?Thebilloflading,orwhatever,it'snotonmyplateanymore.
Later,thesellerreiterated:
Youhavetounderstand,I'masalesguy.Idon'treallycarewhathappens[chuckles]afterIsell.That’sbasicallythepoint.IcarethatthecustomerwillbehappyafterIsoldit,but,really,theprocessingbetween,thisisanotherdepartment.
148
Anothersellercommentedonsalefocus:
Well,firstofall,successisgettingtheorder.Increasingoursalesisthebiggestsuccessoncewegettheorder.Thesecondsuccessis,ofcourse,gettingthemostprofitoutofit.So,donotbuyitforlessthanthecustomeriswillingtopay.Forthis,youhavetoknowthemarketandthecustomer.
Athirdsellermadesimilarcomments:
Ithink,tome,successmeansfirstofallthatImadethesale.Secondofall,Ipridemyselfingettingpremiumpricingforsellingaproduct.Notjusttheproduct,butthevaluethatweoffertothecustomer.Ithinkthatallowsmetogetapremiumonthepricesthatperhapsotherguysareshowingthesameproductfor.So,Ireallytrytosellatahigherpricethanwhatanybodyelseisdoingandatthesametimehavingacustomerthat'shappywiththetransaction.Totalsales,totalannualsalesgetsalotofattentionatthisfactorysometimesthatIworkat.
Afourthsellerindicated:
Well,ofcourse,weknowthatthenegotiatingactivityhasbeensuccessfulwhenwegetthePOfromthecustomerandespeciallywhenwegetthePOafterthefirstquotation.So,whenthecustomeracceptsthefirstpriceandthefirstpriceisalsothelastpricewithoutanydiscountrequired.So,inthatcase,weknowthatnegotiationhasbeenverysuccessfulbecausewehaveallthecommercialmarginswehavecalculated.And,yes,it'salsosuccessfulwhenwegetthePOinaveryshorttime.
Afifthselleralsocommented,“That'sthe--successlookslikeanemailoranallocation
letter….Togetinthecontract.”Thisstrongsalesfocusalsorelatestothenextdiscovered
arearegardinglogisticsnegotiations,whichisrevenuerecognition.
4.2.8.2RevenueRecognition
Sellersseektorecognizetherevenueasquicklyaspossibleanddesiretocontrol
processestofacilitatethis.Onesellerstated:
149
Theyalsolikeforustogettheproductoutoffsiteasquicklyaspossibleandmoving.SoifI'mquotingexworks,allI'mreallydoingis,whentheproduct'sready,becausetheseareinternationalshipments,insteadofaskingthemwhotheirfreightforwarderisandthentellingthatfreightforwarder,"Hey,thisisready.Comegetit,"usingFCAnotunloadedtoafirstUSdestinationallowsusto,whentheproduct'sready,chooseacarrierofourchoice,putitonatruck,andtakeittothatlocation.Andwedon't--wecanrealizetherevenuesoonerthatwayratherthansometimeswaitingforweeksforsomeonetocomeandgetsomethingthat'ssittingonourdock.Soifwewanttohaveanychanceofhavingaforecastthat'sreasonablycorrect,wewanttobeabletogetthatoutthedoorandmovingasquicklyaspossible--deliveringtoapoint,aportorapoint,withintheU.S.allowsyoutomovetothatpoint-that'syourfreedom-andrecognizerevenuefromthecompany'sperspectivemuchearlier.
Anothersellercommented:
Sometimes.Now,whatwestarttoexpect,thisisintermsofturnover,thecompanyconsider--butthesebecauseofIthinkthisweeksarelowthattheturnoverismadewhenthemachineleavesthesite.So,whenthemachineisshipped,weconsiderthemachinelikecompletelysoldandnotanymoreintheinventory.
Similarly,abuyermentioned:
Moreforoutboundtransportationintermsofrevenuerecognition.Ifrevenuerecognitioncantakeplaceatsayourplantorwhetheritcantakeplacedelivered….canmakeabigdifference.
4.2.8.3Expeditedfreight
Anotherarearelatedtologisticsnegotiationshasemergedwithinthecases.
Buyer-sellernegotiationsandagreementsgenerallyaddressnormaloperationsand,
hence,normallogisticsmanagementoperations(i.e.notexpeditedfreight).However,
eventshappenduringoperationsthatwarranttheuseofexpeditedfreightwhichmay
notbespecificallyaddressedinnegotiations.Abuyerastutelystated:
150
I'mjusttryingtothinkifthere'saquestionofairfreightversusocean,andwhathappensif--sotheremaybesituationswhere--andalotoftimeswewilldocumentthis-whathappenswhenwedohavetoexpediteaproduct?Dowestillfollowthesametermsandconditions,orgivennowwe'reexpeditingdoesthatimmediatelygotoABBaspickingupthefullfee,orisitthedifferenceofwhattheywouldhavepickedupversustheexpeditefee?So,thatmaybesomethingelsethatcomesupandthatisnotsomethingthat'sspelledintheagreement.Typically,theagreementishandlinghere'swhat'shappeninginthecaseofstandardbusiness..….TypicallywhatI'veseenisit'snota,okay,we'llpayoverwhatyouwouldhavepaid.It'susually,ifyou'reexpediting,you'repickingupthewholetab.
Thebuyerfurthercommentedonhowtherelationshipwiththeselleraffectsthese
expeditedsituations:
Itis,becauseifyou'vegottherelationshipit'sa,"Okay,I'lldothisasafavorforyou,andwe'lljustkindof--"whatitusuallycomesdowntoiswhereyouhavetheexceptionsthatkindofgooutsideoftheagreement,istryingtogetthesupplier,eventhoughweaskedyoutoexpedite,yeah,we'regoingtofollowtheagreement.So,thenitmaycomeupthatherunsintoasituationwhere,"Hey,wegotalatedeliveryonapart.I'mgoingtobelate."Itmaybeasituationinthat,"Hey,wecanadjustourmanufacturingtimetoaccommodatewhereyoudon'thavetoexpediteit."Andthatalwayshappensbetterwhereyou'vegotagoodrelationship.Ifit'smoreofanadversarial,it'sgoingtobe,"No.Putitintheair."So,itistheflexibilityonbothsidesofthepartiesworkingtogether.
4.2.8.4FCAvs.EXWIncoterms®
Thefinalcategoryrelatedtologisticsnegotiationsuncoveredinthecasestudies
wasthefrequencyinwhichtheIncoterms®rule,EXW,wasincorrectlyutilizedin
situationswheretheappropriateIncoterms®rulewasFCA.EXWrepresentstheleast
obligationsthatasellermayagreeto,asthesellerisnotresponsibleforexport
formalitiesorloadingtheoncomingvehicle.Duetosomecountries’exportobligations,
eventhoughEXWisnegotiated,thesellermaystillberequiredtoarrangeexport
formalities,whichcouldconflictwiththeEXWIncoterms®rule.Study2hasfounda
151
clearexampleofEXWmisuseoverthepreferredFCAIncoterms®rule.Abuyerprovided
anexamplethatcausedissueswithaNorthAmericaFreeTradeAgreement(NAFTA)
qualifiedshipmentthatshouldhavebeenusinganFCAIncoterms®rulebutinstead,the
orderindicatedtheEXWIncoterms®rule.WiththeEXWIncoterms®rule,thesupplier
didnotneedtocleargoodsforexportandhence,thesupplierfeltnoobligationto
provideaNAFTAform,whichwouldhavesavedthebuyer’scompanyfrompaying
importduty.Thisresultedin$8,500dutypershipmentonaproductthatshipped
weekly.
4.2.9Whatcanimprovethequalityofbuyer-sellerdyadscommunicationoflogistics
managementdecisions?
WhilethepurposeofStudy2isprimarilytoexplorethefirstthreeresearch
questions,ithasalsoexploredwhatactionsorchangesinlogisticsnegotiations
processesmightimprovethequalitycommunicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions
inbuyer-sellerdyads.Participantsweredirectlyaskedtheiropinionsonwhatcould
improvebuyer-sellercommunicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions.Theresponses
indicatedthatthethreecharacterIncoterms®acronymsshouldbeusedwhenever
appropriateincommunicatinglogisticsdecisions;moreover,fullyspecifyingoperational
definitionsoftherelevantIncoterms®ruleswouldbehelpfulinclarifyingtheobligations
anddutiesofthepartiesinvolved.Abuyerexplained:
NotrelyingsolelysometimesontheIncotermbutmakingsurethattheotherpartyhasthesameunderstandingoftheIncotermasyoudocouldhaveavoidedsomeofthesemiscommunications.Whatelse?Perhapsstatingattheoutsetalsowhenyourequestaquotewhatyourexpectationsare.Thatcouldhelpaswell.
152
Thebuyercontinued:
Iwouldusetheinternational--well,liketheIncotermguideandwouldbasicallyaddressownership,risk,andcost.Ithinkthosearethethreemaincomponents,andmakesuretoexplicitlysay,"Okay,somyunderstandingisthatyourresponsibilitystartshereandendsthere.Yourcostsstarthereorendthere,andyourtasksstarthereandendthere.”Sobasically,IwouldchopitdownbasedonthedefinitionoftheIncotermtomakesurethattheotherpersonunderstandsclearly.
Anotherbuyercommented:
Imean,theonethingis,ifyouhaveanannualcontractyoucanputalldetailsintothatcontracttomakethingsclearfromthebeginning,andyouhavetosticktothem.Ifyousticktothem,thereisnomiscommunication.Thenit'sallquiteclear.Becausealotofthethings,especiallyconcerningtransportareimplementedintheIncoterms®.So,ifyou'reworkingthroughIncoterms,youdon'thavemiscommunicationbecauseyouknowhowit'sworking.You'vegotalltheoldissuescovered.Youcanneverexcludethatsomething,liketheexamplebefore,deliveryaddressesmiscommunicated.
AthirdbuyercommentedthatnotonlyareIncoterms®usedinthecontract,butthese
Incoterms®areexplainedindetail,andthenhereflectedbystating:
Ithinkthebestwayistoprovideexamplesintheagreement,andthat'sonethingthatI'vechangedinhowIdoit,soit'snotjustputtingthewordsintheagreement,butthenhavinganexamplesothatit'sclearlyspelledout.AndIthinkthat'sagreatcommunicationfortheusinglocationsaswell.Becausesometimesonepersoncanreaditandinterpretitonewayandanotherpersoncaninterpretitadifferentway,butanexamplewillclearlydefinehere'swhatthemeaningisofthewording.
Otherparticipantsmadebroadstatementsabouttheeffectsofimproving
Incoterms®understandingoncommunicatinglogisticsdecisions.Thisindicatesa
153
perceptionthatthecounterpartyinthedyaddoesnotfullyunderstandIncoterms®
rules.Onebuyersimplystated,“JustabetterunderstandingofIncoterms®.”Another
buyermentioned,“Lessonlearned.Askforpicturesofhowyou'regoingtopackageit.
"Canyougivemeexamplesofwhatyoushippedtoday,usingthatpackaging?"Aseller
commented,“Training,education,Ithinkthey'reimportantforbothparties.”Theseller
continuedbysaying,“EveryoneshouldunderstandtheIncoterms®…Thisisourbasefor
anydiscussionornegotiations.Otherwisewillbeconfusionormisunderstanding,
miscommunication.”Anothersellerstated:
Idefinitelythinkaneducationortrainingofnotjustthesellers,butalsoourbuyersonwho'sresponsibleforwhatwhenspecific--I'llbehonest,notalotofpeopleunderstandIncoterms®inthisbusinessanyways.AndwhenIsaythat,I'mreferringtothebuyersthemselves.Theydon'tknow,evenwithinmyowncompany.….Andperhapsevenanexplanationofwho'sresponsibleforwhatintheIncotermssectionratherthanrelyingonsomeonetoknoworgobackandfindoutwho'sresponsibleforwhatwhenspecifictermsareusedinthesalewouldhelp.
ThesestatementssupportthecommentsofYao-HuaandThoen(2000)thatthe
negotiationprocessbetweenbuyerandsellertodeterminetheoptimalIncoterms®isa
potentialbarrierininternationaltrade,“becauseitrequiresanexpertknowledgeabout
Incotermsthatmostsmall-andmedium-sizedcompaniescannotafford”(p.391).
Extendingthisbelieffurther,itappearsthatlargecorporationsarealsochallengedin
theirIncoterms®usage.ThisfindingsupportsStapletonetal.(2014a),whosuggested
thatshippersmightuseless-than-optimalIncoterms®strategiescreatedthroughalack
ofknowledgeofvulnerabilitiesandsloppyimplementations.Bergami(2012)expressesa
154
similarnotionthat“therearesignificantproblemsingettingtraderstochangefromthe
establishedroutinestomoreappropriateandcorrectuseofIncoterms”(p.37).
Ofallparticipants,onlyonebuyerandonesellerstatedthattheyhavespecified
alllogisticsrelatedtaskswiththeirsupplierorcustomerinnegotiations.Thebuyer
commented:
IwillifIfeelthatthesupplierisnotfluentintheterminology,andthenI'llexplicitlyspellitoutifI'maskingclarificationstotheirproposal.I'llsay,"Okay,soIunderstandthatthisandthisandthisisincluded.Isthatyourunderstandingofit?"Andthenwe'llgofromthere.
Thebuyercontinued:
Inthatsense,no.Idon'tknow,thisisjustapersonalpreference,butratherthanusingtheirterminology,I'lltrytogetthemtoacceptminebysaying,"Okay,couldyouconsiderratherthanFOB,forinstance,anFCA?"AndthenIwouldsay,"Thisimplicatesthis,this,this,andthis."Andthenthey'lleitherrespondyesornoandsometimesthey'llbereluctant,andthenwe'llhavetotrytofigureoutawaytoworditsothatthey'reinagreementwithit.Generally,that'sthestartingpointandwe'llworditoutandtrytoreachacommonagreement.
Thesellerstated:
Okay,intermsoftask,yes,intermsoftask,wesharewiththecustomer.Forinstance,wesay,"Okay.Wemakethepackaging.Weputthepartsonthetruck.Wecoordinatethetruckortheairorship.Stillyoursite.Youhavetobringthecratesfromthetruck.Youhavetounpackthecrates.Wethenhavetotransferthepartsinthefinalroom.Weneedtoinstall."Sothisissomethingwedo.Sowe,withthecustomer,weagree,step-by-stepforthedifferenttasks.
Twosuggestionstoimprovethequalityofbuyer-sellerdyad’scommunicationof
logisticsmanagementdecisionshasemergedinthecasestudyinterviews.First,there
155
existsaperceptionthattheotherdyadicpartnerdoesnotfullyunderstandIncoterms®
rules.Second,participantssuggestedthatlistingoutthefullimplicationsofthese
Incoterms®rules,theoperationaldefinitions,mightreducethelikelihoodof
miscommunicationsoccurring.BothsuggestionsledtohypothesestestedinStudy3.
4.2.10HypothesesforStudyThree
Baseduponexistingliterature,thecasestudyresults,andtheresearcher’s
knowledge,threetestablehypotheseshavebeendevelopedanddiscussed.The
hypothesesare:
H1:Incoterms®trainingleadstoadecreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbya
reductionininappropriateIncoterms®application.
H2:ProvidingfullyspecifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsleadstoadecreasein
communicationerrorsevidencedbyareductionininappropriateIncoterms®
application.
H3:ProvidingfullyspecifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsandIncoterms®
trainingleadstoafurtherdecreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbya
furtherreductionininappropriateIncoterms®application.
Hypothesis1wassuggestedbytheStudy2results.Manybuyersandsellers
offeredthattheyfeltaneedfortheopposingdyadicpartnertoreceiveIncoterms®
training.Forexample,abuyersuggestedthatotherscouldobtain,“justabetter
understandingofIncoterms®.”SupportforHypothesis2wasalsofoundintheresultsof
Study2.TheresponsesinStudy2indicatethatthespecifieddefinitionsofthese
156
Incoterms®rules,whicharetheoperationaldefinitions,shouldbeemployedin
communicationsconcerninglogisticsdecisions.Severalcasessuggestedthatincluding
operationaldefinitionsisabestpracticetoprovidecleardyadicbuyer-seller
communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions.Hypothesis3,“providingfully
specifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsandIncoterms®trainingleadstoafurther
decreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbyafurtherreductionininappropriate
Incoterms®application”testedtheeffectsofthecombinationofbothIncoterms®
trainingandprovidingoperationaldefinitions.
4.3STUDYTHREE:QUANTITATIVERESEARCHFINDINGS–TESTINGHYPOTHESES
4.3.1ExperimentalDesign
Study3experimentallytestedthehypothesesdevelopedinStudy2:
H1:Incoterms®trainingleadstoadecreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbya
reductionininappropriateIncoterms®application.
H2:ProvidingfullyspecifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsleadstoadecreasein
communicationerrorsevidencedbyareductionininappropriateIncoterms®
application.
H3:ProvidingfullyspecifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsandIncoterms®
trainingleadstoafurtherdecreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbya
furtherreductionininappropriateIncoterms®application.
Theexperimentaldesigninvolvedthecompletionofaquestionnaireregardingthe
useofIncoterms®infivehypotheticalscenariosdrawnfromapurposefulsampleof
157
buyersandsellersinthehostcompany.Thequestionnaireisdescribedindetailin
Section4.3.2.Questionnairerespondentswerepartitionedintofourdifferenttreatment
groups:(respondentswhoself-identifiedthattheyweretrainedintheuseof
Incoterms®:YesorNo)x(respondentswhoreceivedaquestionnairewithcandidate
responseswithoperationaldefinitionsfullyspecifiedandtheIncoterms®acronymor
respondentswhoreceivedaquestionnairewithcandidateresponseswithonlythe
Incoterms®acronym).Thebinary“trained”variabledifferentiatesbetweenthose
trainedandthoseuntrained.The“operationaldefinitionsfullyspecifiedwithIncoterms®
acronyms”or“onlyIncoterms®acronymsused”binaryvariabledifferentiatesbetween
thosetwocircumstances.Theexperimentaldesignpermitsfullytestingthethree
hypothesesusingthenumberoftotalcorrectresponsestothequestionsasa
dependentvariable.
4.3.2Questionnaire
Thequestionnairecomplieswiththerequirementsofinformedconsent(45CFR
46.116)forresearchinvolvinghumansubjects(U.S.DepartmentofHealth&Human
Services2010).ThequestionnairewasbuiltviaQualtrics®softwareinauniversity
account.Participantsfirstreadabriefintroductiondescribingthepurposeofthestudy
anditsimportance,includingthepotentialbenefitstotheindividual,corporation,and
others.Participantswerethenremindedthattheirparticipationwasvoluntaryandwere
providedtheconditionsoftheirparticipation,includingtheirrighttorefuseorwithdraw
atanytimewithoutpenalty.Confidentialityprotectionsfortheindividualswere
158
presentedviatheweb-basedquestionnaire.Sincethequestionnairewasdeliveredvia
aninternalemail,participantswereremindedthattheirresponseswouldbeanonymous
andtheirindividualresultswouldnotbesharedwiththecorporation.Noforeseeable
risksordiscomfortstotheindividualorcompensationplanwereexpected.Lastly,
contactinformationwasprovidedforrespondent’squestionsregardingthestudy,
participants’rights,andincaseofinjury.Study3wasassignedProjectNumber885996-
3bytheUniversityofMissouri-St.LouisInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB)andapproved
underexemptionCategory#2.
Followingtheintroductoryinformation,aseriesoffourquestionsrequested
demographicinformationincludingsex,agerange,jobrole,andyearsofexperience.A
fifthquestionaskedparticipantsiftheyhadreceivedIncoterms®trainingeither
internallybythecompanyorexternally.Thisquestionsegregatedparticipantsintoone
oftwotrainedtreatments:YesorNo.Finally,iftherespondentwastrainedin
Incoterms®,asixthquestionaskedhowrecentlythatIncoterms®traininghadoccurred.
Participantsthenreadasetofdirectionsandwereaskedtoprojectthemselves
intoafictitiouscorporation,YZZInc.,whichwasdescribedasalarge,international
manufacturingcorporationthatsuppliesproductstointernationalindustrialmarkets
andpurchasesitemsgloballyforuseinitsproduction.Theparticipantswereaskedto
respondtoeachoffivescenariosrequiringthemtoidentifytheappropriateIncoterms®
foruseinthescenariobaseduponhowtheywouldreactifthescenariowasreal.They
weregivenfivecandidateIncoterms®rulestoselecttheappropriaterulefromineach
159
scenario.Thismethodofquestioningassumesthattheparticipantsimaginethemselves
ineachscenarioandprovideanswersastheywouldnormallyrespondinreal-lifework
situations(Fisher,1993;Chandyetal.,2003;Antiaetal.,2006;Thomasetal.,2010;
Thomas,2013),basedupontheirownbehaviorsandvalues(Micketal.,1992;Thomas
etal.,2010)andthetotalityoftheirentirecareerexperienceasopposedtojusttheir
currentjobandcompany(Thomasetal.,2010).Thestructuredprojectivetechniquehas
beenshowntosuccessfullyprovidemanagerialattitudeandcorporatestrategyinsights
(Fisher,1993;Chandyetal.,2003;Antiaetal.,2006;Thomasetal.,2010).Thiskindof
researchinstrumenthasbeenshowntobereliable,valid,andtrustworthy(Ramseyet
al.,2006;Thomasetal.,2010).
Afterreadingthedirections,participantswererandomlyassignedtooneoftwo
questionnaireformats:1)Scenarioswithbothoperationaldefinitionsfullyspecifiedand
Incoterms®acronymsusedor2)identicalscenarioswithonlytheIncoterms®acronyms
supplied.Theparticipantswereprovidedtheirfivescenariosinarandomizedorder.
EachscenariorequiredtheparticipanttoidentifythecorrectIncoterm®toemployin
thesituationdescribedfromfivecandidateIncoterms®andhadonlyonecorrect
response.Thefivescenariosweredevelopedusingacombinationofissuesidentifiedin
theliterature(e.g.Stapletonetal.,2014a)andtheresultsfromStudies1and2.Thefull
questionnaireforStudy3canbefoundinAppendixVI.Thecorrectresponsesareinbold
text.
Scenario1exploresonecommonerrorfoundintheliterature:incorrectseaand
inlandwaterwayIncoterms®applicationsforcontainerizedtransport.Thisisidentified
160
amongthesixcommonusageerrorsthatStapletonetal.(2014a)noted.Thecase
studiesalsofoundthisbehavior.Someexamplesareprovidedhere.Forinstance,a
sellertalkedaboutlistingoutthedetailsofFOBinthecustomeragreement:
Ithinkno,evenfromthecontractperspective.Nomoredetailslefttoexplainwhat'saFOB,what'sresponsibilitiesthatyouneedtotake.Yeah,Incoterms®thesuppliersalsounderstandveryclear.
Anothersellerreferenced“FOBourdock”inhiscomments:
Usuallyit'sonthefrontend.So,let'sjustsayabrandnewcustomercomestometoday,sendsmeaquoterequest."Hey,IgotyournamefromJoeBlowoveratXYZcompany.Okay,here'smyproject.Here'swhatitis,Isubmitpricingthatsays,"Hey,ourpricingisFOBourdock."Whichmeans,hey,you'refiguringouthowtogetitfrommydocktoyourdockatyourexpense.
EvenonebuyercomplainedabouttheincorrectFOBusagebehavior:
So,U.S.mostly(sources)goodscomefromlow-costcountrylikeChina,India,andothercountries.So,sometimeswhenweusethoseIncoterms®,sometimestheytellme,"…weneedthegoodswithFOBbehindit."Itmeansthattheydon'tunderstandthedefinitionoftheIncoterms®.
CIFusagewasalsofound.Forexample,onesellerstates:
Inthosecases,wheresomebodyknowsenoughaboutIncotermstosay,"Well,youquotedusCIF,butthisshufflingfeeorcontainerizationfeeisn'texclusivelydescribedinyourquotation."
Inaddition,Study1foundthatthecorporationhadexperiencedtwoexamplesof
CIFcomplications.OneexamplewasprovidedforashipmentfromtheU.S.toHaitithat
wassoldtoanagentviatheIncoterms®ofCIFPortauPrince.Thesecondexamplewasa
situationwherecargofelloffadrayagetruckduringterminalhandlingattheportof
161
delivery.Itwasclarifiedwiththeparticipantsthatproductiongoodsdoindeedshipvia
anoceancontainer,asopposedtobreak-bulk.
Scenario2exploresthecorrectusageofFOBappliedasanIncoterms®ruleas
opposedtoaUCCtermofsale.ExamplesofinappropriateuseofFOBhavebeen
identifiedinStudies1and2.Forexample,withinStudy2,oneCanada-basedbuyer
explicitlycommentedthatIncoterms®rulesarenottobeconfusedwiththeUniform
CommercialCode(UCC)1951shippinganddeliveryterms.TheCanada-basedbuyer
stated:
ButoftenlocalorU.S.suppliersarelessfamiliarwiththeseinternationalIncoterms®,andyouhavetogointothespecificationsandsay,"Okay,I'dliketochangeforIncoterm®such-and-such.Hence,youwillberesponsiblefordeliveryuptothispoint,"etcetera,etcetera.So,itreallydependsonthefluencyofthesupplierintermsofIncoterm®knowledge.BecauseintheU.S.,youhadthisprevious-Idon'tknowwhatsystemtheycalledit-buttheFOBterminologyandthelessinternationalterminology.So,sometimesyou'llgetrequestsforquotationsthatindicateFOBsuch-and-such,butweprefertousetheinternationalstandardoftheIncoterms®,sonotallsuppliersarefluentintermsofthoseterminologies,soitwilldepend.IfIseethatthesupplierisnotgettingwhatI'masking,I'llhavetospellitoutforhim.Otherwise,iftheyagreetomyIncoterm®,FCAforinstance,orDDPwouldbemoreto--DAPwouldbemoretomyadvantage.Andifhesaysyes,thenmycomprehensionisthatheunderstandsoratleastlookedituptomakesurethatheunderstandswhatI'maskingfor.Otherwise,Iguesshe'stightwiththelegalimplicationsofit.
Inaddition,Study1alsoidentifiedextensiveincorrectuseofFOB.
Scenario3explorescorrectspecificationofageographicplacewithIncoterms®.
WithinthesixcommonusageerrorsdescribedbyStapletonetal.(2014a),Incoterms®
ruleswerefoundtobeusedwithoutclearlyspecifyingageographicplace.Thiscontrasts
withtheICCrecommendationthattheplaceofportbespecifiedaspreciselyaspossible
162
(ICC,2010).Study2hasidentifiedanexamplefromabuyerrelatedtoanunclear“name
place,”whichprovedproblematicaftertheseller’sU.S.warehousewasclosed.Thiscost
thebuyersubstantialmoniescomparedtotheU.S.warehousearrangementthatwas
closertothebuyer’slocation.
Onesellerindicatedthatspecifyingaclear,geographicplacecanalsobe
problematic.ThesellerreferencedcustomersinTurkeywhoindicatedtheirfactoryas
thenameddeliveryplace,whereasthebuyerwanteddeliverytoanearbywarehouse.In
addition,Study1alsofoundthatthecorporatedatasamplefrequentlydidnothavea
clearorpreciseplaceorportnamedwhenrequired.Additionally,acorporatelocation
used“FCASt.Louis”Incoterms®onapurchaseordertoasupplierinSt.Louis,Franceas
opposedtoSt.Louis,Missouri,andthiscausedconfusion,extrashippingtime,and
ultimately,increasedbuyercost.AlsowithinStudy1,andduetoSAPR/3’sstructureand
characterlimitations,specifyingtheIncoterms®version(e.g.Incoterms®2010)inthe
Incoterms(s)Field2isgenerallyimpossiblewhenalsospecifyingthenamedplaceor
port.
Scenario4explorestheneedtospecifythecorrectIncoterms®version(i.e.
Incoterms®2010,2000).ThisisalsoidentifiedbyStapletonetal.(2014a)inthesix
commonusageerrorsas“notadoptingtorecentIncoterms®ruleversion,suchas
Incoterms®2000/2010.”Study1hasfoundthatSAPR/3doesnotbydefaultspecifythe
Incoterms®ruleversionnordoesSAPR/3allowenoughcharacterstoallowbotha
locationandIncoterms®version.Study1hasalsofoundthatthreeearlierIncoterms®
163
rules(DAF,DES,andDDU)arestillbeingused.TheseIncoterms®2000ruleshavebeen
replacedintheIncoterms®2010rules.WhilepreviousIncoterms®ruleversionsmaybe
used,theversionshouldbespecifiedwhendoingso(ICC,2010).IntheStudy1data,
applicableversionswerefrequentlynotspecified.
Lastly,Scenario5exploresFCAbeingcorrectlyappliedrelativetoEXW.Support
forexploringthisscenarioisobservedinbothStudies1and2.EXWrepresentsthe
minimalobligationsthatasellermayagreeto,asthesellerisnotresponsibleforexport
formalitiesorloadingtheoncomingvehicle.Duetosomecountries’exportobligations,
eventhoughEXWisused,thesellermaystillberequiredtoarrangeexportformalities,
conflictingwiththeEXWIncoterms®rule.WithinStudy1,EXWisusedfor33.16%of
purchases.However,perthecorporation(anditsfreightpaymentdata),thebuyerdoes
expectthesellertoloadtheoncomingvehicleorclearforexport,ifapplicable.This
requiresanFCAIncoterms®rule.Conversely,sellersuseEXWin60.83%ofsales.With
thisterm,thebuyershouldarrangeloadingthemeansoftransportandclearexport,
whereapplicable.However,duetoliabilityandinsurancerisk,thecorporationwillnot
allowcustomerstobringtheirownforkliftorcraneontocorporatepropertytoloadthe
vehicle.Study1hasalsofoundthataU.S.localbusinessunitCategoryTeamLeader
advisedthattheirbusinessunit“standardlyusedEx-Worksasterms,eventhoughthe
supplierisloadingforthem.”Study2hasalsofoundaclearexampleofEXWuseover
thepreferredFCAIncoterms®rule.Abuyerprovidedanexamplethatcausedissueswith
aNAFTAqualifiedshipmentthatshouldhaveusedanFCAIncoterms®rule,butinstead,
theorderindicatedtheEXWIncoterms®rule.WiththeEXWIncoterms®rule,the
164
supplierdidnotneedtocleargoodsforexportandhence,thesupplierfeltnoobligation
toprovideaNAFTAform,whichwouldhavesavedthebuyer’scompanyfrompaying
importduty.Thisresultedin$8,500dutypershipmentonaproductthatshipped
weekly.
4.3.3QuestionnairePretest
Experiencedbuyersandsellerswithinthelarge,internationalcompanyaswellas
academicsubjectmatterexpertsreviewedearlyversionsofthescenariobased
questionnaireandevaluateditsfacevalidity,readability,andrealism.Theexperimental
treatmentswerechecked.Revisionswerecompletediterativelyuntilthefinal
questionnairewasjudgedsuitableforreleasetothesample.
4.3.4QuestionnaireSample
Withinbuyer-sellerrelationshipresearch,theuseofreal-lifeparticipantshas
beenverylimited(Mestdagh&Buelens,2003)where“only5%ofstudiesusepracticing
managersasparticipants,”whichtheystatefurtheris“notexactlygoodnews.”This
studyhassurveyedpracticingmanagerparticipantswithinalarge,international
corporationoperatinginmanyindustrialmarkets.Therefore,theinvitedparticipants
werewhollywithinthissinglelarge,internationalcorporation.Thecorporationagreed
toprovidewide-rangingaccesstomanagersforthisresearchstudy.Buyers,whowere
primarilypartofthecorporation’ssupplychainmanagementfunction,andsellers,who
werepartofthecorporation’ssales,marketing,andcustomerservicefunctions,were
bothpurposefullysampled.Inaddition,duetoStudy2identifyingtheroleofIncoterms®
165
inrevenuerecognition,accountingandfinanceprofessionalswerepurposefully
sampled.Theanonymouslarge,internationalcorporationhadinternallyconducted
Incoterms®trainingthroughtheirinternaltraininguniversity,grouptrainingsessions,
andexternaltrainings.Trainedanduntrainedindividualswerebothpurposefully
sampled.
Theanonymouslarge,internationalcorporationprovidedanemaildistribution
listof2,397practicingmanagerswithinthesupplychainmanagement,sales,marketing,
customerservice,accounting,andfinancefunctions.Thesemanagerswereemaileda
linktothesurveysiteandaskedtorespondwithinatwo-weekperiod.Areminderemail
wassenttothedistributionlistoneweekbeforetheresponsedeadline.Intotal,912
practicingmanagersrespondedatleastinparttotheemailedquestionnaire.However,
only823respondedtoallthedemographicsquestions,andonly617fullycompletedthe
questionnaire.Thismadetheresponserate25.74%(617fullresponses÷2,397
emailed).Table4.13presentsthefrequenciesofresponsestoeachdemographic
question.Onlyrespondentswhoanswered“Yes”toIncoterms®trainingwereasked
whenthattraininghadoccurred.Figure4.4presentsamapofthegeographiclocations
ofrespondentstothequestionnaireindicatingthatrespondentsweredistributedacross
theglobe.Selectedsummarystatisticshavebeencompiledfromthedemographic
questionsforrespondentgender,agerange,jobrole,workexperienceyears,
Incoterms®trainingandwhenIncoterms®trainingoccurredarepresentedinTables
4.14through4.19.TheValidrowsindicatethefrequenciesofeachpossibleresponseto
166
thequestionsandtheMissingrowsindicatethenumberofrespondentsfromthe912
practicingmanagerswhodidnotcompleteeachdemographicquestion.
Table4.13–DemographicFrequencies
Gender Age JobRoleWork
ExperienceIncotermsTraining WhenTrained
N Valid 842 839 828 828 823 660
Missing 70 73 84 84 89 252
Figure4.4–MapofRespondents
167
Table4.14–GenderFrequencyTable
Frequency PercentValid
PercentCumulativePercent
Valid Male 462 50.7 54.9 54.9
Female 360 39.5 42.8 97.6
NotIdentified 20 2.2 2.4 100.0
Total 842 92.3 100.0
Missing System 70 7.7
Total 912 100.0
Table4.15–AgeFrequencyTable
Frequency PercentValid
PercentCumulativePercent
Valid 18to24 16 1.8 1.9 1.9
25to34 257 28.2 30.6 32.5
35to44 247 27.1 29.4 62.0
45to54 196 21.5 23.4 85.3
55to64 94 10.3 11.2 96.5
65orolder 10 1.1 1.2 97.7
Notidentified 19 2.1 2.3 100.0
Total 839 92.0 100.0
Missing System 73 8.0
Total 912 100.0
168
Table4.16–JobRoleFrequencyTable
Frequency PercentValid
PercentCumulativePercent
Valid SalesorMarketing 155 17.0 18.7 18.7
SupplyChain 562 61.6 67.9 86.6
FinanceorAccounting 111 12.2 13.4 100.0
Total 828 90.8 100.0
Missing System 84 9.2
Total 912 100.0
Table4.17–WorkExperienceFrequencyTable
Frequency PercentValid
PercentCumulativePercent
Valid 1to5 117 12.8 14.1 14.1
6to10 176 19.3 21.3 35.4
11to15 147 16.1 17.8 53.1
16to20 112 12.3 13.5 66.7
21to25 92 10.1 11.1 77.8
26to30 82 9.0 9.9 87.7
30ormore 95 10.4 11.5 99.2
Notidentified 7 .8 .8 100.0
Total 828 90.8 100.0
Missing System 84 9.2
Total 912 100.0
169
Table4.18–Incoterms®TrainingFrequencyTable
Frequency PercentValid
PercentCumulativePercent
Valid Yes 663 72.7 80.6 80.6
No 160 17.5 19.4 100.0
Total 823 90.2 100.0
Missing System 89 9.8
Total 912 100.0
Table4.19–WhenIncoterms®TrainedFrequencyTable
Frequency PercentValid
PercentCumulativePercent
Valid 0to6months 114 12.5 17.3 17.3
7monthsto1year 154 16.9 23.3 40.6
1to1.5years 112 12.3 17.0 57.6
1.5to2years 77 8.4 11.7 69.2
2yearsormore 203 22.3 30.8 100.0
Total 660 72.4 100.0
Missing System 252 27.6
Total 912 100.0
170
4.3.5Analysis
4.3.5.1NonresponseBias
TheQualtrics®questionnaireoutputwasimportedintoIBM’sSPSSversion24for
MACforallstatisticalanalyses.Astherespondentstothequestionnairewereself-
determined,thepossibilityofnon-responsebiasintheresults(therespondentsarenot
representativeoftheunderlyingpopulation)wasanalyzedviatwomethods:1)
comparingthedemographiccharacteristicsofrespondentsbeforeandafterthe
reminderemailwassent;and2)comparingthedemographicsofrespondentswhofully
completedthesurveytorespondentswhostartedthesurveybutdidnotfullycomplete
it.Bothanalysesaredescribedindetailinthefollowingtwosections.Forauseful
discussionofnon-responsebiasanditseffectsseeGrovesandPeytcheva(2008).
4.3.5.2BeforeandAfterReminderDemographicComparisons
Thefirstmethodusedtoanalyzethepossibilityofnon-responsebiaswasto
comparethedemographicdataofrespondentswhorespondedquicklytotheinitial
emailtothedemographicdataofthosewhorespondedafterthereminderemailwas
sent.Significantdifferencesinthedemographicdataofearlyversuslateresponders
couldbeindicativeofasystematicdifferenceinthepropensityofsurveyrecipientsto
participateinthesurvey.
Therespondent’sgenderidentificationbeforeandaftertheemailreminderwas
sentiscrosstabulatedinTable4.20.AreminderNoindicatesthattheresponsewas
recordedpriortothereminderemail,andaYesindicatestheresponsewasrecorded
171
afterthereminderemail.Asshownbythechi-squaretestsinTable4.20,thereisno
significantdifferenceatthe0.05levelbetweenmale,female,andnotidentified
respondentsbeforeandafterthereminderemail.
Table4.20–CrossTabulationofGenderandCaseReminder
Crosstab
Gender
TotalMale Female NotIdentifiedReminder No Count 266 195 12 473
ExpectedCount 259.5 202.2 11.2 473.0Yes Count 196 165 8 369
ExpectedCount 202.5 157.8 8.8 369.0Total Count 462 360 20 842
ExpectedCount 462.0 360.0 20.0 842.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value df AsymptoticSignificance(2-sided)PearsonChi-Square 1.077a 2 .584LikelihoodRatio 1.077 2 .584Linear-by-LinearAssociation .528 1 .467
NofValidCases 842 a.0cells(.0%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis8.76.
Therespondent’sageresponsesbeforeandafterthereminderemailwassent
arecrosstabulatedinTable4.21.Thechi-squaretestsinTable4.21alsoindicatethat
thereisnosignificantdifferenceatthe0.05levelbetweenagecategoriesof
respondentsbeforeandafterthereminderemail.
172
Table4.21–CrossTabulationofAgeandReminder
Crosstab
Age Total18to24
25to34
35to44
45to54
55to64
65orolder
Notidentified
Reminder No Count 8 147 142 107 55 2 9 470ExpectedCount
9.0 144.0 138.4 109.8 52.7 5.6 10.6 470.0
Yes Count 8 110 105 89 39 8 10 369ExpectedCount
7.0 113.0 108.6 86.2 41.3 4.4 8.4 369.0
Total Count 16 257 247 196 94 10 19 839ExpectedCount
16.0 257.0 247.0 196.0 94.0 10.0 19.0 839.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value dfAsymptoticSignificance
(2-sided)PearsonChi-Square 6.839a 6 .336LikelihoodRatio 7.020 6 .319Linear-by-LinearAssociation .902 1 .342
NofValidCases 839 a.1cells(7.1%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis4.40.
Therespondent’sjobroleresponsesbeforeandafterthereminderemailwas
sentarecrosstabulatedinTable4.22.Table4.22showsthechi-squaretestsfor
differencesinrespondent’sjobrolebeforeandafterthereminderemailindicatethat
thereisasignificantdifferenceatthe0.05levelbetweenthejobrolesofrespondents
whorespondedbeforeandafterthereminderemail.ExaminingTable4.22reveals
significantdifferencesintheexpectedandactualnumberofFinanceorAccountingjob
rolerespondentsbeforeandafterthereminderemail.Accordingtoofficialsofthe
anonymouslarge,internationalcorporation,thisdifferenceinresponsepropensityover
timeofthisjobfunctionisexplainable.TheworkloadoftheFinanceorAccountingjob
173
roleiscyclicalwiththegreatestworkloadsoccurringattheveryendandbeginningof
eachmonth.Theinitialquestionnairewassentoutduringaperiodwhentheseroles
werebusier,whereasthereminderemailwassenttowardsthemiddleofthemonth,
whenFinanceorAccountingwaslessbusy.Sales,Marketing,andSupplyChainworkis
moreevenlyloadedwithaslightpeakatmonthorquarterendtopushshipmentof
orders.
Table4.22–CrossTabulationofJobRoleandReminder
Crosstab
JobRole TotalSalesor
MarketingSupplyChain
FinanceorAccounting
Reminder No Count 96 324 46 466ExpectedCount 87.2 316.3 62.5 466.0
Yes Count 59 238 65 362ExpectedCount 67.8 245.7 48.5 362.0
Total Count 155 562 111 828ExpectedCount 155.0 562.0 111.0 828.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value dfAsymptoticSignificance
(2-sided)PearsonChi-Square 12.377a 2 .002LikelihoodRatio 12.301 2 .002Linear-by-LinearAssociation 9.805 1 .002
NofValidCases 828 a.0cells(.0%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis48.53.
InTable4.23,therangeofrespondent’syearsofworkexperienceresponsesis
crosstabulatedbeforeandafterthereminderemailwassent.Asshownbythechi-
174
squaretestsinTable4.23,thereisnosignificantdifferenceatthe0.05levelbetween
thevariousworkexperiencerangesforrespondentsbeforeandafterthereminder
email.
Table4.23–CrossTabulationofWorkExperienceReminder
Crosstab
WorkExperience Total
1to56to10
11to15
16to20
21to25
26to30
30ormore
Notidentified
Reminder No Count 54 109 89 64 44 49 54 3 466
ExpectedCount
65.8 99.1 82.7 63.0 51.8 46.1 53.5 3.9 466.0
Yes Count 63 67 58 48 48 33 41 4 362
ExpectedCount
51.2 76.9 64.3 49.0 40.2 35.9 41.5 3.1 362.0
Total Count 117 176 147 112 92 82 95 7 828
ExpectedCount
117.0 176.0 147.0 112.0 92.0 82.0 95.0 7.0 828.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value dfAsymptoticSignificance
(2-sided)PearsonChi-Square 11.880a 7 .105LikelihoodRatio 11.840 7 .106Linear-by-LinearAssociation .034 1 .854
NofValidCases 828 a.2cells(12.5%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis3.06.
InTable4.24,therespondentsreceivingIncoterms®trainingiscrosstabulated
175
withbeforeandaftersendingthereminderemail.Thechi-squaretestinTable4.24
indicatesthatthereisnosignificantdifferenceatthe0.05leveloftherespondents
beforeandafterthereminderemailwithrespecttothosereceivingIncoterms®training.
Table4.24–CrossTabulationofIncotermsTrainingandReminder
Crosstab
IncotermsTraining TotalYes No
Reminder No Count 375 89 464ExpectedCount 373.8 90.2 464.0
Yes Count 288 71 359ExpectedCount 289.2 69.8 359.0
Total Count 663 160 823ExpectedCount 663.0 160.0 823.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value df
AsymptoticSignificance(2-sided)
ExactSig.(2-sided)
ExactSig.(1-sided)
PearsonChi-Square .046a 1 .830 ContinuityCorrectionb .016 1 .900 LikelihoodRatio .046 1 .830 Fisher'sExactTest .859 .449Linear-by-LinearAssociation
.046 1 .830
NofValidCases 823 a.0cells(.0%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis69.79.b.Computedonlyfora2x2table
Baseduponthecrosstabulationsandchi-squaretestsfordifferencesinthe
demographiccharacteristicsofearlyandlateresponders,itdoesnotappearthatthere
issignificantnon-responsebiaswithrespecttothesetests.ThedifferencesinFinanceor
176
Accountingjobrolepropensitytorespondbeforeandafterthereminderemailare
readilyunderstood.
4.3.5.3Fullquestionnaireresponsesversusnotfullycompleteddemographiccomparisons
Thesecondmethodusedtoanalyzethepossibilityofnon-responsebiaswasto
comparethedemographicinformationofrespondentswhofullyrespondedtothe
surveyansweringallquestionswiththosewhodidnotfullyrespondbutratherprovided
onlyincompleteresponsestothefullsetofquestions.Thismethodexploresthe
possibilitythatrespondentsfullycompletingtheentirequestionnairemightdifferfrom
respondentswhodidnot.Table4.25showsthenumberofvalidandmissingresponses
comparedtothetotal912(n)responsesoneachofthefivedemographicquestions.
Table4.25–CaseProcessingFinished
CaseProcessingSummary
CasesValid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N PercentFinished*Gender 842 92.3% 70 7.7% 912 100.0%Finished*Age 839 92.0% 73 8.0% 912 100.0%Finished*JobRole 828 90.8% 84 9.2% 912 100.0%Finished*WorkExperience
828 90.8% 84 9.2% 912 100.0%
Finished*IncotermsTraining
823 90.2% 89 9.8% 912 100.0%
Therespondents’genderandwhethertherespondentfullyfinishedthe
questionnairearecrosstabulatedinTable4.26.AFinishedNoindicatesthatthe
respondentendedthequestionnaireatsomepointpriortorespondingtotheirverylast
177
scenarioafterrespondingtothegenderquestion,andaFinishedYesindicatesthatthe
respondentfullycompletedthequestionnaire.Asshownbythechi-squaretestsinTable
4.26,thereisnosignificantdifferenceatthe0.05levelbetweenmale,female,andnot
identifiedrespondentswhodidordidnotfullycompletethequestionnaire.
Table4.26–CrossTabulationofGenderwithFinishedtheQuestionnaire
Crosstab
Gender
TotalMale Female NotIdentifiedFinished No Count 125 93 7 225
ExpectedCount 123.5 96.2 5.3 225.0Yes Count 337 267 13 617
ExpectedCount 338.5 263.8 14.7 617.0Total Count 462 360 20 842
ExpectedCount 462.0 360.0 20.0 842.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value dfAsymptoticSignificance
(2-sided)PearsonChi-Square .871a 2 .647LikelihoodRatio .834 2 .659Linear-by-LinearAssociation .000 1 .987
NofValidCases 842 a.0cells(.0%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis5.34.
Therespondent’sageandwhethertherespondentfullyfinishedthequestionnaire
arecrosstabulatedinTable4.27.Thechi-squaretestsinTable4.27indicatethatthereis
nosignificantdifferenceatthe0.05levelbetweenagecategoriesofrespondentswho
didordidnotfullyfinishthequestionnaireafterrespondingtotheagequestion.
178
Table4.27–CrossTabulationofAgewithFinishedtheQuestionnaire
Crosstab
Age Total18to24
25to34
35to44
45to54
55to64
65orolder
Not
identified Finished No Count 9 65 63 46 27 4 8 222
Expected
Count
4.2 68.0 65.4 51.9 24.9 2.6 5.0 222.0
Yes Count 7 192 184 150 67 6 11 617Expected
Count
11.8 189.0 181.6 144.1 69.1 7.4 14.0 617.0
Total Count 16 257 247 196 94 10 19 839Expected
Count
16.0 257.0 247.0 196.0 94.0 10.0 19.0 839.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value dfAsymptoticSignificance
(2-sided)PearsonChi-Square 12.073a 6 .060LikelihoodRatio 10.804 6 .095Linear-by-LinearAssociation .253 1 .615
NofValidCases 839 a.2cells(14.3%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis2.65.
Therespondent’sjobroleandwhethertherespondentfullyfinishedthe
questionnairearecrosstabulatedinTable4.28.Thechi-squaretestsinTable4.28
indicatethatatthe0.05level,thereisnosignificantdifferenceacrossjobcategoriesfor
respondentswhodidordidnotfullyfinishthequestionnaire.
179
Table4.28–CrossTabulationofJobRolewithFinishedtheQuestionnaire
Crosstab
JobRole
TotalSalesor
Marketing SupplyChainFinanceorAccounting
Finished No Count 41 140 30 211ExpectedCount
39.5 143.2 28.3 211.0
Yes Count 114 422 81 617ExpectedCount
115.5 418.8 82.7 617.0
Total Count 155 562 111 828ExpectedCount
155.0 562.0 111.0 828.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value dfAsymptoticSignificance
(2-sided)Chi-Square .313a 2 .855
LikelihoodRatio .311 2 .856
Linear-by-LinearAssociation .001 1 .976
NofValidCases 828
a. 0cells(.0%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis28.29.
InTable4.29,therespondents’yearsofworkexperiencearecrosstabulated
withwhethertherespondentfullyfinishedthequestionnaire.Asshownbythechi-
squaretestsinTable4.29,thereisnosignificantdifferenceatthe0.05levelbetween
thevariousworkexperiencerangesforrespondentsandwhethertherespondentfully
180
finishedthequestionnaire.
Table4.29–CrossTabulationofWorkExperiencewithFinishedtheQuestionnaire
Crosstab
WorkExperience Total
1to5 6to10
11to
15
16to
20
21to
25
26to
30
30or
more
Not
identified Finished No Count 35 45 41 23 19 15 29 4 211
Expected
Count
29.8 44.9 37.5 28.5 23.4 20.9 24.2 1.8 211.0
Yes Count 82 131 106 89 73 67 66 3 617
Expected
Count
87.2 131.1 109.5 83.5 68.6 61.1 70.8 5.2 617.0
Total Count 117 176 147 112 92 82 95 7 828
Expected
Count
117.0 176.0 147.0 112.0 92.0 82.0 95.0 7.0 828.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value dfAsymptoticSignificance
(2-sided)PearsonChi-Square 11.434a 7 .121LikelihoodRatio 11.068 7 .136Linear-by-LinearAssociation .253 1 .615
NofValidCases 828 a. 1cells(6.3%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis
1.78.
InTable4.30,whetherrespondentsreceivedIncoterms®trainingiscross
tabulatedwithwhethertherespondentfullycompletedthequestionnaire.Thechi-
squaretestspresentedinTable4.30doindicatethatthereisasignificantdifference
betweenrespondentswhoreceivedIncoterms®trainingornotandtheirpropensitiesto
fullyfinishthequestionnairewithIncoterms®trainedrespondentsmorelikelytofully
181
completethequestionnaire.Respondentswhoarepresentedwithtopicsthattheyare
unfamiliarwith(notIncoterms®trainedrespondents)maybemorelikelytoabandon
thequestionnaireinprogress.Alternatively,ifrespondentsbelievethattheyaremore
knowledgeableaboutasubject(Incoterms®trainedrespondents),theymaybemore
likelytofullyrespondtoallscenarios.Therefore,itappearsthatthesampleof
respondentswhofullyrespondedtoallfivescenarioquestionsmayoverrepresent
Incoterms®trainedrespondentsrelativetonon-trainedrespondentsandtheresultsof
theanalysisregardingtheeffectsofIncoterms®trainingshouldbeviewedconsidering
thispossibleoverrepresentation.
182
Table4.30–CrossTabulationofIncotermsTrainedwithRespondentsWhoFinishedtheQuestionnaire
Crosstab
IncotermsTraining
TotalYes NoFinished No Count 145 61 206
ExpectedCount 166.0 40.0 206.0
Yes Count 518 99 617ExpectedCount 497.0 120.0 617.0
Total Count 663 160 823ExpectedCount 663.0 160.0 823.0
Chi-SquareTests
Value df
AsymptoticSignificance(2-sided)
ExactSig.(2-sided)
ExactSig.(1-sided)
PearsonChi-Square 18.148a 1 .000 ContinuityCorrectionb 17.293 1 .000 LikelihoodRatio 16.961 1 .000 Fisher'sExactTest .000 .000Linear-by-LinearAssociation
18.126 1 .000
NofValidCases 823 a.0cells(.0%)haveexpectedcountlessthan5.Theminimumexpectedcountis40.05.b. Computedonlyfora2x2table
Baseduponthecrosstabulationsandchi-squaretestsforfullandpartial
responsestothequestionnaire,itdoesnotappearthereisanon-responsebiasexcept
forthepossibleoverrepresentationofIncoterms®trainedrespondentswithrespectto
fullycompletingallquestionsinthequestionnaire.
183
4.3.5.4QuestionnaireResponseAnalysis–ByScenario
Inthissection,therespondent’sanswerstoeachofthefive-scenario’squestionare
analyzed.Table4.31providesselectedstatisticsonthetotalnumberofthefive
scenarioscorrectlyrespondedto.Table4.31indicatesthat708respondentsanswered
atleastoneofthefivescenario-basedquestionswithanaverageof1.58questions
answeredcorrectlybytherespondents.
Table4.31–NumberofScenarioQuestionsRespondedtowithCorrectAnswer
NMinimumCorrect
MaximumCorrect
MeanCorrect
Std.DeviationCorrect
RespondedtoaQuestion
708 0 5 1.58 1.123
Table4.32presentsthenumberofresponsestoeachscenariobasedquestion.
Table4.32–ValidResponsesbyScenarioQuestion
Scenario1Question
Scenario2Question
Scenario3Question
Scenario4Question
Scenario5Question
Number 648 652 660 642 655
184
Table4.33presentsmoredetailedinformationonthefrequencyofthetotal
numberofcorrectresponsessuppliedbythe708respondentswhoansweredatleast
onescenariobasedquestion.Only0.3%correctlyrespondedtoallfivescenario
questions,5.2%correctlyrespondedtofourofthequestions,and14.5%correctly
respondedtothreequestions.Thismeansthat79.9%ofallrespondentscorrectly
answeredtwoorfewerscenarioquestions.Thisveryhighpercentageofrespondents
answeringtwoorfewerscenarioquestionscorrectlyindicatesasignificantdeficiencyof
Incoterms®knowledgeandappropriateuseamongthesamplerespondents.
Table4.33–FrequencyofTotalNumberofCorrectResponses
Frequency Percent CumulativePercent
Total
Correct
Responses
0 134 18.9 18.9
1 211 29.8 48.7
2 221 31.2 79.9
3 103 14.5 94.5
4 37 5.2 99.7
5 2 .3 100.0
Total 708 100.0 100.0
ToexploretheeffectsofIncoterms®training,providingoperationaldefinitions
whenusingIncoterms®,andthepresenceofbothvariablesonreducinginappropriate
Incoterms®applicationontheindividualscenariosexaminedbythequestionnaire,five
binarylogisticregressionmodelsareformulatedandestimated.Eachlogisticregression
modelemploysasitsdependentvariableabinarycategorizationofwhetherthe
respondentcorrectlyansweredthatscenario’squestion(YesorNo)fromthefive
185
candidateresponses.Theindependentvariablesthataffecttheprobabilityofa
respondentcorrectlyansweringthequestionarethreecategoricalvariablesassociated
witheachrespondent:(1)istherespondentIncoterms®trainedornot;(2)arethe
OperationaldefinitionsassociatedwiththeIncoterms®providedinthescenario
responsesprovidedtotherespondentornot;and(3)isthereaninteractionvariable
thatindicatesthattherespondentisBothIncoterms®trainedandtheoperational
definitionsareprovidedtotherespondentwhenansweringeachquestion.This
analyticalapproachisappropriatewhenmodelingquestionresponsesasbinary
categoricalvariables(Robertset.al,1987).
Thebinarylogisticregressionmodelcanbeexpressedas:
𝜌 = 𝑒%&'()(&*+)+&*,),&…
1 +𝑒%&*()(&*+)+&*,),&…
Where:
p=theprobabilityofcorrectresponsetothequestion,
e=thebaseofthenaturallogarithms(approximately2.72),
a=aconstantterm,
b1,b2,b3=theestimatedcoefficientsofthepredictorvariables,
x1=1ifIncoterms®trained,0otherwise,
x2=1ifOperationaldefinitionsprovided,0otherwise,and
x3=1ifBothIncoterms®trainedandoperationaldefinitionsprovided,0
otherwise.
186
Someimportantconsequencesandassumptionsofabinarylogisticregressionmodel
are:
• Itdoesnotassumealinearrelationshipbetweenthedependentand
independentvariables;
• Thedependentvariableisoneoftwomutuallyexclusiveandexhaustive
categories;and
• Relativelylargersamplesareneededcomparedtoalinearregressionbecause
usingmaximumlikelihoodestimationforcoefficientsrequireslargesamples.
Thefollowingfivesectionsexploretheresultsofestimatingalogisticregressionfor
surveyrespondentstocorrectlyanswereachofthefivequestionsassociatedwiththe
experimentalscenarios.
4.3.5.5ScenarioOneDescriptiveStatistics
Inthissection,descriptivestatisticsandthebinarylogisticsregressionresultsfor
Scenario1arereviewed.Scenario1examinesrespondents’knowledgeregardinga
commonerroridentifiedintheliterature:incorrectapplicationofseaandinland
waterwayIncoterms®.ThedescriptivestatisticsinTable4.34showthenumberand
percentagesofcorrectandincorrectresponses,whereNoindicatesanincorrect
responseandYesindicatesacorrectresponse.Only23.9%ofrespondentscorrectly
answeredthequestionassociatedwithScenario1.
187
Table4.34–ResponsetoScenarioOneQuestion
Frequency Percent
Correct No 493 76.1
Yes 155 23.9
Total 648 100.0
AsshownbyboththeCoxandSnellR-SquareandNagelkerkeR-Squarestatistics
displayedinTable4.35,thereisaveryweakrelationshipbetweenthepredictor
variables(Incoterms®trained,Operationaldefinitionsprovided,Both)andthe
dependentvariable,correctlyansweringScenario1.
Table4.35–ModelSummary
Model Cox&SnellRSquare NagelkerkeRSquare
AllVariables .020 .030
AsdescribedinTable4.36noneofthethreepredictors(Incoterms®trained,
Operationaldefinitionsprovided,Both)appeartosignificantlyaffect(atthe0.05
significancelevel)whetherrespondentswillorwillnotanswerthequestionassociated
withScenario1correctly.However,itdoesappearthatIncoterms®training,providing
operationaldefinitions,andtheinteractiveeffectofbothhavepositiveeffectson
answeringthescenariocorrectly.Providingoperationaldefinitionshasthelargest
impact.
188
Table4.36–EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion1Correctly
VariablesintheEquation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) IncotermsTrained .011 .381 .001 1 .978 1.011OperationalDefinitionsProvided
.506 .469 1.162 1 .281 1.658
Both .186 .512 .132 1 .717 1.204Constant -1.504 .350 18.509 1 .000 .222
4.3.5.6ScenarioTwoDescriptiveStatistics
Inthissection,descriptivestatisticsandthebinarylogisticsregressionresultsfor
Scenario2arereviewed.Scenario2addressestheusageofFOBappliedasan
Incoterms®ruleasopposedtoaUCCtermofsale.ThedescriptivestatisticsinTable4.37
showthenumberandpercentagesofcorrectandincorrectresponses,whereNo
indicatesanincorrectresponseandYesindicatesacorrectresponse.Only37.3%of
respondentscorrectlyansweredthequestionassociatedwithScenario2.
Table4.37–ResponsetoScenario2Question
Frequency Percent
Correct No 409 62.7
Yes 243 37.3
Total 652 100.0
AsshownbyboththeCoxandSnellR-SquareandNagelkerkeR-Squarestatistics
displayedinTable4.38,thereisaveryweakrelationshipbetweenthepredictor
variables(Incoterms®trained,Operationaldefinitionsprovided,Both)andthe
dependentvariable,correctlyansweringScenario2.
189
Table4.38–ModelSummary
Model Cox&SnellRSquare NagelkerkeRSquareAllVariables .017 .023
AsdescribedinTable4.39,noneofthethreepredictors(Incoterms®trained,
Operationaldefinitionsprovided,Both)appearsignificantlyaffects(atthe0.05
significancelevel)whetherrespondentswillorwillnotanswerthequestionassociated
withScenario2correctly.However,itdoesappearthatIncoterms®training,providing
operationaldefinitions,andtheinteractiveeffectofbothhavepositiveeffectson
answeringthescenariocorrectly.Providingoperationaldefinitionshasthelargest
impact.
Table4.39–EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion2Correctly
VariablesintheEquation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)IncotermsTrained .099 .316 .099 1 .753 1.104OperationalDefinitionsProvided
.334 .410 .667 1 .414 1.397
Both .218 .447 .239 1 .625 1.244Constant -.856 .290 8.735 1 .003 .425
4.3.5.7ScenarioThreeDescriptiveStatistics
Scenario3examinesrespondents’knowledgeregardingspecifyingageographic
placewhenusingIncoterms®.OneofthesixcommonerrorsofIncoterms®ruleusage
identifiedbyStapletonetal.(2014a)wasnotclearlyspecifyingageographicplace.The
descriptivestatisticsinTable4.40showthenumberandpercentagesofcorrectand
190
incorrectresponses,whereNoindicatesanincorrectresponseandYesindicatesa
correctresponse.Only22.7%ofrespondentscorrectlyansweredthequestion
associatedwithScenario3.
Table4.40-ResponsetoScenario3Question
Frequency Percent
Correct No 510 77.3
Yes 150 22.7
Total 660 100.0
AsshownbyboththeCoxandSnellR-SquareandNagelkerkeR-Squarestatistics
displayedinTable4.41,thereisaveryweakrelationshipbetweenthepredictor
variables(Incoterms®trained,Operationaldefinitionsprovided,Both)andthe
dependentvariable,correctlyansweringScenario3.
Table4.41–ModelSummary
Model Cox&SnellRSquare NagelkerkeRSquareAllVariables .034 .052
AsdescribedinTable4.42,thepredictors(Incoterms®trainedandBoth)donot
appeartohavesignificanteffects(atthe0.05significancelevel)onwhether
respondentswillorwillnotanswerthequestionassociatedwithScenario3correctly.
However,itdoesappearthatprovidingoperationaldefinitionssignificantlyincreases
thelikelihoodthatarespondentcorrectlyanswersthequestion.Further,providing
both,trainingandoperationaldefinitions,doesappeartofurtherincreasethelikelihood
thatarespondentcorrectlyanswersthequestionalthoughthiseffectisnotsignificant.
191
Table4.42–EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion3Correctly
VariablesintheEquation B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)IncotermsTrained .281 .435 .419 1 .517 1.325OperationalDefinitionsProvided
1.099 .508 4.669 1 .031 3.000
Both -.237 .550 .186 1 .666 .789Constant -1.946 .404 23.193 1 .000 .143a.Variable(s)enteredonstep1:IncotermsTraining,OperationalDefinitions,OpDef&
Trained.4.3.5.8ScenarioFourDescriptiveStatistics
Scenario4exploresrespondents’knowledgeregardingappropriateapplication
oftheversionofIncoterms®(i.e.Incoterms®2010,Incoterms®2000)beingspecified.
ThedescriptivestatisticsinTable4.43showthenumberandpercentagesofcorrectand
incorrectresponses,whereNoindicatesanincorrectresponseandYesindicatesa
correctresponse.Only27.3%ofrespondentscorrectlyansweredthequestion
associatedwithScenario4.
Table4.43-ResponsetoScenario4Question
Frequency Percent
Correct No 393 43.1
Yes 249 27.3
Total 642 70.4
AsshownbyboththeCoxandSnellR-SquareandNagelkerkeR-Squarestatistics
displayedinTable4.44,thereisaveryweakrelationshipbetweenthepredictor
variables(Incoterms®trained,Operationaldefinitionsprovided,Both)andthe
192
dependentvariable,correctlyansweringScenario4.
Table4.44-ModelSummary
Model Cox&SnellRSquare NagelkerkeRSquare
AllVariables .044 .059
AsdescribedinTable4.45,thepredictors(Incoterms®trained,Operational,
Both)appeartohaveinsignificanteffects(atthe0.05significancelevel)onwhether
respondentswillorwillnotanswerthequestionassociatedwithScenario4correctly.
However,itdoesappearthatprovidingoperationaldefinitionsinthisscenariodecreases
thelikelihoodthatarespondentwillcorrectlyanswerthequestion.Thismaybethe
resultofrespondents’lackofawarenessofdifferencesbetweenIncoterms®version
rules,suchasDDUbeingreplacedinIncoterms®2010rules.
Table4.45–EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion4Correctly
VariablesintheEquation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)IncotermsTrained .391 .300 1.702 1 .192 1.479OperationalDefinitionsProvided
-.773 .430 3.236 1 .072 .462
OpDefProvided&Trained
-.083 .467 .031 1 .860 .921
Constant -.405 .275 2.170 1 .141 .667a.Variable(s)enteredonstep1:IncotermsTraining,OperationalDefinitions,OpDef&Trained.
4.3.5.9ScenarioFiveDescriptiveStatistics
Scenario5examinestheapplicationofIncoterms®ruleFCAbeingcorrectly
193
appliedrelativetoEXW.ThedescriptivestatisticsinTable4.46showthenumberand
percentagesofcorrectandincorrectresponses,whereNoindicatesanincorrect
responseandYesindicatesacorrectresponse.Ofrespondents,49.3%correctly
answeredthequestionassociatedwithScenario5.
Table4.46-ResponsetoScenario5Question
Frequency Percent
Correct No 332 50.7
Yes 323 49.3
Total 655 100.0
AsshownbyboththeCoxandSnellR-SquareandNagelkerkeR-Squarestatistics
displayedinTable4.47,thereisaveryweakrelationshipbetweenthepredictor
variables(Incoterms®trained,Operationaldefinitionsprovided,Both)andthe
dependentvariable,correctlyansweringScenario5.
Table4.47–ModelSummary
Model Cox&SnellRSquare NagelkerkeRSquareAllVariables .032 .042
AsdescribedinTable4.48,neitherofthepredictors(Operationaldefinitions
providedandBoth)appeartohavesignificanteffects(atthe0.05significancelevel)on
whetherrespondentswillorwillnotanswerthequestionassociatedwithScenario5
correctly.However,itdoesappearthatprovidingIncoterms®trainingsignificantly
increasesthelikelihoodthatarespondentwillcorrectlyanswerthequestion.
194
Table4.48–EstimationResultsofAnsweringQuestion5Correctly
VariablesintheEquation
B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B)IncotermsTrained 1.349 .341 15.668 1 .000 3.852OperationalDefinitionsProvided
.623 .427 2.131 1 .144 1.865
Both -.855 .460 3.459 1 .063 .425Constant -1.124 .319 12.394 1 .000 .325a.Variable(s)enteredonstep1:IncotermsTraining,OperationalDefinitions,OpDef&Trained.
Tosummarizetheoverallfindingsofthequestionbyquestionbinarylogistics
regressionmodels,eachrespondent’sabilitytocorrectlyanswerthequestions
associatedwitheachscenariorangedfrom22.7%to49.3%ofrespondents,andthisis
showninTable4.49.Acrossallscenarios,themodelsgenerallyshowaweakrelationship
betweenthepredictorvariables(Incoterms®trained,Operationaldefinitionsprovided,
Both)andthedependentvariable,correctlyansweringthescenarioquestion.The
modelsgenerallydonotexplainmuchofthevariationsobservedinresponsesorthe
probabilitytopredictcorrectresponses.
195
Table4.49–ResponsetoAllScenarioQuestions
Frequency PercentQ1Correct No 493 76.1
Yes 155 23.9Q2Correct No 409 62.7
Yes 243 37.3Q3Correct No 510 77.3
Yes 150 22.7Q4Correct No 393 43.1
Yes 249 27.3Q5Correct No 332 50.7
Yes 323 49.3
4.3.5.10QuestionnaireResponseAnalysis–Overall
ToexploretheeffectsofIncoterms®training,providingoperationaldefinitions
whenusingIncoterms®,andthepossibleinteractionofbothonreducinginappropriate
Incoterms®applicationacrossallthescenariosexaminedbythequestionnaire,an
orderedlogisticregressionmodelisformulatedandestimated.Theordinallogistic
regressionmodelemploysasitsdependentvariablethecorrectnumberofresponsesto
allfivescenarioquestionsofeachrespondent(0,1,2,3,4,or5).Thiscategorical
variablehasanaturalrankordermakinganordinallogisticregressionmodelagood
candidatetoevaluatetheeffectsofIncoterms®trainingandprovidingoperational
definitionsinreducinginappropriateuseofIncoterms®.Theindependentvariablesthat
affecttheprobabilityofarespondentcorrectlychoosingacrosscategoricalvariablesare
threecategoricalvariablesassociatedwitheachrespondent:(1)istherespondent
Incoterms®trainedornot;(2)aretheOperationaldefinitionsassociatedwiththe
Incoterms®providedinthecandidatescenarioresponsesornot;and(3)istherean
196
interactionvariableindicatingthattherespondentisBothIncoterms®trainedandthe
operationaldefinitionsareprovidedtotherespondentwhenansweringeachquestion.
Thisanalyticalapproachisappropriatewheneverthedependentvariableinaregression
iscategoricalandusedtoexplainchoicesinvolvingmultiplecategoricalvariablesin
naturalrankorder(Becker&Kennedy,1992;Greene,2000;Burnset.al,2013).
Theordinallogisticregressionmaybeexpressedas:
𝑦∗ = 𝛽3 + 𝛽( ∗ 𝑥1 + 𝛽+ ∗ 𝑥2 + 𝛽, ∗ 𝑥3 + 𝜖 where:
𝑦∗representslatent(unobserved)Incoterms®rulesknowledgeand
Yisthenumberofquestionsansweredcorrectlywith;
𝑌 = 0𝑖𝑓𝑦∗ ≤ 𝛿3,
𝑌 = 1𝑖𝑓𝛿3 < 𝑦∗ ≤ 𝛿(,
𝑌 = 2𝑖𝑓𝛿( < 𝑦∗ ≤ 𝛿+,
𝑌=3𝑖𝑓δ+<y∗≤δ,,
𝑌 = 4𝑖𝑓𝛿, < 𝑦∗ ≤ 𝛿B,
𝑌 = 5𝑖𝑓 > 𝛿B,
Wheretheδcoefficientsaretermedthresholdparameters,
β0,β1,β2,andβ3aretermedlocationparameters,
𝜖~𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑖𝑡(0, 𝜎+),and
x1=1ifIncoterms®trained,0otherwise,
x2=1ifOperationaldefinitionsprovided,0otherwise,and
x3=1ifBothIncoterms®trainedandOperationaldefinitions,0otherwise.
197
Someimportantassumptionsandconsequencesofanordinallogisticregressionmodel
are:
• Thedependentvariableisordinal;
• Independentvariablesarecontinuous,ordinal,orcategorical;
• Thereisnosignificantmulticollinearity;and
• Theassumptionofproportionaloddsisappropriate.
• Toidentifythemodelformaximumlikelihoodestimationitisassumedthat𝛿3=0
and𝜎+=1.
Summarystatisticsfromthemaximumlikelihoodestimationoftheordered
logisticregressionmodelinIBMSPSS24areshowninTable4.50.TheOperational
definitionsprovidedtreatmentwaspresentedto48.6%ofvalidrespondents.Incoterms®
trainingwaspresentfor82.8%ofvalidrespondents.Bothoperationaldefinitionsand
Incoterms®trainingwaspresentfor40.1%ofvalidrespondents.Therewere708
respondentsusedintheestimationofthemodel.
198
Table4.50–CaseProcessingSummary
N MarginalPercentageTotalCorrectQuestions 0 134 18.9%
1 211 29.8%2 221 31.2%3 103 14.5%4 37 5.2%5 2 0.3%
OperationalDefinitions No 364 51.4%Yes 344 48.6%
IncotermsTraining Yes 586 82.8%No 122 17.2%
OpDef&Trained No 424 59.9%Yes 284 40.1%
Valid 708 100.0%
Asevidencedbythesignificantchangein-2LogLikelihood,Table4.51illustrates
thatthemodeldoesasignificantlybetterjobofpredictingthetotalnumberof
questionsrespondedtobyeachapplicantthandoesamodelwithnoexplanatory
variables(theinterceptonlymodel).
Table4.51–ModelFitting
Model -2LogLikelihood Chi-Square df Sig.InterceptOnly 98.161
Final 79.120 19.042 3 .000Linkfunction:Logit.
Table4.52providesthePearsonandDeviancegoodness-of-fittestsofthe
estimatedmodeloverprofilesoftheindependentvariableswithneitherindicating
significantdifferencesbetweentheobservedandexpectednumberofoutcomes.
199
Table4.52–Goodness-of-Fit
Chi-Square df Sig.
Pearson 4.131 12 .981
Deviance 3.981 12 .984
Linkfunction:Logit.
Table4.53showstheCoxandSnell,Nagelkerke,andMcFaddenpseudoR-square
valuesforthemodel.Theselowvaluesindicatethatthemodelexplainsonlyavery
smallproportionofthevarianceofthedependentvariable.
Table4.53–PseudoR-Square
CoxandSnell .027
Nagelkerke .028McFadden .009Linkfunction:Logit.
Table4.54displaysthemaximumlikelihoodparameterestimatesofthemodel.
Table4.54suggeststhatallthethresholdcoefficientestimatesofthemodelformulation
aresignificant.Themostsignificantexplanatoryvariableindeterminingtheunderlying
Incoterms®knowledgelatentvariable(andthetotalnumberofcorrectlyanswered
questionsinthesurvey)isthattherespondentisIncoterms®trainedwithanestimateof
0.914whichissignificantlydifferentfromzeroatthe0.000level.Providingoperational
definitionsalsoappearstoimproveunderlyingIncoterms®knowledgebutnot
significantly.Theinteractionterm,Both,associatedwithprovidingbothoperational
definitionsandIncoterms®traininghasanegativevalueandisnotsignificant,
200
suggestingthatprovidingbothoperationaldefinitionsandIncoterms®traininghasa
negativeinteractionimpactontheunderlyingIncoterms®knowledge.
Table4.54–ParameterEstimates
Estimate Std.Error Wald df Sig.Threshold [TotalCorrect=0] -.649 .235 7.621 1 .006
[TotalCorrect=1] .786 .236 11.138 1 .001[TotalCorrect=2] 2.242 .247 82.272 1 .000[TotalCorrect=3] 3.709 .283 171.517 1 .000[TotalCorrect=4] 6.735 .745 81.788 1 .000
Location OperationalDefinitionsProvided
.425 .328 1.680 1 .195
IncotermsTrained .914 .255 12.891 1 .000Both -.328 .360 .829 1 .362
Table4.55providestheexpectedandobservedcellcountinformationoutput
fromSPSS.Thetableindicatestheobserved,expected,andPearsonresidualacross
Operationaldefinitionsprovided,Incoterms®trained,andtheinteractionterm,Both.
Thisgreatergranularlydescribesthemodel’sabilitytopredictIncoterms®knowledge
application.
201
Table4.55–CellInformation
FrequencyOperationalDefinitions
IncotermsTraining Both
TotalCorrect0 1 2 3 4 5
No Yes No Observed 50 91 99 48 13 1
Expected 52.32 89.04 97.36 45.89 16.50 .89
PearsonResidual
-.352 .248 .202 .339 -.887 .114
No No Observed 22 20 14 3 3 0
Expected 21.29 21.31 13.45 4.47 1.41 .074
PearsonResidual
.191 -.351 .170 -.723 1.356 -.271
Yes Yes Yes Observed 46 81 92 45 19 1
Expected 45.36 80.71 93.71 46.29 17.00 .925
PearsonResidual
.103 .038 -.216 -.208 .500 .078
No No Observed 16 19 16 7 2 0Expected 15.28 20.08 16.25 6.22 2.06 .11PearsonResidual
.212 -.295 -.072 .330 -.041 -.330
Linkfunction:Logit.
Table4.56presentsBrant’stestofparallellines.Thetestindicatesthatthenull
hypothesisthatthelocationparametersarethesameacrossresponsecategoriesis
accepted,suggestingthatthemodeldoesnotviolatetheproportionaloddsassumption.
Table4.56–TestofParallelLines
Model -2LogLikelihood Chi-Square df Sig.NullHypothesis 79.120
General 75.138 3.981 12 .984Thenullhypothesisstatesthatthelocationparameters(slopecoefficients)arethesameacrossresponsecategories.Linkfunction:Logit.
202
Toexploretherobustnessoftheorderedlogisticregressionmodel,alternative
specificationshavebeenexamined.Anordinaryleastsquares(OLS)regressionmodel
withthedependentvariablecodedasthetotalnumberofcorrectanswersand
employingthesamesetofexplanatoryvariablesyieldedsimilarresults.Further,an
orderedlogisticsregressionmodelwasestimatedemployingthesamesetof
independentvariablesalongwithallthedemographicvariables,whichyieldedsimilar
resultsrevealingnoneofthedemographicvariablesassignificant.Lastly,theoriginalset
ofthreeexplanatoryvariableswasregressedonpairsoftheremainingtwotoexplore
thepossibleconfoundingeffectsofpotentialmulticollinearity.Asexpected,some
multicollinearitywasclearlypresentbetweentheinteractionvariable,Both,andthe
OperationalDefinitionsProvidedandIncoterms®Trainedvariables.DroppingtheBoth
variablefromtheoriginalorderedlogitmodelequationdoesnotsignificantlyalterthe
findingsoftheoriginalestimationhowever.Theseresultsaddconfidencetothefindings
oftheresultsoftheoriginal,ordinallogisticsregressionmodelemployedinthe
research.
Torecaptheresultsfromtheordinallogisticsregressionmodel,themodel
showssignificant,butsmallimpacttopredictrespondent’sabilitytoapplylatent
Incoterms®applicationknowledge.Incoterms®trainingisshowntobeasignificant
predictor.Incoterms®traininghasimpactonansweringscenarioquestionscorrectly,
andhence,itimprovesarespondent’schancesofmakingfewermistakes.Trainingdoes
makeadifference.Whileprovidingoperationaldefinitionsappearstohavesome
predictiveabilityinthehypothesizeddirection,thestatisticalimpactisnotsignificant.
203
Further,theimpactoncorrectlyrespondingtoindividualquestionsisclearly
differentiatedbysubjectarea.ProvidingoperationaldefinitionsandIncoterms®training
(i.e.Both)doesnotappeartoaddfurthersignificantpredictivevalue.
4.3.6DiscussionofStudyThreeResults.
Study3hasexaminedthreetestablehypothesesregardingIncoterms®
communicationerrorsbasedonaquestionnaireofsupplychainprofessionalsinalarge
multinationalcompany.Questionspecific,binarylogisticsregressionmodelshavebeen
estimatedandexamined.Anordinallogisticregressionmodelhasbeenestimatedand
analyzed.
Non-responsebiasdoesnotappeartobeanimportantissue.Inexaminingthe
differencesinthepropensitiesofearlyandlateresponderswithrespecttodemographic
characteristicsbeforeandafterthereminderemail,itdoesnotappearthatthereis
significantnon-responsebias.Furthermore,baseduponadditionaltestsforfulland
partialresponsestothequestionnaire,itdoesnotappearthereisanon-responsebias
withthepossibleexceptionofIncoterms®trainedrespondentsbeingmorelikelytofully
completethequestionnaire.
Study3hasexperimentallytestedthreehypotheses.Table4.57describesthe
findingsofthethreehypothesistests.
204
Table4.57–SummaryTestsofHypotheses
Hypothesis FindingH1:Incoterms®trainingleadstoadecreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbyareductionininappropriateIncoterms®application.
Supported
H2:ProvidingfullyspecifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsleadstoadecreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbyareductionininappropriateIncoterms®application.
PartiallySupported
H3:ProvidingfullyspecifiedandexplicitIncoterms®definitionsandIncoterms®trainingleadstoafurtherdecreaseincommunicationerrorsevidencedbyafurtherreductionininappropriateIncoterms®application.
NotSupported
Hypothesis1isclearlysupported.Incoterms®trainingisthemostsignificant
explanatoryvariablefoundintheordinallogisticregressionmodel(0.000level)that
correspondstotheunderlyinglatentknowledgetocorrectlyapplyIncoterms®.
Additionally,whenreviewingscenario-by-scenarioquestions,forScenario5,itappears
thatprovidingIncoterms®trainingsignificantlyincreasesthelikelihoodthata
respondentcorrectlyappliesIncoterms®.ForScenarios1-4,Incoterms®trainingalsohas
apositiveimpactoncorrectIncoterms®applicationbutnotatastatisticallysignificant
level.
Hypothesis2ispartiallysupported.Boththeordinallogisticsregressionmodel
andscenario-by-scenariobinarylogisticregressionmodelsshowthatproviding
operationaldefinitionsdoeshavesomepredictiveabilityoncorrectIncoterms®
application,buttheimpactisnotstatisticallysignificant.
Hypothesis3isnotsupported.Boththeordinallogisticsregressionmodeland
scenario-by-scenario,binarylogisticregressionmodelsshowprovidingoperational
definitionsalongwithIncoterms®training(i.e.Both)doesnotappeartoaddsignificant
205
additionalpredictivevalueabovetheirindividualeffects.
TofurtherrecaptheStudy3results,thefourthresearchquestion(Whatcan
improvethequalityofbuyer-sellerdyadscommunicationoflogisticsmanagement
decisions?)isonlypartiallyaddressedbythefindingsofthevalidityofthethree
hypotheses.Ofthefactorstested,thereisnodoubtthatIncoterms®traininghasthe
largestimpactonimprovingthequalityofbuyer-sellerdyads’communicationof
logisticsmanagementdecisions.However,Incoterms®traininghasimpactsoneonlyone
memberofthedyad.Providingoperationaldefinitionswhencommunicatinglogistics
managementdecisionsaffectsbothdyadparticipantsandtherefore,theexperimental
designemployedheremightunderestimatethesignificanceofprovidingoperational
definitionsindyadiccommunications.Thisjointeffectofimprovingdyadic
communicationsmightbeafruitfulareaforfutureresearch
206
CHAPTER5
CONTRIBUTIONS,LIMITATIONS,ANDFUTURERESEARCH
Thepurposeofthislastchapteristofirst,discusstheoveralldissertation
contributionsandimplicationsincludingtheresearchandmanagerialimplications.Next,
thelimitationsoftheresearcharediscussed.Futureresearchdirectionsarethen
proposed.Finally,thechapterconcludeswithsummaryremarks.
5.1OVERALLCONTRIBUTIONSANDMANAGERIALIMPLICATIONS
5.1.1OverallContributions
Fundamentally,thisresearchcontributestodetailedknowledgeconcerningthe
processusedandtheroleofIncoterms®inthenegotiationandcommunicationof
logisticsmanagementdecisions.WhileIncoterms®rulesappeartobewidelyusedin
goodstransactionstonegotiateandcommunicatelogisticsdecisions,their
inappropriateusecausesavarietyofissuesincludingunanticipatedcostsandrisksto
participants.Thisresearchhasexploredthisacademicallyunderdevelopedareaandhas
appliedacademicrigortoascertaintheroleofIncoterms®andtheconsequencesof
theirinappropriateuseineffectivesupplychainmanagement.Thesearethe
fundamentalresearchcontributions.
AsdiscussedinChapter1,thisresearchmakessixprimarycontributions.First,
usingmultipleexploratorycasestudiesandacontrolledexperiment,thisenquiryhas
rigorouslyinvestigatedtheusageerrorsdescribedinpriorIncoterms®literature.Before
207
thepresentresearch,onlyanecdotalevidenceregardingIncoterms®usageerrorswere
prevalentintheliterature(Stapletonetal.,2014a).Second,Incoterms®usageerrors
undescribedinexistingliteraturehavebeenidentified,characterized,andempirically
validated.Third,thisin-depthresearchcontributestoanareaofsupplychain
management,theuseofIncoterms®incommunicatinglogisticresponsibilities,which
hadpreviouslyreceivedonlylimitedacademicattention.Whilepractitionerattention
hadalwaysbeenpresent,asshownintheliteraturereview,andwhilesomeacademic
researchdoesexist,thisstudyshedsnewlightontheimportanceofIncoterms®in
communicatinglogisticsdecisionsandthewide-rangingimpactofIncoterms®usage
errors.Fourth,thisstudyexplainshowbuyersandsellersnegotiateandcommunicate
logisticsmanagementresponsibilities.Fifth,incontrastwiththetypicalresearch
paradigmofusingeitheraquantitativeorqualitativeapproach,amixedmethods
approach,athirdresearchparadigm,hasbeenusedtostudythesupplychain
managementtopicofhowdyadicbuyer-sellerrelationshipscommunicatelogistics
managementdecisions.Mixedmethodsresearchisstillasomewhatnovelapproach
withinpurchasing,marketing,andsupplychainliterature,anditiscertainlyanew
approachtoexploringandexplainingtheIncoterm®phenomena.Thisstudyprovidesa
“how-to”guideforconductingthisformofmixedmethodsresearch,whichhasbeen
showntobeanappropriateandpracticalresearchtechniqueforthisinvestigation.
Lastly,thisstudycontributestotheverylimitedresearchthatusesactualpracticing
managersasparticipantsincontrolledexperiments.Participantsinexperimental
negotiationresearcharegenerallyMBAstudents,andtheuseofreal-lifeparticipantsis
208
verylimited(Mestdagh&Buelens,2003).MestdaghandBuelensfoundthatpracticing
managershavebeenincludedasparticipantsinonly5%ofstudies(2003).Theuseof
practicingmanagersaddstotheexternalvalidityoftheresearch.
5.1.2ManagerialImplications
Goodresearchshouldcontributetoboththebodyofknowledgeandultimately
berelevanttoindustrypractitioners.Thisisachievedbyprovidingpracticalmanagerial
applicationsthatmanagerscanusewithintheirfirms.Thisresearchoffersseveral
managerialimplications.
First,firmsandmanagersshouldfocusonhowtheirbuyersandsellersare
makingandcommunicatinglogisticsmanagementdecisions.Bothdecisionsconcerning
logisticsandhowtheyarecommunicatedhaveimplicationsforthefirms’costsand
risks.Processesshouldbeidentifiedandcommunicatedtobothbuyersandsellersthat
enableausefulperspectiveonallparties’costsandriskimplicationsassociatedwith
eachIncoterms®rule.Thisshouldincludehowtoproperlyhandleexpeditedfreight,
whichisoftenunaddressedinnormallogisticsmanagementarrangements.Inaddition,
notonlybuyers,butsellerstoo,shouldhaveforethoughtontheexecutionoflogistics
management.
Second,ofpracticalinteresttofirmsandmanagers,istheunderstandingthat
Incoterms®areoftenusedforrevenuerecognitionpurposes.Thepurposesof
Incoterms®rulesarestatedbytheInternationalChamberofCommerce(ICC).TheICC
indicatesthatIncoterms®rulesdonotdealwiththetransferofownershipofthegoods,
209
andtheydesignatetheresponsibilitiesfortasks,costs,andrisksinvolvedinthedelivery
ofgoodsfromsellerstobuyers(2010).Firmsandmanagersshouldinvestigateand
validatethestatedpurposeoftheIncoterms®rulesversusthoseoftheGenerally
AcceptedAccountingPrinciples(GAAP)andInternationalAccountingStandards(IAS)
guidelinesforrevenuerecognition.
Third,thisresearchclearlyindicatesthatIncoterms®trainingisimportantfor
knowledgeandproperapplicationofIncoterms®rules.Firmsandmanagersshould
considerIncoterms®trainingforbothbuyers,sellers,andotherjobfunctionsthatutilize
Incoterms®.Thetype,style,orfrequencyofIncoterms®trainingshouldbeexamined.It
isimportantthattheacquisitionofdetailedIncoterms®knowledgeisencouragedforall
buyersandsellers.TrainingbecomesevenmoreimportantasIncoterms®ruleversions
change.
Lastly,Incoterms®rulesweredesignedbytheICCtostandardizeB2Bpractice
whencontractingforgoods(ICC,2010).Incoterms®rulesarethetrademarkedproduct
oftheICC,areintendedtoclearlydefinesellerandbuyerobligations,thusreducingthe
parties’legalrisks,andareintendedtobeself-explanatory(ICC,2010).However,along
withthepresentresearch,otherresearchershavefoundsubstantialIncoterms®usage
errors(Stapleton&Saulnier,2001;Reynolds,2010;Bergami,2011;Glitz,2011;Malfliet,
2011;Ramberg,2011;Roos,2011;Bergami,2012;Bergami,2013;Stapleton,2014;
Stapletonetal.,2014a;Stapletonetal.,2014b).ItistimefortheICCtoreevaluatethe
understanding,application,andeffectivenessofIncoterms®2010rules.Perhapsit
wouldproveexpedienttoembracesomeofthemorecommonusageerrorsforfuture
210
ruleversions.
5.2RESEARCHLIMITATIONS
Allresearchmethodshavestrengths,weaknesses,andlimitations(McGrath,
1982).Byconductingamixedmethodsapproach,thisresearchhascombined
qualitative,groundedtheory,casestudyresearchwithabehavioralexperiment.Both
methodshavesomelimitationsregardinggeneralizability.However,theselimitations
suggestfutureresearchopportunities,whichmayoffermoregeneralizableresults.
Study1,Study3,andaportionoftheStudy2casestudieshavebeenconducted
solelywithinonelarge,internationalcorporationoperatinginmanydifferentindustrial
markets.Whilethislarge,internationalcorporationmayberepresentativeofmany
companiesoperatinginglobalindustrialmarkets,confiningthisresearchtoasingle
companylimitsitsgeneralizability.Thislimitationsuggestsfutureresearchdirectionsin
expandingtheinvestigationspresentedheretoothercompaniesandindustries.
Incoterms®training,whetherinternalorexternaltotheparticipatingcompany,
wasself-reportedinthisstudythroughthedemographicquestionsofStudy3.Thetype,
style,andfrequencyofIncoterms®traininghasnotbeenascertained.Therefore,while
Incoterms®traininghasbeenshowntohavethebiggestimpactonimprovingthequality
ofbuyer-sellerdyads’communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions,themost
effectivetype,style,orfrequencyofIncoterms®traininghasnotbeeninvestigated.This
isanotherexcellentdirectionforfutureresearch.Itshouldalsobenotedthattheresults
ofprovidingoperationaldefinitionsaffectbothpartiesinthedyad,whileIncoterms
211
trainingaffectsonlyasinglepartyinthedyad(buyerorseller,butnotboth).The
spillovereffectofoperationaldefinitionswasnotmeasuredintheempiricalworkandis
alimitationoftheindividualsurveymethodology.
5.3FUTURERESEARCH
Severalsignificantcontributionsaremadetotheunderstandingofbuyer-seller
relationships,logisticsmanagement,andnegotiationprocesses.Thisresearchidentifies
anddetailstheprocessusedinthenegotiationandcommunicationoflogistics
managementdecisionsbetweenbuyersandsellersintransactionsinvolvingalarge
internationalfirm.WhileIncoterms®rulesappearwidelyusedingoodstransactionsto
communicatelogisticsdecisions,theirinappropriateusecausesavarietyofissues
creatingunanticipatedcostsandrisks.Otheracademicresearchhastouchedonsomeof
theaspectsofthemisuseofIncoterms®rules(Stapleton&Saulnier,1999,2001,2002;
Căruntu&Lăpădusi,2010;Bergami,2011,2012,2013;Glitz,2011;Malfliet,2011;
Ramberg,2011;Stapleton,2014;Stapletonetal.,2014a,2014b),however,thepresent
researchprovidesmultiple,rigorouscasestudiesthatputmanyofthepuzzlepieces
together.Throughthecasestudies,fournewareasofconcernwithrespectto
Incoterms®usehavebeenuncovered:1)Incoterms®areoftenusedforrevenue
recognitionpurposes;2)expeditedfreightisoftenunaddressedinnormallogistics
managementarrangements;3)sellersfocusonthesaleratherthantheexecutionof
logisticsdecisions;and4)errorsoccurintheusageofFCAvs.EXWIncoterms®rules.
Theseissuesinvitefurtherrigorousstudy.
212
ThemostinterestingfutureresearchopportunitieslieintheareaofIncoterms®
training.ThepresentresearchclearlyshowsthatIncoterms®trainingiseffectivein
improvingknowledgeandfortheappropriateapplicationofIncoterms®rules.This
shouldbeofinteresttoacademicsandpractitionersalike.Themosteffectivetype,style,
orfrequencyofIncoterms®trainingiscurrentlyunknown.Literatureandresearchin
trainingcomplextasksshouldbereviewedandappliedtoidentifythebestIncoterms®
trainingapproaches.HolleyandHaynes(2003)andKocketal.(2008)haveprovided
somefoundationfortheexplorationofimprovingteachingmethodsofIncoterms®
rules.ToaddcomplexitytotheeffectiveteachingofIncoterms®,HolleyandHaynes
observedthatIncoterms®rulelearningis“oneofthedullestsessions”inacourse
offering(Holley&Haynes,2003,p.396).Traditionallecture/seminarteaching,including
handouts,casestudymaterial,andquestionandanswersessions,wasnotedasnot
particularlyeffectiveinIncoterms®learning(Holley&Haynes,2003).HolleyandHaynes
(2003)createdandexaminedtheeffectivenessofamulti-mediatoolcalledthe
“INCOTERMSChallenge,”whichprovedtobeamoreeffectivelearningtool.During
web-basedtraining,Kocket.al(2008)appliedathreat,whichinvolvedapictureofa
snakeinstrikingposition,toimproveIncoterms®rulestrainingeffectiveness.
Asopposedtotraining,earlierworkbyTan&Thoen(2000)proposedadifferent
approachtoimprovingIncoterms®ruleapplication.Theycreatedanon-linetool,INCAS,
thatprovidesreal-timeIncoterms®ruleexplanationstoelectroniccommerceusers.This
andotheralternativestotrainingshouldbeexplored.
213
Otherresearchmethods,perhapsevencombinedinmixedmethods,shouldbe
employedtofurtherexplorethephenomenonandvalidateresults.Thefocusshouldbe
onmethodsthatimprovethegeneralizabilityofthisresearch.Furthermore,future
researchshouldexpandtoothercompaniesandindustries.Thespillovereffectof
employingoperationaldefinitionsinnegotiatingandcommunicatinglogistics
managementdecisionsshouldalsobeexplored.Beyondmethodological,company,and
industrylimitations,thisresearchprovidesthefoundationforarichvarietyofpotential
futurestudies.
5.4CONCLUDINGREMARKS
Thenegotiationandcommunicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisionsbetween
buyersandsellersofgoodsiscriticalforeffectivesupplychainmanagement.The
findingsofthepresentresearchdetailtheprocessusedinthenegotiationand
communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisions.WhileIncoterms®rulesappear
widelyusedingoodstransactionstocommunicatelogisticsdecisions,their
inappropriateusecausesavarietyofissuesincludingunanticipatedcostsandrisks.
Incoterms®trainingisshowntohaveasignificantimpactonimprovingthequalityof
communicationoflogisticsmanagementdecisionswithinbuyer-sellerdyads.Itis
thereforehopedthatthisstudygeneratessubstantialnewresearchandmanagerial
interestinthisarea.AgreaterunderstandingofIncoterms®ruleswillleadtoimproved
communicationbetweenbuyersandsellers,whichwouldinturnproducemorecost-
effectivetransactions.Inaddition,whencraftingthenextversionofIncoterms®rules,
214
theICCisencouragedtoconsiderthisandotherresearchtoreevaluatethe
understanding,application,effectiveness,andtrainingofIncoterms®rules.
215
REFERENCES
Anderson,M.G.,&Katz,P.B.(1998).Strategicsourcing,InternationalJournalofLogisticsManagement9(1),1-13.
Anderson,J.C.,&Narus,J.A.(2004).Businessmarketmanagement:Understanding,creatinganddeliveringvalue,(2nded.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonPrenticeHall.
Andrew,S.,&Halcomb,E.J.(2009).Mixedmethodsresearchfornursingandthehealthsciences.Chichester:BlackwellPublishing.
Antia,K.D.,Bergen,M.E.,Dutta,S.,&Fisher,R.J.(2006).Howdoesenforcementdetergraymarketincidence?JournalofMarketing70(1),92-106.
Armstrong,J.S.,&Overston,T.S.(1977).Estimatingnonresponsebiasinmailsurvey.JournalofMarketingResearch(14),396-402.
Arndt,J.(1979).Towardaconceptofdomesticatedmarkets.JournalofMarketing43(4),69-75.
Atkin,T.S.,&Rinehart,L.M.(2006).Theeffectofnegotiationpracticesontherelationshipbetweensuppliersandcustomers.NegotiationJournal22(3),47-65.
Autry,C.W.,&Griffis,S.E.(2008).Supplychaincapital:Theimpactofstructuralandrelationallinkagesonfirmexecutionandinnovation.JournalofBusinessLogistics29(1),157–173.
Autry,C.W.,&Golicic,S.L.(2010).Evaluatingbuyer-sellerrelationship-performancespirals:Alongitudinalstudy.JournalofOperationsManagement28(2),87-100.
Bamberger,M.(2000).Integratingquantitativeandqualitativeresearchindevelopmentprojects.DirectionsinDevelopment.Washington,D.C.TheWorldBank.
216
Barratt,M.(2004).Understandingthemeaningofcollaborationinthesupplychain.SupplyChainManagement:AnInternationalJournal9(1),30-42.
Barrett,C.(2002).‘Ex-works'Revisited.TrafficWorld266(11),38.
Barrett,C.(2005).Incotermsvs.uniformcommercialcode.TrafficWorld,1-38.
Barrett,C.(2006).Shipper'sloadandcount.TrafficWorld,1-46.
Barrett,C.(2010a).Demurrageanddetentionchargesonexportedcontainers.JournalofCommerce,UnitedBusinessMediaGlobalTrade.
Barrett,C.(2010b).PayingdemurrageinanEx-Workssale.JournalofCommerce,UnitedBusinessMediaGlobalTrade.
Barrett,C.(2013).Incotermsandconditions.JournalofCommerce,UnitedBusinessMediaGlobalTrade.
Bazeley,P.(2003).Teachingmixedmethods.QualitativeResearchJournal3,117-126.
Bazeley,P.(2008).Mixedmethodsinmanagementresearch.TheSAGEDictionaryofQualitativeManagementResearch.
Beatty,S.E.,&Ferrell,M.E.(1998).Impulsebuying:Modelingitsprecursors.JournalofRetailing74(2),169-191.
Becker,W.E.,&Kennedy,P.E.(1992).Agraphicalexpositionoftheorderedprobit.Econometrictheory,8(01),127-131.
Benton,W.C.,&Maloni,M.(2005).Theinfluenceofpowerdrivenbuyer/sellerrelationshipsonsupplychainsatisfaction.JournalofOperationsManagement23(1),1-22.
217
Berg,T.(1998).Surveyshows‘goodnews’forhigh-techcarriers.TransportTopics,October19,10-11.
Bergman,M.M.(2008).AdvancesinMixedMethodsResearch.LosAngeles:Sage.
Bergami,R.(2011).Incoterms2010:Commentonthenewrevisionofdeliveryterms.VindobonaJournalofInternationalCommercialLaw&Arbitration15,159-161.
Bergami,R.(2012).Incoterms2010:Thenewestrevisionofdeliveryterms.ActaUniversityBohemMerid15(2),33-40.
Bergami,R.(2013).ManagingIncoterms2010risks:Tensionwithtradeandbankingpractices.InternationalJournalofEconomicsandBusinessResearch6(3),324-338.
Bonoma,T.V.(1985).Caseresearchinmarketing:opportunities,problems,andaprocess,JournalofMarketingResearch22(2),199–208.
Bottom,W.P.,Holloway,J.,Miller,G.J.,Mislin,A.,&Whitford,A.(2006).Buildingapathwaytocooperation:Negotiationandsocialexchangebetweenprincipalandagent.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly51(1),29-58.
Bowersox,D.J.,&Closs,D.J.(1996).Logisticalmanagement:Theintegratedsupplychainprocess.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Bowersox,D.J.,Daugherty,P.J.,Droge,C.L.,Rogers,D.S.,&Wardlow,D.L.(1989).Leadingedgelogistics:Competitivepositioningforthe1990s.OakBrook,IL.:CouncilofLogisticsManagement
Brewer,J.,&Hunter,A.(1989).Multimethodresearch:asynthesisofstyles.NewburyPark:Sage.
Buchan,N.R.,Croson,R.T.,&Johnson,E.J.(2004).Whendofairbeliefsinfluencebargainingbehavior?ExperimentalbargaininginJapanandtheUnitedStates.JournalofConsumerResearch31(1),181–190.
218
BurkeJohnson,R.,&Onwuegbuzie,A.J.(2004).Mixedmethodsresearch:Aresearchparadigmwhosetimehascome.EducationalResearcher33(7),14-26.
Bryman,A.(1988).Quantityandqualityinsocialresearch.London:Routledge.
Bryman,A.(2006).Integratingquantitativeandqualitativeresearch:Howisitdone?QualitativeResearch6(1),97-113.
Bryman,A.(2008).Whydoresearchersintegrate/combine/mesh/blend/mix/merge/fusequantitativeandqualitativeresearch?InM.M.Bergman(Ed.)Advancesinmixedmethodsresearch.Sage.
Burns,K.,SweeneyII,D.C.,North,J.W.,&Ellegood,W.A.(2013).ALongitudinalComparisonofCourseDeliveryModesofanIntroductoryInformationSystemsCourseandtheSubsequentInformationSystemsCourse.JournalofOnlineLearningandTeaching9(4),453-467.
Cadden,T.,Marshall,D.,&Cao,G.(2013).Oppositesattract:Organisationalcultureandsupplychainperformance.Supplychainmanagement:AninternationalJournal18(1),86-103.
Carter,C.,&Stevens,C.(2007).Electronicreverseauctionconfigurationanditsimpactonbuyerpriceandsupplierperceptionsofopportunism:Alaboratoryexperiment.JournalofOperationsManagement25(5),1035-1054.
Cameron,R.(2011).Mixedmethodsinbusinessandmanagement:Acalltothe‘firstgeneration.’JournalofManagement&Organization7(2),245–267.
Cameron,R.,&Molina-Azorin,J.F.(2014).Theacceptanceofmixedmethodsinbusinessandmanagement.InternationalJournalofOrganizationalAnalysis22(1),14-29.
Campbell,D.T.,&Fiske,D.(1959).Convergentanddiscriminantvalidationbythemultitrait-multimethodmatrix.PsychologicalBulletin56,81-105.
219
Cao,M.,Vonderembse,M.A.,Zhang,Q.Y.,&Ragu-Nathan,T.S.(2010).Supplychaincollaboration:Conceptualisationandinstrumentdevelopment.InternationalJournalofProductionResearch48(22),6613-6635.
Căruntu,C.,&Lăpădusi,M.(2010).Complexissuesregardingtheroleandimportanceofinternationallycodifiedrulesandincoterms.Petroleum-GasUniversityofPloiestiBulletin,EconomicSciencesSeries62(1),98-110.
Chandy,R.K.,Prabhu,J.C.,&Antia,K.D.(2003).Whatwillthefuturebring?Dominance,technology,expectations,andradicalinnovation.JournalofMarketing67(3),1-18.
Chopra,S.,&Meindl,P.(2007).Supplychainmanagement:strategy,planningandoperations.UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Cook,T.D.,&Campbell,D.T.(1979).Quasi-experimentation:Designandanalysisissuesforfieldsettings.Chicago:RandMcNally.
Cook,T.D.,&Reichardt,C.S.(1979).Qualitativeandquantitativemethodsinevaluationresearch.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.
Corbin,J.,&Strauss,A.(2008).BasicsofQualitativeResearch(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Corsten,D.,&Felde,J.(2005).Exploringtheperformanceeffectsofkey-suppliercollaboration.InternationalJournalofPhysicalDistribution&LogisticsManagement35(6),445-461.
Cousins,P.D.,&Menguc,B.(2006).Theimplicationsofsocializationandintegrationinsupplychainmanagement.JournalofOperationsManagement24(5),604–620.
Creswell,J.W.,2002.Educationalresearch:Planning,conducting,andevaluatingquantitativeandqualitativeapproachestoresearch.Boston:Merrill/Pearson.
220
Creswell,J.W.,2003.Researchdesign:Quantitative,qualitative,andmixedmethodsapproaches(2nded.).Sage.
Creswell,J.W.,PlanoClark,V.L.,Gutmann,M.L.,&Hanson,W.E.(2003).Advancedmixedmethodsresearchdesigns.Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocialandbehavioralresearch.Sage,209–240.
Creswell,J.W.,&PlanoClark,V.L.(2007).Designingandconductingmixedmethodsresearch.Sage.
CSCMP(2016).CSCMPSupplyChainManagementDefinitionsandGlossary[Online].RetrievedMarch12,2016,fromhttps://cscmp.org/supply-chain-management-definitions.
Dabholkar,P.A.,&Baggozi,R.P.(2002).AnAttitudinalModelofTechnology-BasedSelf-Service:ModeratingEffectsofConsumerTraitsandSituationalFactors.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingSciences30(3),184-201.
Darke,P.,Shanks,G.,&Broadbent,M.(1998).Successfullycompletingcasestudyresearch:combiningrigour,relevanceandpragmatism,InformationSystemsJournal8(4),273-289.
Datta,L.,(1994).Paradigmwars:Abasisforpeacefulcoexistenceandbeyond.InC.SReichart&S.F.Rallis(Eds.),Thequalitative-quantitativedebate:Newperspectives(pp.53-70).SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Daugherty,P.(2011).Reviewoflogisticsandsupplychainrelationshipliteratureandsuggestedresearchagenda.InternationalJournalofPhysicalDistribution&LogisticsManagement41(1),16-31.
Davis,D.F.,Golicic,S.L.,&Boerstler,C.N.(2011).Benefitsandchallengesofconductingmultiplemethodsresearchinmarketing.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience39(3),467-479.
Day,G.S.(2000).Managingmarketrelationships.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience28(1),24–30.
221
Dennis,W.J.Jr.(2003).RaisingResponseRatesinMailSurveysofSmallBusinessOwners:ResultsofanExperiment.JournalofSmallBusinessManagement41(3),278-295.
Denzin,N.K.(1978).Thelogicofnaturalisticinquiry,Sociologicalmethods:Asourcebook.NewYork:McGrawHill.
Dobler,D.W.,Lee,L.J.,&Burt,D.(1984).Purchasingandmaterialsmanagement:Textandcases.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Dwyer,F.R.,Schurr,P.H.,&Oh,S.(1987).DevelopingBuyer-SellerRelationships.JournalofMarketing51(2),11-28.
Eisenhardt,K.M.(1989).BuildingTheoriesfromCaseStudyResearch,Academyof
ManagementReview14(4),532-550.
Fang,T.(2006).Negotiation:TheChinesestyle.JournalofBusinessandIndustrial
Marketing21(1),50–60.
Farmer,D.,&Macmillan,K.(1978).Thebenefitsofreducingopportunisminbuyer-supplierrelationships.Purchasing&SupplyManagement,May,10-13.
Fawcett,S.E.&Magnan,G.M.(2000).Integratingsupplychains:Benefits,barriers,andbridges.TheThirdAnnualNorthAmericanResearchSymposiumonPurchasingandSupplyChainManagement,London,Ontario,Canada.
Ferber,R.(1970).Theexpandingroleofmarketinginthe1970s.JournalofMarketing34(1),29-30.
Fisher,R.J.(1993).Socialdesirabilitybiasandthevalidityofindirectquestioning,JournalofConsumerResearch20(2),303-315.
222
Flint,D.J.,&Mentzer,J.T.(2000).Logisticiansasmarketers:Theirrolewhencustomers’desiredvaluechanges.JournalofBusinessLogistics21(2),19-45.
Flint,D.J.,Woodruff,R.B.,&Gardial,S.F.(2002).Exploringthephenomenonofcustomers’desiredvaluechangeinabusiness-to-businesscontext.JournalofMarketing66(4),102-117.
Flynn,B.B.,Zhao,X.,Huo,B.,&Yeung,J.H.(2008).We’vegotthepower!Howcustomerpoweraffectssupplychainrelationships.BusinessHorizons51(3),169-174.
Frankel,R.,Bolumole,Y.A.,Eltantawy,R.A.,&Paulraj,A.,&Gundlach,G.T.(2008).ThedomainandscopeofSCM’sfoundationaldisciplines–insightsandissuestoadvanceresearch.JournalofBusinessLogistics29(1),1-30.
Frankel,R.,Whipple,J.S.,&Frayer,D.J.(1996).Formalversusinformalcontracts:achievingalliancesuccess.InternationalJournalofPhysicalDistributionandLogisticsManagement26(3),47-63.
Friend,S.B.(2010).Whyareyoureallywinningandlosingdeals:Acustomerperspectiveondeterminantsofsalesfailure[Online].RetrievedApril04,2017,fromhttp://scholarworks.gsu.edu/marketing_diss/16/
Frohlich,M.T.,&Westbrook,R.(2001).Arcsofintegration:Aninternationalstudyofsupplychainstrategies.JournalofOperationsManagement19(2),185-200.
Frohlich,M.T.,&Westbrook,R.(2002).Demandchainmanagementinmanufacturingandservices:Web-basedintegration,drivers,andperformance.JournalofOperationsManagement20(6),729-745.
Gable,G.G.(1994).Integratingcasestudyandsurveyresearchmethods:Anexampleininformationsystems.EuropeanJournalofInformationSystems3(2),112-126.
Gemünden,H.G.(1997).ThedevelopmentofIMP—ananalysisoftheconferenceproceedings1984–96.InH.G.Gemünden,T.Ritter,&A.Walter(Eds.),Relationshipandnetworksininternationalmarkets.Oxford:Pergamon.
223
Glaser,B.G.(1978).Theoreticalsensitivity:Advancesinthemethodologyofgroundedtheory.MillValley,CA:SociologyPress.
Glaser,B.G.,&Strauss,A.I.(1967).TheDiscoveryofgroundedtheory:Strategiesforqualitativeresearch.NewYork:AldinePublishingCo.
Glaser,B.G.,&Strauss,A.I.(2008).Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory:Strategiesforqualitativeresearch.NewBrunswick:AldineTransaction.
Glitz,F.Z.(2011).TransferofcontractualriskandINCOTERMS:BriefanalysisofitsapplicationinBrazil.JournalofInternationalCommercialLaw&Technology6(2),108-119.
Goffin,K.,Lemke,F.,&Szwejczewski,M.(2006).Anexploratorystudyof‘close’supplier–manufacturerrelationships.JournalofOperationsManagement24(2),189–209.
Goulding,C.(2002).GroundedTheory:Apracticalguideformanagement,business,andmarketresearchers.London:SagePublications.
Greene,J.C.,&Caracelli,V.J.(1997).Advancesinmixed-methodevaluation:The
challengesandbenefitsofintegratingdiverseparadigms.NewDirectionsforEvaluation74,5-17.
Greene,J.C.,Caracelli,V.J.,&Graham,W.F.(1989).Towardaconceptualframeworkformixed-methodevaluationdesigns.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis11(3),255–274.
Greene,J.C.,&Caracelli,V.J.(2003).Makingparadigmaticsenseofmixedmethodspractice.InA.Tashakkori&C.Teddlie(Eds.).Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocialandbehavioralresearch(pp.91-110).California:Sage.
Greene,J.(2007).Mixedmethodsinsocialinquiry.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
224
Greene,W.H.(2000).Econometricanalysis(4thedition).NewYork:Maxmillan.
Grewel,D.,Roggeveen,A.L.,&Tsiros,M.(2008).Theeffectofcompensationonrepurchaseintentionsinservicerecovery.JournalofRetailing84(4),424-434.
Grimmer,M.,&Hanson,D.(2009,December).QualitativeandquantitativeresearchpublishedintheInternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement.Paperpresentedatthe23rdAnnualAustralian&NewZealandAcademyofManagement(ANZAM)Conference,Melbourne,VIC.
Groves,R.M.,&Peytcheva,E.(2008).Theimpactofnonresponseratesonnonresponsebiasameta-analysis.Publicopinionquarterly,72(2),167-189.
Gupta,R.(2010).ICCupdatesIncoterms,TheEconomicTimes[Online].RetrievedJanuary29,2016,fromhttp://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-09-27/news/27616270_1_icc-revisions-updates
Håkansson,H.(1988).Internationalmarketingandpurchasingofindustrialgoods:Aninteractionapproach.Chichester;NewYork[etc.]:J.Wiley&Sons.
Håkansson,H.,&Ford,D.(2006).IMP—Somethingsachieved:Muchmoretodo.
EuropeanJournalofMarketing,40(3/4),248–258.
Halcomb,E.J.,&Andrew,S.(2009).Practicalconsiderationforhigherresearchstudentsundertakingmixedmethodsprojects.InternationalJournalofMultipleResearchApproaches3(2),153-162.
Handfield,R.,&Melynk,S.(1998).Thescientifictheory-buildingprocess:AprimerusingthecaseofTQM.JournalofOperationsManagement16(4),321–337.
Hanson,D.,&Grimmer,M.(2007).Themixofqualitativeandquantitativeresearchinmajormarketingjournals,1993-2002.EuropeanJournalofMarketing41(1/2),58–70.
225
Hanson,W.E.,PlanoClark,V.L.,Petska,K.S.,Creswell,J.W.,&Creswell,J.D.(2005).Mixedmethodsresearchdesignsincounselingpsychology.JournalofCounselingPsychology52(2),224-235.
Herbst,U.,Voeth,M.,&Meister,C.(2011).Whatdoweknowaboutbuyer–sellernegotiationsinmarketingresearch?Astatusquoanalysis.IndustrialMarketingManagement40(6),967-978.
Hirschman,E.C.(1986).Humanisticinquiryinmarketingresearch:Philosophy,method,andcriteria.JournalofMarketingResearch23(3),237-249.
Holley,D.,&Haynes,R.(2003).The"INCOTERMS"challenge:Usingmulti-mediatoengagelearners.Education&Training45(7),392-401.
Hopmann,P.T.(2002).Negotiatingdata:Reflectionsonthequalitativeandquantitativeanalysisofnegotiationprocesses.InternationalNegotiation7(1),67-85.
Huang,X.,Gattiker,T.F.,&Schwarz,J.L.(2008).InterpersonalTrustFormationduringtheSupplierSelectionProcess:TheRoleoftheCommunicationChannel.JournalofSupplyChainManagement44(3),53-75.
Hurmerinta-Peltomäki,L.,&Nummela,N.(2006).Mixedmethodsininternationalbusinessresearch:Avalue-addedperspective.ManagementInternationalReview46(4),439–459.
Hüttinger,L.,Schiele,H.,&Schröer,D.(2014).Exploringtheantecedentsofpreferentialcustomertreatmentbysuppliers:Amixedmethodsapproach.SupplyChainManagement:AnInternationalJournal19(5/6),697-721.
InternationalChamberofCommerce(2010).Incoterms®2010:ICCrulesfortheuseofdomesticandinternationaltradeterms,ICCPublications[Online].Retrievedfromhttp://store.iccwbo.org/incoterms-2010
InternationalChamberofCommerce(2015a).Incoterms®ruleshistory[Online]RetrievedMay15,2015,fromhttp://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/trade-facilitation/incoterms-2010/history-of-the-incoterms-rules/
226
InternationalChamberofCommerce(2015b).TheIncoterms®rules[Online].RetrievedMay15,2015,fromhttp://www.iccwbo.org/products-and-services/trade-facilitation/incoterms-2010/the-incoterms-rules/
Jap,S.(2001).Perspectivesonjointcompetitiveadvantagesinbuyer–supplierrelationships.InternationalJournalofResearchinMarketing18(1–2),19–35.
Jick,T.D.(1979).Mixingqualitativeandquantitativemethods:Triangulationinaction.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly24,602-611.
Johnson,R.B.,&Turner,L.A.(2003).Datacollectionstrategiesinmixedmethodsresearch.InA.Tashakkori&C.Teddlie(Eds.)Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocialandbehavioralresearchpp.297–319.Sage.
Kesmodel,D.,&Vranica,S.(2009).UneasebrewingatAnheuserasnewownersslashcosts[Online].RetrievedMay26,2014,fromhttp://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB124096182942565947
Knemeyer,A.M.,&Murphy,P.R.(2005).Exploringthepotentialimpactofrelationshipcharacteristicsandcustomerattributesontheoutcomesofthird-partylogisticsarrangements.TransportationJournal44(1),5-19.
Kock,N.,Chatelain-Jardon,R.,&Carmona,J.(2008).Anexperimentalstudyofsimulatedweb-basedthreatsandtheirimpactonknowledgecommunicationeffectiveness.IEEETransactionsonProfessionalCommunication51(2),183-197.
Kotler,P.(1972).Agenericconceptofmarketing.JournalofMarketing36(April),46-54.
Kotler,P.,&Levy,S.J.(1969).Broadeningtheconceptofmarketing.JournalofMarketing33(1),10-15.
Kotler,P.,&Zaltman,G.(1971).Socialmarketing:Anapproachtoplannedsocialchange.JournalofMarketing35(3),3-12.
227
Krause,D.R.,Terpend,R.,&Petersen,K.J.(2006).Bargainingstancesandoutcomesinbuyer-sellernegotiations:Experimentalresults.JournalofSupplyChainManagement42(3),4-15.
Krause,D.R.,Handfield,R.B.,&Tyler,B.B.(2007).Therelationshipsbetweensupplierdevelopment,commitment,socialcapitalaccumulationandperformanceimprovement.JournalofOperationsManagement25(2),528–545.
Kumar,S.(2010).LogisticsroutingflexibilityandlowerfreightcoststhroughuseofIncoterms.TransportationJournal49(3),48-56.
LaLonde,B.J.,&Maltz,A.B.(1992).Somepropositionsaboutoutsourcingthelogistics
function.InternationalJournalofLogisticsManagement3(1),1-11.
LaLonde,B.J.,Cooper,M.C.,&Noordewier,T.G.(1988).CustomerService:Amanagementperspective.OakBrook,IL:The Council of Logistics Management.
Lambert,D.M.,Emmelhainz,M.A.,&Gardner,J.T.(1996).Developingandimplementing
supplychainpartnerships.InternationalJournalofLogisticsManagement7(2),1–18.
Lamming,R.(1996).Squaringleansupplywithsupplychainmanagement.InternationalJournalofOperationsandProductionManagement16(2),183-196.
Langley,C.J.,&Holcomb,M.C.(1992).Creatinglogisticscustomervalue.JournalofBusinessLogistics13(2),1-27.
Lassar,W.,&Zinn,W.(1995).Informalchannelrelationshipsinlogistics.JournalofBusinessLogistics16(1),81-106.
Leech,N.,Onwuegbuzie,A.,Hansson,T.,&Robinson,P.(2008).Teachingmixedmethod:Callforpapers.InternationalJournalofMultipleResearchApproaches.[Online]RetrievedAugust26,2008,fromhttp://mra.e-contentmanagement.com/archives/vol/4/issue/1/call/
228
Lee,A.S.(1989).AscientificmethodologyforMIScasestudies.MISQuarterly13(1),33–50.
Lee,A.S.(1991).Integratingpositivistandinterpretiveapproachestoorganizationresearch.OrganizationScience2(4),342-365.
Lee,L.H.,&Whang,S.(2000).Informationsharinginasupplychain.InternationalJournalofManufacturingTechnologyandManagement1(1),79.
LegalInformationInstitute(2015).Uniformcommercialcode,CornellUniversityLawSchool[Online].RetrievedMay16,2015,fromhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc
Lincoln,Y.S.,&Guba,E.G.(1985).Naturalisticinquiry.California:SagePublications.
Locke,K.(1996).Rewritingthediscoveryofgroundedtheoryafter25years.JournalofManagementInquiry5(3),239-245.
Luck,D.J.(1969).Broadeningtheconceptofmarketing.Toofar.JournalofMarketing33(3),53-55.
Luck,D.J.(1974).Socialmarketing:Confusioncompounded.JournalofMarketing38(4),70-72.
Maholtra,N.K.,&Peterson,M.(2006).Basicmarketingresearch:Adecision-makingapproach(2nded.).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PearsonPrenticeHall.
Malfliet, J. (2011). Incoterms 2010 and the mode of transport: How to choose the
right term. Management challenges in the 21st century: Transport and logistics: Opportunity for Slovakia in the era of knowledge economy, Proceedings (pp. 163–179). Presented at the Management Challenges in the 21st Century: Transport and Logistics: Opportunity for Slovakia in the Era of Knowledge Economy, Bratislava, Slovakia: City University of Seattle Bratislava.
Matthyssens,P.(2007).Methodparadigmsinpurchasingandsupplymanagement:Analogizingfromthe(old)debateinmanagementandmarketing.JournalofPurchasingandSupplyManagement13(3),219-220.
229
Maxcy,S.J.(2003).Pragmaticthreadsinmixedmethodsresearchinthesocialsciences:Thesearchformultiplemodesofinquiryandtheendofthephilosophyofformalism.InA.Tashakorri&C.Teddlie(Eds.).Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocialandbehavioralresearch(pp.51–90).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
McCracken,G.(1988).Thelonginterview.BeverlyHills:SagePublications.
McCutcheon,D.M.,&Meredith,J.R.(1993).Conductingcasestudyresearchinoperationsmanagement.JournalofOperationsManagement11(3),239–256.
McGee,M.,&Giermanski,J.(2007).HowSOXandC-TPATimpactglobalsupplychainsecurity.StrategicFinance88(10),32-38.
McGrath,J.E.(1982).Dilemmatics:Thestudyofresearchchoiceanddilemmas.InJ.Martin&R.A.Kulka(Eds.)Judgmentcallsinresearch(pp.69-102).BeverlyHills,CA:SagePublications.
Mckinnon,A.(2014).Thepossibleinfluenceoftheshipperoncarbonemissionsfromdeep-seacontainersupplychains:Anempiricalanalysis.MaritimeEconomics&Logistics,16(1),1-19.
McMillan,J.,&Schumacher,S.(2006).Researchineducation:Evidence-basedinquiry.(6thed.).Boston:Pearson.
Meixell,M.J.,&Gargeya,V.B.(2005).Globalsupplychaindesign:Aliteraturereviewandcritique.TransportationResearch.PartE,Logistics&TransportationReview41E(6),531-550.
Mello,J.E.(2006).Aninvestigationintothenatureoftherelationshipofcorporateculturetologisticsoutsourcing.(DoctoralDissertation,Knoxville,TN:UniversityofTennessee).AvailablefromTrace:TennesseeResearchandCreativeExchange.http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1830
230
Mentzer,J.T.,Dewitt,W.,Keebler,J.S.,Min,S.,Nix,N.W.,Smith,C.D.,&Zacharia,Z.G.(2001).Definingsupplychainmanagement.JournalofBusinessLogistics22(2),1–25.
Meredith,J.(1998).Buildingoperationsmanagementtheorythroughcaseandfieldresearch.JournalofOperationsManagement16(4),441-454.
Mertens,D.M.(2003).Mixedmethodsandthepoliticsofhumanresearch:Thetransformative-emancipatoryperspective.InA.Tashakkori&C.Teddlie(Eds.),Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocialandbehavioralresearch(pp.135–164).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Mertens,D.M.,2005.Researchandevaluationineducationandpsychology:Integratingdiversitywithquantitative,qualitative,andmixedmethods(2nded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Mestdagh,S.,&Buelens,M.(2003).Thinkingbackonwherewe’regoing:Amethodologicalassessmentoffivedecadesofresearchinnegotiationbehavior.VlerickLeuvenGentWorkingPaperSeries,No.2003:21.
Mick,D.G.,DeMoss,M.,&Faber,R.J.(1992).Aprojectivestudyofmotivationsandmeaningsofself-gifts:Implicationsforretailmanagement.JournalofRetailing68(2),122-145.
Miller,P.J.,&Cameron,R.(2011).Mixedmethodresearchdesigns:Acasestudyoftheiradoptioninadoctorofbusinessadministrationprogram.InternationalJournalofMultipleResearchApproaches5(3),387-402.
Miller,P.,&Marchant,T.(2009).ProfessionaldoctorateresearchinAustralia:Commentaryandcasestudiesfrombusiness,educationandindigenousstudies.Lismore,N.S.W:SouthernCrossUniversityPress.
Min,S.,Roath,A.S.,Daugherty,P.J.,Genchev,S.E.,Chen,H.,Arndt,A.D.,&Richey,R.G.(2005).Supplychaincollaboration:what’shappening?InternationalJournalofLogisticsManagement16(2),237-256.
231
Mingers,J.,&Gill,A.(1997).Multimethodology:TheTheoryandPracticeofCombining,ManagementScienceMethodologies.Chichester[u.a.]:Wiley.
Mohr,J.J.,Fisher,R.J.,&Nevin,J.(1996).Collaborativecommunicationininterfirmrelationships:Moderatingeffectsofintegrationandcontrol.JournalofMarketing60(3),103-115.
Mohr,J.J.,&Nevin,R.J.(1990).Communicationstrategiesinmarketingchannels:Impactonassessmentsofcommunicationqualityandsatisfaction.JournalofRetailing54(4),36-51.
Molina-Azorin,J.F.(2008).Mixedmethodsresearchinbusinessmanagement:Acomparisonoftheuseofmixedmethodsinthreespecificareas,Paperpresentedtothe4thMixedMethodsConference,July2008,Cambridge,UK.
Molina-Azorin,J.F.(2009).Understandinghowmixedmethodsresearchisundertakenwithinaspecificresearchcommunity:Thecaseofbusinessstudies.InternationalJournalofMultipleResearchApproaches3(1),47–57.
Molina-Azorin,J.F.,&López-Fernández,O.(2009).Mixedmethodsresearchinbehavioralsciences:Acomparisonofmixedmethodsstudiesintwospecificfields.Paperpresentedatthe4thMixedMethodsConference,July2009,Harrogate,UK.
Morgan,D.L.,1998.PracticalstrategiesforCombiningQualitativeandQuantitativeMethods:ApplicationstoHealthResearch.QualitativeHealthResearch8(3),pp.362-376.
Morgan,R.E.,&Hunt,S.D.(1994).Thecommitment–trusttheoryofrelationshipmarketing.JournalofMarketing58(3),20–38.
Morse,J.M.(1991.)Approachestoqualitative-quantitativemethodologicaltriangulation.NursingResearch40(2),120–123.
Morse,J.N.,&Niehaus,L.(2009).Mixedmethoddesign:Principlesandprocedures.LeftCoastPress.
232
Moultrie,W.H.(1998).Freightisnolongersolelyfreight.InboundLogistics18(2),62-63.
Mundy,R.A.(1997).Operationaldefinitions.[PowerPointslides].CenterforTransportation,UniversityofMissouri-St.Louis.
Nair,A.,Narasimhan,R.,&Bendoly,E.(2011).Coopetitivebuyer-supplierrelationship:Aninvestigationofbargainingpower,relationalcontext,andinvestmentstrategies.DecisionSciences42(1),93-127.
NagyHesse-Biber,S.N.(2010).Mixedmethodsresearch:Mergingtheorywithpractice.NewYork:GuildfordPress.
Newman,I.,&Benz,C.R.(1998).Qualitative-quantitativeresearchmethodology:Exploringtheinteractivecontinuum.Carbondale:SIUPress.
Novack,R.A.,Rinehart,L.M.,&Wells,M.V.(1992).Rethinkingconceptfoundationsinlogisticsmanagement.JournalofBusinessLogistics13(2),233-267.
Nyaga,G.N.,Whipple,J.M.,&Lynch,D.F.(2010).Examiningsupplychainrelationships:Dobuyerandsupplierperspectivesoncollaborativerelationshipsdiffer?JournalofOperationsManagement,28(2),101-114.
O’Cathain,A.(2009).Reportingmixedmethodsprojects.InAndrew,S.(Ed.)Mixedmethodsresearchfornursingandthehealthsciences(pp.135-158).Oxford,UK:Wiley-Blackwell.
Özer,Ö.,Zheng,Y.,&Ren,Y.(2014).Trust,trustworthiness,andinformationsharinginsupplychainsbridgingChinaandtheUnitedStates.ManagementScience,60(10),2435-2460.
Pappu,M.,&Mundy,R.A.(2002).Understandingstrategictransportationbuyer-sellerrelationshipsfromanorganizationallearningperspective:Agroundedtheoryapproach.TransportationJournal41(4),36-50.
233
Patton,M.Q.(1990).Qualitativeresearchandevaluationmethods.BeverlyHills,CA:Sage.
Paulraj,A.,Lado,A.A.,&Chen,I.J.(2008).Inter-organizationalcommunicationasarelationalcompetency:Antecedentsandperformanceoutcomesincollaborativebuyer-supplierrelationships.JournalofOperationsManagement26(1),45-64.
Perdue,B.C.,Day,R.L.,&Michaels,R.E.(1986).Negotiationstylesofindustrialbuyers.IndustrialMarketingManagement15(3),171-176.
Peng,G.(2011).Inter-organizationalinformationexchange,supplychaincomplianceandperformance.WageningenAcademicPublishers.
Petty,T.E.,Campbell,M.W.&Lynne,J.(1989).Runnin'DownaDream.OnFullMoonFever.LosAngeles,California:MCARecords.
Pilling,B.K.,Crosby,L.A.,&JacksonJr.,D.W.(1994).relationalbondsinindustrialexchange:Anexperimentaltestofthetransactioncosteconomicframework.JournalofBusinessResearch30(3),237-251.
Porter,M.E.&Millar,V.A.(1985).Howinformationgivesyoucompetitiveadvantage.HarvardBusinessReview63(4).149-160.
Prahalad,C.K.,&Hamel,G.(1990).Thecorecompetenceofthecorporation.HarvardBusinessReview,May-June,79-93.
Ramberg,J.(2011).INCOTERMS2010.EuropeanJournalofLawReform13(3-4),380-387.
Ramsay,J.,1979.Reducingcompetitioninbuyer/sellerrelationships.PurchasingandSupplyManagement,March,8-13
Ramsay,J.(2004).Serendipityandtherealpolitikofnegotiationsinsupplychains.SupplyChainManagement:AnInternationalJournal9(3),219-229.
234
Ramsey,E.,Ibbotson,P.,&McCole,P.(2006).Applicationofprojectivetechniquesinane-businessresearchcontext:Aresponseto‘Projectivetechniquesinmarketresearch–valuelesssubjectivityorinsightfulreality?InternationalJournalofMarketResearch48(5),551-573.
Reichardt,C.S.,&Cook,T.D.(1979).Beyondqualitativeversusquantitativemethods.Qualitativeandquantitativemethodsinevaluationresearch,1,7-32.
Reichardt,C.S.,&Rallis,S.F.(1994).Thequalitative-quantitativedebate:Newperspectives.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Reynolds,F.(2010).Incoterms®ForAmericans.Toledo,Ohio:InternationalProjects.
Reichardt,C.S.,&Cook,T.D.(1979).Beyondqualitativevs.quantitativemethods.In:C.S.Reichardt&T.D.Cook(Eds.).Qualitativeandquantitativemethodsinevaluationresearch(pp.7-32).SagePublications.
Rinehart,L.M.(1989).Organizationalandpersonalfactorsinfluencingthenegotiationofmotorcarriercontracts:Asurveyofshippersandmotorcarriers.TransportationJournal29(2),4-14.
Rinehart,L.M.(2016).Concludingthoughtsrecognizingnegotiationasaprocessinvolvingmorethanoneparty.UnpublishedPaper,UniversityofTennessee-Knoxville.
Rinehart,L.M.,Cadotte,E.R.,&Langley,C.J.(1988).Shippercarriercontractnegotiations:Aconceptualfoundationforlogisticsmanagers.InternationalJournalofPhysicalDistributionandLogisticsManagement18(6),43-51.
Roberts,G.,Rao,J.,&Kumar,S.(1987).LogisticRegressionAnalysisofSampleSurveyData.Biometrika,74(1),1-12.
235
Rocco,T.S.,Bliss,L.A.,Gallagher,S.,&Pérez-Prado,A.(2003).Takingthenextstep:Mixedmethodsresearchinorganizationalsystems.InformationTechnology,LearningandPerformanceJournal21(1),19–29.
Roos,P.(2011).Incoterminology2010:ManualforthepracticaluseofIncoterms®.Rotterdam:NTPublishers.
Rubin,H.J.,&Rubin,I.S.(2011).Qualitativeinterviewing:Theartofhearingdata(3rded.).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
Sachan,A.,&Datta,S.(2005).Reviewofsupplychainmanagementandlogisticsresearch.InternationalJournalofPhysicalDistribution&LogisticsManagement35(9),664-705.
Scheer,L.K.,&Stern,L.W.(1992).Theeffectofinfluencetypeandperformanceoutcomesonattitudetowardtheinfluencer.JournalofMarketingResearch29(1),128-142.
Sheperis,C.J.,Young,J.S.,&Daniels,M.H.(2010).Counselingresearch:Quantitative,qualitativeandmixedmethods.Pearson.
Sheu,C.,Yen,H.R.,&Chae,B.(2006).Determinantsofsupplier-retailercollaboration:evidencefromaninternationalstudy.InternationalJournalofOperations&ProductionManagement26(1),pp.24-49.
Sieber,S.D.(1973).Theintegrationoffieldworkandsurveymethods.AmericanJournalofSociology78(6),1335-1359.
Siemsen,E.(2011).Theusefulnessofbehaviorallaboratoryexperimentsinsupplychainmanagementresearch.JournalofSupplyChainManagement47(3),17-18.
Smith,J.K.(1983).Quantitativeversusqualitativeresearch:Anattempttoclarifytheissue.Educationalresearcher,12(3),6-13.
236
Smith,L.D.,Campbell,J.F.,&Mundy,R.(2007).Modelingnetratesforexpeditedfreightservices.TransportationResearchPartELogistics&TransportationReview43(2),192-207.
Spekman,R.E.,Kamauff,J.W.,&Myhr,N.(1998).Anempiricalinvestigationintosupplychainmanagement:Aperspectiveonpartnerships.SupplyChainManagement:AnInternationalJournal3(2),630-650.
Soosay,C.A.,Hyland,P.W.,Ferrer,M.(2008).Supplychaincollaboration:Capabilitiesforcontinuousinnovation.SupplyChainManagement:AnInternationalJournal13(2),160-169.
Stank,T.P.,&Daugherty,P.J.(1997).Theimpactofoperatingenvironmentontheformationofcooperativelogisticsrelationships.TransportationResearchPartE:Logistics&TransportationReview33(1),53-65.
Stank,T.P.,&Goldsby,T.J.(2000).Aframeworkfortransportationdecisionmakinginanintegratedsupplychain.SupplyChainManagement:AnInternationalJournal5(2),71-78.
Stapleton,D.M.(2014,May).Optimizingshippercontracting:thecorrectusageofIncotermsforcontainerized/intermodalfreight.Paperpresentedattheannualconferenceproceedings(25)oftheProductionOperationsManagementSociety,Wisconsin.
Stapleton,D.M.,Pande,V.,Ghosh,S.,&Damali,U.(2014a).Refiningshippers’dyadiccost,risk,anddeliveryresponsibilities:TheprincipalchangestoIncotermsandatransactioncostfocusforthefuture.JournalofTransportationManagement24(2),7-29.
Stapleton,D.M.,Pande,V.,&O’Brien,D.(2014b).EXW,FOBorFCA?Choosingtherightincotermandwhyitmatterstomaritimeshippers.JournalofTransportationLaw,Logistics&Policy81(3),227-248.
237
Stapleton,D.M.,&Saulnier,V.(1999).Definingdyadiccostandriskininternationaltrade:AreviewofINOCTERMS2000withstrategicimplications.JournalofTransportationManagement11(2),24-43.
Stapleton,D.M.,&Saulnier,V.(2001).Astudyinshippercontractingrelationships.ISBMResearchNewsletter[Online].RetrievedJanuary28,2016,fromhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.5041&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Stapleton,D.M.,&Saulnier,V.(2002).Termsofsale,documentation,andlettersofcredit.InD.J.Bloomberg,S.LeMay,&J.B.Hanna(Eds.).Logistics(pp.296-301).NewJersey:PrenticeHall.
Staughton,R.,&Johnston,R.(2005).Operationalperformancegapsinbusinessrelationships.InternationalJournalofOperationsandProductionManagement25(4),320–332.
Stern,P.N.(1994).Chapter5:Groundedtheorymethodology:Itsusesandprocesses.InB.G.Glaser(Ed.).MoreGroundedTheoryMethodology:AReader(pp.116-126).MillValley,CA:SociologyPress.
Stewart,D.W.(2009).Theroleofmethod:Somepartingthoughtsfromadepartingeditor.JournaloftheAcademyofMarketingScience37(4),381–383.
Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.(1990).Basicsofqualitativeresearch(Vol.15),NewburyPark,CA:Sage.
Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.(1998).Basicsofqualitativeresearch:Techniquesandproceduresfordevelopinggroundedtheory.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
Stuart,F.I.(1993).Supplierpartnerships:Influencingfactorsandstrategicbenefits.InternationalJournalofPurchasingandMaterialsManagement,29(3),21-29.
Stuart,F.I.,&McCutcheon,D.(1996).Sustainingstrategicsupplieralliances.InternationalJournalofOperations&ProductionManagement16(10),5-22.
238
Stuart,I.,McCutcheon,D.,Handfield,R.,McLachlin,R.,&Samson,D.(2002).Effectivecaseresearchinoperationsmanagement:Aprocessperspective.JournalofOperationsManagement20(5),419-433.
Su,Q.,Song,Y.T.,Li,Z.,&Dang,J.X.(2008).Theimpactofsupplychainrelationshipqualityoncooperativestrategy.JournalofPurchasing&SupplyManagement14(4),263-272.
Tashakkori,A.,&Teddlie,C.(1998).Mixedmethodology:Combiningqualitativeandquantitativeapproaches.Sage.
Tashakkori,A,&Teddlie,C.(2003).Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocialandbehavioralresearch.Sage.
Tazelaar,F.(2007).Withalittlehelpfromyourfriends(andneighbors):Apotentiallyfasterwaytoaccumulateknowledgeinthefieldofpurchasingandsupply.JournalofPurchasing&SupplyManagement13(3),196-198.
Teddlie,C.,&Tashakkori,A.(2010).Handbookofmixedmethodsinsocial&behavioralresearch(2nded.).Sage.
Tellis,G.J.,Chandy,R.K.,&Ackerman,D.S.(1999).Insearchofdiversity:Therecordofmajormarketingjournals.JournalofMarketingResearch36(1),120–131.
Thomas,S.P.(2013).Competitiveversuscollaborative:Exploringthenegotiationstrategyimpactonrelationaloutcomesinongoingbuyer-supplierrelationships[Online].Electronic Theses & Dissertations 59. Retrieved February 28, 2016, from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/59
Thurston,W.,Cove,L.,&Meadows,L.(2008).Methodologicalcongruenceincomplexandcollaborativemixedmethodsstudies.InternationalJournalofMultipleResearchApproaches2(1),2-14.
239
Thye,S.R.(2007).Logicalandphilosophicalfoundationofexperimentalresearchinthesocialsciences.InM.Webster&J.Sell(Eds.).LaboratoryExperimentsintheSocialSciences(pp.53-82).AcademicPress.
Todd,Z.,Nerlich,B.,McKeown,S.,&Clarke,D.D.(2004).Mixingmethodsinpsychology:Theintegrationofqualitativeandquantitativemethodsintheoryandpractice.PsychologyPress.
U.S.DepartmentofHealth&HumanServices(2010).CodeofFederalRegulations[Online].RetrievedApril17,2016,fromhttp://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html#46.116
Vitasek,K.,&Manrodt,K.(2012a).Vestedoutsourcing:Aflexibleframeworkforcollaborativeoutsourcing.StrategicOutsourcing:AnInternationalJournal5(1),4-14.
Vitasek,K.,&Manrodt,K.(2012b).Contractmanagementthevestedway.NationalContractManagementAssociation(August2012),McLean.
Wacker,J.G.(1998).Adefinitionoftheory:Researchguidelinesfordifferenttheory-buildingresearchmethodsinoperationsmanagement.JournalofOperationsManagement16(4),361-385.
Wagner,W.B.(1987).Customerserviceinindustrialmarketing:Hedgeagainstcompetition.EuropeanJournalofMarketing21(7),7–17.
Webster,M.,&Sell,J.(2007).Whydoexperiments?InM.Webster&J.Sell(Eds.).LaboratoryExperimentsintheSocialSciences(pp.5-21).Burlington,MA:Elsevier.
Wikipedia(2016).UnitedNationsConventiononContractsfortheInternationalSaleofGoods,Wikipedia[Online].RetrievedJanuary28,2016,fromhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_Contracts_for_the_International_Sale_of_Goods
240
Wilding,R.,&Humphries,A.S.(2006).UnderstandingcollaborativesupplychainrelationshipsthroughtheapplicationoftheWilliamsonorganisationalfailureframework.InternationalJournalofPhysicalDistribution&LogisticsManagement36(4),309-329.
Williams,D.F.Jr.(2014).Aninvestigationofthebarrierstoinnovationandthefactorsnecessarytoovercomethosebarriersinthird-partylogisticsserviceproviders[Online].RetrievedJanuary1,2017,fromhttp://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1152/
Wolfe,R.,&McGinn,K.(2005).Perceivedrelativepoweranditsinfluenceonnegotiations.GroupDecisionandNegotiation14(1),3-20.
Xu,L.,&Beamon,B.M.(2006).Supplychaincoordinationandcooperationmechanisms:anattribute-basedapproach.JournalofSupplyChainManagement42(1),4–12.
Yao-Hua,T.,&Thoen,W.(2000).INCAS:Alegalexpertsystemforcontracttermsinelectroniccommerce.DecisionSupportSystems29(4),389-411.
Yin,R.K.(1989).Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods(2nded.).SagePublications.
Yin,R.K.(2011).Qualitativeresearchfromstarttofinish.GuilfordPress.
Yin,R.K.(2014).Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods(5thed.).Sage.
Zhai,J.(2013).Newtechnologyandmarketinginnovation–baseonleadingtradetermsintopricingsystem.ContemporaryLogistics13,9-13.
241
APPENDIXI–LITERATUREREVIEW
Literature Review.final.xlsx
ArticleCategories
Article Peer
Review
ed
Explains
Incoterm
s
New
Incoterm
sVe
rsion
Training
Other
ArticleSummary
Bergami,R.,2011.Incoterms2010:commentonthenewrevisionofdeliveryterms.VindobonaJournalofInternationalCommercialLaw&Arbitration(15),pp.159-161. 1 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Bergami,R.,2012.Incoterms2010:TheNewestRevisionofDeliveryTerms,ActaUniversityBohemMerid15(2),pp.33-40. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Bergami,R.,2013.ManagingIncoterms2010risks:tensionwithtradeandbankingpractices,InternationalJournalofEconomicsandBusinessResearch6(3),pp.324-338. 1 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Căruntu,C.andLăpădusi,M.,2010.Complexissuesregardingtheroleandimportanceofinternationallycodifiedrulesandincoterms,Petroleum-GasUniversityofPloiestiBulletin,EconomicSciencesSeries62(1),pp.98-110. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Glitz,F.E.,2011.TransferofContractualRiskandINCOTERMS:BriefAnalysisofitsApplicationinBrazil,JournalforInternationalCommercialLaw&Technology(6)2,pp.108-119. 1 0 0 0 1
RiskandIncotermsinBrazil
242
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
Malfliet,J.,2011.Incoterms2010andthemodeoftransport:howtochoosetherightterm.ManagementChallengesinthe21stCentury:TransportandLogistics:OpportunityforSlovakiaintheEraofKnowledgeEconomy,Proceedings,Bratislava,Slovakia,pp.163-179.
0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms2010andhowtochoosetherightterm
Ramberg,J.,2011.INCOTERMS2010.EuropeanJournalofLawReform(13)3-4,p.380-387. 1 0 1 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms2010
Reynolds,F.,2010.Incoterms®ForAmericans®,Toledo,InternationalProjects.,Inc. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
Roos,P.,2011.Incoterminology2010:ManualforthepracticaluseofIncoterms®,Rotterdam,NTPublishers.
0 1 0 0 0
BookthatexplainsIncoterms,writtenfromEuropeanperspective
Stapleton,D.M.,2014.Optimizingshippercontracting:thecorrectusageofIncotermsforcontainerized/intermodalfreight,ProductionOperationsManagementSociety(POMS)AnnualConferenceProceedings,Vol.25.PresentedandpublishedinMay2014. 0 1 0 0 0
UsingFCAoverFOB
Stapleton,D.M.,Pande,V.,Ghosh,S.,&Damali,U.,2014a.Refiningshippers’dyadiccost,risk,anddeliveryresponsibilities:theprincipalchangestoIncotermsandatransactioncostfocusforthefuture,JournalofTransportationManagement24(2),pp.7-29. 1 1 0 0 0
Morein-depthexplanationofIncoterms2010includingappropriateapplicationandmisuse
Stapleton,D.M.,Pande,V.,&O’Brien,D.,2014b.EXW,FOBorFCA?ChoosingtheRightIncotermandWhyItMatterstoMaritimeShippers,JournalofTransportationLaw,Logistics&Policy,pp.227-248. 1 1 0 0 0
Morein-depthexplanationofIncoterms2010includingin-depthlookatFCAorEXWinsteadofFOB
243
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
Stapleton,D.M.,Saulnier,V.,1999.Definingdyadiccostandriskininternationaltrade:areviewofINOCTERMS2000withstrategicimplications,JournalofTransportationManagement11(2),pp.24-43. 1 0 1 0 0
In-depthexplanationofIncoterms2000includingstrategicimplications
Stapleton,D.M.,Saulnier,V.,2001.AStudyinShipperContractingRelationships,ISBMResearchNewsletter[Online].Availableat:http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.202.5041&rep=rep1&type=pdf[AccessedJanuary28,2016]. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms2000
Stapleton,D.M.,Saulnier,V.,2002.TermsofSale,Documentation,andLettersofCredit.In:Logistics,1sted.,Bloomberg,D.J.,LeMay,S.&Hanna,J.B.ed.NewJersey,PrenticeHall,pp.296-301. 1 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms2000
"BusinessLine:SeminaronIncoterms",2011,Businessline,.
0 0 0 1 0
Incoterms2010trainingofferedinIndia
"Commonletterofcredit&internationalpaymentmisconceptions",1998,IOMA'sReportonManagingInternationalCredit&Collections,vol.98,no.12,pp.5. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
"ECONOMICPOLICY;NEWINCOTERMS2010RULESTAKEEFFECTFROMJANUARY1,2011",2011,Interfax:UkraineBusinessWeekly,. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
"ECONOMICPOLICY;UKRAINIANPRESIDENTCANCELSDECREESONAPPLICATIONOFINCOTERMSRULES",2011,Interfax:UkraineBusinessWeekly,. 0 0 0 0 1
UkrainewantstomakeIncoterms2010mandatoryincontracts
"EconomistswantIncotermsinnationallaw",2010,TradeFinance,.
0 0 0 0 1
GlobalsupporttomakeIncotermspartofnationallegislation
244
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
"ExpertidentifiesbestofIncoterms2000forinternationalcreditpros,"2000,IOMA'sReportonManagingInternationalCredit&Collections,vol.00,no.3,pp.1. 0 0 0 0 1
StatesthatIncotermsdoindicatetransferoftitle
"ICClaunchesIncoterms(R)2010,"2010,TradeFinance.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
"Incoterms-yourkeytosimplifieddistribution,"1983,CanadianTransportation&DistributionManagement,vol.86,no.2,pp.43-46. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
"Incoterms2000Descriptions",2004,HealthcarePurchasingNews,vol.28,no.7,pp.82. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
"Incotermsandalternativewaysofquotingprices-Clayton",1992,NorthernOntarioBusiness,vol.13,no.1,pp.5. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
"Incotermsensuresmoothinternationaldistribution",1983,CanadianTransportation&DistributionManagement,vol.86,no.3,pp.33-35. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
"IncotermsTrainingforImport/Export",2012,MaterialHandling&Logistics. 0 0 0 1 0
CompanyofferstrainingonIncoterms2010
"India:Incoterms2000takeseffect",2000,Businessline,pp.1. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
"InternationalCommercialTerms(INCOTERMS)",2005,BatteriesInternational,no.62,pp.24-25. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
"InternationalProgramExpandsBreadthofExecutiveEducationatGSCFM",2014,BusinessCredit,vol.116,no.8,pp.10-11.
0 0 0 1 0
DartmouthCollegeexecutive-levelinstructioncoveredtopicssuchasforeignexchange,internationalbusinessethics,sovereignriskandIncoterms.
245
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
"JaguarFreightServices;ImportersDiscoverFinancialAdvantagewithShippingContractTerms",2008,AsiaBusinessNewsweekly,pp.36. 0 0 0 0 1
Incotermsdonotdealwithtransferoftitle
"MarketView:INCOTERMS2010-Whatyouneedtoknow(part2),"2010,TradeFinance. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
"NeweditionofIncoterms2000nowavailable",2000,CreditControl,vol.21,no.3,pp.27. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
"NewIncotermsSetforJanuary1",2010,WorldTrade,WT100,vol.23,no.8,pp.14. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
"SEKOWorldwidetoOffer2ComplimentaryWebinarstoReviewIncoterms2010Rules",2010,ManufacturingClose-Up.
0 0 0 1 0
SEKOWorldwidetoholdfreeIncoterms2010workshops
"Seminarsofferedonnewincoterms",1999,LogisticsManagementandDistributionReport,vol.38,no.9,pp.94. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
"Standardspeakonpointofsale:P.S.Kumarondeterminingwhen'sale'isperformedforthepurposeofAS-9",2004,Businessline,pp.1.CALENDAR2000,,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
"TheRevisedIncoterms:KeyFeatures",1990,InternationalTradeForum,vol.26,no.2,pp.4. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
"Whatint'lcreditexecsneedtoknowaboutIncoterms2000",1999,IOMA'sReportonManagingInternationalCredit&Collections,vol.99,no.12,pp.1. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Barrett,C.2002,"'Ex-works'revisited",TrafficWorld,vol.266,no.11,pp.38. 0 1 0 0 0
Incotermsquestionandanswer
Barrett,C.2005,"Incotermsvs.UniformCommercialCode",TrafficWorld,,pp.1-38. 0 1 0 0 0
Incotermsquestionandanswer
246
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
Barrett,C.2006,"Shipper'sLoadandCount",TrafficWorld,pp.1-46.
0 1 0 0 0
Incotermsquestionandanswer.IncorrectlystatesIncotermsindicatetransferoftitle
Barrett,C.2010,DemurrageandDetentionChargesonExportedContainers,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
Incotermsquestionandanswer
Barrett,C.2010,PayingDemurrageinanEx-WorksSale,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
Incotermsquestionandanswer
Barrett,C.2013,IncotermsandConditions,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
Incotermsquestionandanswer
Barron,J.2011,"NewDecade,NewUpgrade:Incoterms2010PicksUpWhereIncoterms2000LeftOff",BusinessCredit,vol.113,no.2,pp.20-22. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Biederman,D.1998,"Toomuchofnothing",TrafficWorld,vol.255,no.9,pp.39. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsEXWIncoterm
Biederman,D.1999,"Getreadyforincoterms2000",TrafficWorld,vol.260,no.2,pp.21. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
Biederman,D.2000,DDPClarified,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsDDPIncoterm
Blum,J.2011,KnowledgeIsPower,NewYork. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Bonney,J.2009,TradeTermsSetforRevision,NewYork. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
Brotherston,B.1996,"INCOTERMS:Acreditmanagementminefield-Part1",CreditControl,vol.17,no.2,pp.22. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Brotherston,B.1996,"INCOTERMS:Acreditmanagementminefield--part2",CreditControl,vol.17,no.4,pp.19. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
247
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
Burke,M.2013,"StayingAfloat",PropertyCasualty360-NationalUnderwriter. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
BusinessEditors/High,T.W.2002,Klatu'sNewStrategyistoLicenseInternationalE-CommerceTool,NewYork. 0 0 0 0 1
Incotermsareconsideredine-commercepricingtool
BusinessEditors/TechnologyWriters2002,Klatu'seComAllowsComputerResellerstoOfferDDP-DeliveredDutyPaid-PricingThroughouttheCaribbean,NewYork. 0 0 0 0 1
Incotermsareconsideredine-commercepricingtool
CHARTERINGASHIP?USETHESEINCOTERMS2000,NewYork.
0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermstousewhencharteringaship
Coates,R.2012,"NineRulesforLogisticsinChina",TheChinaBusinessReview,vol.39,no.2,pp.13-17. 0 0 0 0 1
NeedtoknowIncotermswhendoinglogisticsinChina
ComingtotermswithIncoterms2014,NewYork.
0 1 0 0 0
"themostmisunderstoodandmisusedelementofaninternationaltransactionisthecorrectapplicationofshippingIncoterms"
COMPANIES&MARKETS;INTRODUCTIONOFINCOTERMS2010RULESINUKRAINENEEDSTOBESETTLEDINLAW,SAYSICCUKRAINE2011,Kiev.
0 0 0 0 1
UkrainecannotacceptgoodsarrivingattheirportsusingIncoterms2010
Dearing,D.2006,"Auniversallanguage",SupplyManagement,vol.11,no.6,pp.37. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Derains,Y.1981,"Incoterms:FacilitatingtheExportProcess",InternationalTradeForum,vol.17,no.3,pp.12. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
248
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
Dutton,G.2011,"TheExporter'sHandbook",WorldTrade,WT100,vol.24,no.8,pp.28-31. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
EvolvinglessonsonIncoterms1999,NewYork.
0 0 0 1 0
TalksaboutIncoterms2000trainingsessionspreviouslygiven
Foster,T.A.&Jessen,J.C.1981,"INCOTERMS-TheLanguageofExporting",Chilton'sDistributionforTraffic&TransportationDecisionMakers,vol.80,no.1,pp.36. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Foster,T.A.1990,"TheLanguageofForeignTrade",Chilton'sDistribution,vol.89,no.10,pp.86. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
FrankReynolds/TheJOURNALofCOMMERCEONLINE2007,ExportABCs:Incoterms2010,NewYork. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
FrankReynolds/TheJOURNALofCOMMERCEONLINE2007,ExportABCs:UCP600,Pt.3,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
FrankReynolds/TheJOURNALofCOMMERCEONLINE2008,ExportABCs:Cargoinsurance,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
FrankReynolds/TheJOURNALofCOMMERCEONLINE2008,ExportABCs:Incotermsrevision,NewYork. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
FrankReynolds/TheJOURNALofCOMMERCEONLINE2009,ExportABCs:CargoInsurance--Part2,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
FrankReynolds/TheJOURNALofCOMMERCEONLINE2008,ExportABCs:Documentationcontrol,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
FREUDMANN,A.1999,Definingtermsoftoday'scommerce,NewYork.
0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms."BibleofInternationalTrade"
249
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
FREUDMANN,A.1999,Tradersgetabrand-newbible,NewYork.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect.'Internationaltradebible'
Gardner,D.2008,AnewchapterinIncoterms,NewYork.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Giermanski,J.&McGhee,M.2004,"InternationalTrade&Title:Security&TaxConcerns-Part1",StrategicFinance,vol.85,no.8,pp.15-17. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
GlobalSourcingMadeEasier(GiftsandDecorativeAccessories)2004,,Waltham.
0 1 0 0 0
ProperIncotermsuseonCommercialinvoice
Gooley,T.B.2000,"Incoterms2000:Whatthechangesmeantoyou",LogisticsManagementandDistributionReport,vol.39,no.1,pp.49-51. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
GovernmentSopsforSMEsWelcomedbyEntrepreneurs2009,NewYork. 0 0 0 1 0
NewDelphitoofferfreeIncotermstraining
Hamilton,H.K.2002,"Theimportanceofshippingterms",BusinessCredit,vol.104,no.2,pp.68. 0 1 0 0 0
Explainsshippingterms
Harrington,L.H.1991,"NewTradeTermsYouNeedtoKnow",TrafficManagement,vol.30,no.5,pp.61. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms1990takingeffect
Holley,D.&Haynes,R.2003,"The"INCOTERMS"challenge:Usingmulti-mediatoengagelearners,"Education&Training,vol.45,no.7,pp.392-401.
1 0 0 1 0
NewlearningmethodappliedtoteachingIncoterms,whicharenoteddifficulttolearn
250
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
ICCtocarryoutIncotermsworkshops2010,Karachi.
0 0 0 1 0
ICCPakistantoholdIncoterms2010workshops
ICCupdatesIncotermsInternationalBusiness]2010,NewDelhi.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
ImplicationsofIncoterms20001999,NewYork.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
ImportonFOBbasiscansavemillions:BAFFA2014,Dhaka. 0 0 0 0 1
ChangeIncotermstosavemoney
Incoterms-apointoforder2010,,InstituteofCreditManagementLtd,Stamford.
0 1 0 0 0
ICCUKexplainscommentmisunderstandings
Incoterms20001999,,InstituteofCreditManagementLtd,Stamford.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
Incoterms2000meetsAESDirect1999,NewYork. 0 0 0 1 0
Incoterms2010workshops
Incoterms2010moreprecise,saysBBGovernor2010,Dhaka.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Incoterms(R)2010comesintoeffectfromJanuary2010,Dhaka. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Instone,T.1985,"Exporting:GettingtheOfferDocumentRight",IndustrialMarketingDigest,vol.10,no.4,pp.69. 0 1 0 0 0
Explainsshippingterms
Iskander,S.1999,Updatedtradetermspleaseexporters,London(UK). 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
Jennifer,B.S.2002,"InternationalTradeStandardsDefineBuyer/SellerResponsibilities",EBN,no.1317,pp.42. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
251
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
Jessen,J.C.&Foster,T.A.1982,"AnatomyofanImport",Chilton'sDistributionforTraffic&TransportationDecisionMakers,vol.81,no.10,pp.74. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Juarez,F.1997,"Thefineprint",BusinessMexico,vol.7,no.3,pp.41.
0 0 0 0 1
Import/ExportersinAmericasstillconfusedwithIncoterms
KANGSIEW,L.I.2004,Expert:UseofLCsintradesettlementsnottotallyrisk-free,KualaLumpur. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Kock,N.,Chatelain-Jardon,R.&Carmona,J.2008,"AnExperimentalStudyofSimulatedWeb-BasedThreatsandTheirImpactonKnowledgeCommunicationEffectiveness",IEEETransactionsonProfessionalCommunication,vol.51,no.2,pp.183. 1 0 0 1 0
TrainingdesignforIncoterms
Kumar,S.2010,"LogisticsRoutingFlexibilityandLowerFreightCoststhroughUseofIncoterms,"TransportationJournal,vol.49,no.3,pp.48-56. 1 0 0 0 1
SwitchFOBtoFCAtolowercostsfromChinasupplier.WronguseofFOB
Lane,S.2012,"Incoterms2010:WhatYouReallyNeedtoKnow",BusinessCredit,vol.114,no.6,pp.8-9. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Leach,P.T.2010,InternationalChamberofCommerceRevisesIncoterms,NewYork. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Lowe,D.2011,"Incotermsupdate",SupplyManagement,vol.16,no.2,pp.14. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
McGhee,M.&Giermanski,J.2007,"HowSOXandC-TPATImpactGlobalSupplyChainSecurity",StrategicFinance,vol.88,no.10,pp.32-38. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
Moore,P.2012,"Pricingandculture:Makingtheconnection",LogisticsManagement(2002),vol.51,no.2,pp.18. 0 1 0 0 0
Definekeyterms
252
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
Muller,E.J.1992,"YesYouCanExport",Distribution,vol.91,no.10,pp.26. 0 1 0 0 0
IncorrectlyexplainsFOB(UCCterm)
Murray,J.,Jr2003,"Risk,titleandIncoterms",Purchasing,vol.132,no.10,pp.26. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
NationalSeminarSeriestoExplainChangesinB2BShippingAndTradeTerms2005,,NewYork. 0 0 0 1 0
Incoterms2010workshops
Neville,M.K.,J.R.2013,"IncotermsCount",JournalofInternationalTaxation,vol.24,no.6,pp.23-25. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
Oddsandendsatjourney'send1999,NewYork.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
Parry,P.2000,Incoterms;Callfortonnagequalitytobeputonsaleofgoodsagenda,London. 0 0 0 0 1
CriticalofIncoterms2000
Posner,M.1999,Incoterms2000,InstituteofCreditManagementLtd,Stamford. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
Posner,M.2000,GuidetoIncoterms2000,InstituteofCreditManagementLtd,Stamford. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Rees,N.2004,"TransactionTaxManagement:ASeatattheSupplyChainTable",FinancialExecutive,vol.20,no.7,pp.48-49. 0 0 0 0 1
TaxdepartmentnotinvolvedinIncotermsdecisions
Reich,A.2009,InternationalSalesTransactions-ASeriesofSimulatedNegotiationandDraftingExercises,SocialScienceResearchNetwork,Rochester. 0 0 0 0 1
UseIncotermstoreduceriskofdisputes
Reilly,K.2005,"ExportersMustEnsureCoordinationOfIncotermsAndDocumentaryRequirementsForLCPayment",BusinessCredit,vol.107,no.6,pp.70-71. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Reynolds,F.2005,ExportABCs:MoreSOXissues,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
Reynolds,F.2005,ExportABCs:Sarbanes-Oxley,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
253
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
Reynolds,F.2009,10+2,LaceyActandmore,NewYork.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Reynolds,F.2010,IncotermsUpdate:RevisionNo.8,NewYork.
0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Richer,S.2011,"Balancingglobalpriorities",LogisticsManagement(2002),vol.50,no.1,pp.42-44,46. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Rosolen,D.2010,"Changeonthemenu",MaterialsManagementandDistribution,vol.55,no.7,pp.13. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Roszkowski,M.E.2001,"ShippingtermsbasedonIncoterms2000:Astatutoryproposal",UniformCommercialCodeLawJournal,vol.34,no.2,pp.169-200. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Rowe,M.1986,"What'sinaWord?ALotWhenItComestoTradeTerms",ICCBusinessWorld,vol.4,no.3,pp.17. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms1990takingeffect
Rowe,M.1987,"TheInternationalSalesContract-CentraltoTradeTransactions",InternationalTradeForum,vol.23,no.3,pp.14. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Schwartz,B.M.1998,MastertheexportLexicon,PentonMedia,Inc.,PentonBusinessMedia,Inc,Cleveland. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms1990takingeffect
SEBLholdsworkshoponforextransactionsandINCOTERMS2010,Dhaka.
0 0 0 1 0
BangladeshtoholdIncoterms2010workshops
SEKOWorldwideOfferingTwoComplimentaryWebinarstoReviewNewIncoterms(R)2010Rules2010,NewYork.
0 0 0 1 0
SEKOWorldwidetoholdfreeIncoterms2010workshops
Shuman,J.2000,"Incoterms2000",BusinessCredit,vol.102,no.7,pp.50. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2000takingeffect
254
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
Siviere,C.2014,"WhydoweneedIncoterms?",MaterialsManagementandDistribution,vol.59,no.2,pp.12-13. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
Someinterestingnewreadingtogiveyoualltheanswers1998,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Sriro,A.I.1993,"Incoterms-Aquickreference",EastAsianExecutiveReports,vol.15,no.9,pp.21. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Taghizadeh,E.2013,TheImpactofContractofCarriageofGoodsSoldonPassingofRiskinAccordancewithINCOTERMSRules,SocialScienceResearchNetwork,Rochester. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
TheJOURNALof,C.O.2003,ExportABCs:WhitherFOBFactory?NewYork.
0 1 0 0 0
"Thesalesterm"FOBFactory"isaboutasAmericanasbaseballandapplepie".FOBusedinUCCandIncoterms
TheJOURNALof,C.O.2005,ExportABCs:UCCshipmentanddeliveryterms,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
Thornley,D.2010,Playingbytherules,InstituteofCreditManagementLtd,Stamford. 0 0 1 0 0
NewIncoterms2010takingeffect
Turnbull,L.2006,"Justwhatexactlyissuperior"customerservice"andhowcanlogisticshelpdeliverit?"CanadianTransportationLogistics,vol.109,no.11,pp.78. 0 0 0 0 1
Incotermsaddcomplexity
Vietnam:Firmsurgedtotakeadvantageoftradepacts2013,Bangkok.
0 0 0 0 1
EncourageVietnamimport/exportfirmstotakeadvantageofIncoterms(FOBbuyandCIFsell)
255
ArticlePeerReviewed
ExplainsIncoterms
NewIncotermsVersion Training Other ArticleSummary
VIETNAMESELOGISTICSFIRMSURGEDTORAISEKNOWLEDGEOFINCOTERMS2010,Rhodes.
0 0 0 0 1
VietnamwantslogisticsfirmstoincreaseknowledgeofIncoterms2010
Whatareincoterms?2011,London. 0 1 0 0 0ExplainsIncoterms
Whopayswhen?KnowledgeofIncotermsfundamentalfortraders.1999,NewYork. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncoterms
Yao-Hua,T.&Thoen,W.2000,"INCAS:Alegalexpertsystemforcontracttermsinelectroniccommerce",DecisionSupportSystems,vol.29,no.4,pp.389-411.
1 0 0 0 1
Incotermsimportanttoelectroniccommerce,deviseINCASsystemtohelpsuggestcorrectIncoterms
Zhai,J.2013,"NewTechnologyandMarketingInnovation-BaseonLeadingTradeTermsIntoPricingSystem,"ContemporaryLogistics,no.13,pp.9-13. 0 1 0 0 0
ExplainsIncotermsandUCCterms
Total 12 69 41 13 19 142 48.59% 28.87% 9.15% 13.38%
256
APPENDIXII–STUDYTWOIN-DEPTHSEMI-STRUCTUREDINTERVIEWGUIDE
Begintheinterviewby
• Introducingyourself,• Givingabriefoverviewofthestudy,
o Thisstudylooksatthenegotiationprocessbetweenbuyersandsellers.Specifically,itlooksatthenegotiationprocessrelatedtothetransportation,responsibility,andriskassociatedwithmovinggoodsfromthesellertothebuyer.Itconsidershowthisnegotiationprocessoccurs,howcommunicationhappens,theresults,andanywaystofurtherimprovetheprocess.ThequestionsthatIwillaskrelatetothesenegotiationareas.Thisultimateaimofthisstudyistoshedlightonthesenegotiationareas.Attheend,Iwillaskforcontactatoneofyourbuyers/sellerstoperformhelpwiththestudy.
• Givetheintervieweeassuranceofyourconfidentiality,and• Makesuretheyhavereceivedandsignedtheinformedconsentform.• Offertoprovidethemwitheitheracopyoftheresearchresultsoraresults
presentationiftheyareinterestedinfindingoutwhatwelearnedfromtheresearch.
• Asktheintervieweeiftheyfeelcomfortablewithinterviewprocessasdiscussed.Proceedonlyifintervieweeagrees.
o Ifintervieweeseemsslightlyuncomfortable,donotasktoaudiotapeo Ifintervieweeseemscomfortable,thenaskpermissiontoaudiotape.
1. Togetstarted,pleasesharesomebackgroundinformationaboutyourself.a. Internalorexternaltofocalfirm?b. Title,Division,YearsinCurrentPosition,YearswithCompany,Yearsas
Buyer/SalesPersonc. Forwhatareyoumostlikelytonegotiate?–Goodsforproduction,MRO,
technology,services,specialbuys,etc.d. Baseduponthefollowingscale,howoftendoyounegotiatewithyour
buyers/sellers?i. 1ormoretimesperweekii. 1ormoretimespermonthiii. 1ormoretimesperquarteriv. 1ormoretimesperyearv. Notatall
e. Doyounegotiatelocally(yourlocalcountry),regionallyorglobally?f. Howwouldyoudescribeyournegotiations?
i. Mostlytransactional,1. Ifso,areanypartscoveredbyacontractortermsand
conditions(T&C’s)?
257
a. Ifviacontract,whowithinyourorganizationnegotiatesthecontract?
b. IfT&C’s,askforacopyormoredetails.ii. Mostlycoveredbyamutuallyagreeduponcontract(e.g.
renewals),or1. Isastandardcontracttemplateused,or2. Iseachcontractunique?
iii. Mostlynewcontracts?g. Whatdoyoudoifnegotiationsariseforthingsthatfalloutsidethe
contractguidelines?Anexamplemaybeanewproductorpartnotstatedinthecontract.
i. Ifso,canyouprovidesomeexamples?h. What’sthetypicaltotalvalueortotalspendimpactofyournegotiations?i. Howaboutadditionalthingslikefinancialterms,transportationorlogistics
duringthenegotiation?i. Doyousignoffordoessomeoneelse?
2. Pleasethinkaboutarecent,typicalnegotiationthatinvolvedthepurchase/saleofgoods.Pleasestartatthebeginninganddescribeinasmuchdetailaspossiblethetypicalnegotiationprocesswithyourbuyer/sellers.
a. Canyouprovideabriefflowchartorcanwetalkthrougheachstepoftheprocess?
3. Thinkingaboutthatsameexperience,pleasetellmeaboutthenegotiationfortransportingthegoods.
a. Atwhatpointdoyounegotiatefortransportingthegoods?b. Whatfactorsdidyouconsider?c. Whataboutthetasks,suchascustomsclearanceordocumentation,
requiredofyouversusyourbuyer/supplier?d. Howaboutownershipofthegoods(a.k.a.title)duringtransport?
4. Tellmemoreabouttransportationandhowitisdiscussedorcompared?5. Thinkingaboutthatsameexperience,pleasetellmehowyouandthebuyer/seller
communicatetoeachotherthedecisionfortransportinggoods.a. Isthisthesameforeverynegotiation?b. Ifnot,pleasedescribeeachway.
6. Now,pleasethinkaboutallofyournegotiationseitherpersonally,withanotherbuyer/seller,orevenanothercompany.
a. Doanyofthepreviousanswerschange?7. Stillthinkingaboutallnegotiations,andspecificallythetransportationtasks,risks,
orcosts,youdescribedthenegotiationprocessfortransportation.Pleasedescribeinmoredetailanynegotiation(s)wheremiscommunicationoccurredbetweenyourcompanyandthebuyer/seller.Miscommunicationistheoneparty,buyerorseller,thinkingtheagreementbefore,during,oraftertransportationwasdifferent.Forexample,theotherpartythoughttheotherpartywashandlingcustomsclearance,acertainfee,orevendisagreementonpickup/deliverpoint.
258
a. Didthisimpacttherelationshipwiththebuyer/seller?i. Corporateorpersonalrelationship?
b. Diditcostyourcompanymoney?Ifnot,howaboutyourbuyer/seller?c. What’smoreimportanttoyouandyourfirm:therelationship,cost,or
both?d. Anythingelseimportantorimpactedbythemiscommunication?e. Inyouropinion,howcouldhavethismiscommunicationbeenavoided?
8. Doesyourcompanyusethetransportationtasks,risks,orcostsforotherpurposes(examples:revenuerecognition,transportationmanagementsystemorTMS,ownership/inventory,etc.)?
9. Stillthinkingaboutallofyournegotiations,andspecificallythetransportationtasks,risks,orcosts,whatdoyoubelievecouldimprovecommunicationwithyourbuyer/seller?
a. Ifyes,thenprobeonhow.10. Doyoulistoutindetailallofthetransportationtasks,risks,orcoststhatbothyou
andyourbuyer/supplierarerespectivelyresponsiblefor?a. Ifnot,howdoyoucommunicateandtracktheseitems?
11. Whenyouaredonenegotiating,howdoyouknowifyou’vebeensuccessful?Inotherwords,whatdoessuccesslooklike?Forexample,thebesttotalcostofownership,speed,paymentterms,etc.
a. Isthisthesameforyouandyourcompany?12. Howdoestherelationshipyouhavewiththebuyer/sellerimpactyour
negotiations?13. Aretherelationships,costs,both,orsomethingelsemostimportantduringand
afternegotiationswithyourbuyer/seller?14. IsthereanythingthatIhaven’tcoveredthatyoubelieveisimportantduring
buyer/sellernegotiationsfortransportationofgoods?15. IsthereanythingelsethatyouthinkIshouldhaveaskedoryouwouldliketo
share?16. Nowthatwehavegonethroughtheinterview,canyouthinkofandprovidea
contactatoneofyourbuyers/sellerstogothroughasimilarinterview?(Preferinternationalcontactandexternaltofocalfirm).SendingthisviaemailofSkypeisfine.
a. Getfullname,company,email,andphone
Aftertheinterviewisfinished:
• Thanktheintervieweefortheirtimeandhelpwiththisproject.• Askiftheywouldliketoreviewatranscriptoftheinterviewtomakesure
everythingisrepresentedcorrectly.• Askiftheywouldbewillingtoansweranyfollow-upquestionsthatmightcome
upasmoreinterviewstakeplace.
259
APPENDIXIII–WORDCLOUDBEFORECODING
260
APPENDIXIV–WORDCLOUDAFTERCODING
261
APPENDIXV–WORDCLOUDAFTERNODETOCATEGORYCODING
262
APPENDIXVI–STUDYTHREEQUESTIONNAIREIntroduction
YouareinvitedtoparticipateinaresearchstudyconductedbyThomasJ.(T.J.)Schaefer,anABBInc.employee,andDr.DonaldSweeney/Dr.RayMundyfromtheUniversityofMissouri-St.Louis.Thisstudyexaminesmethodstoimprovethequalityofbuyer-sellercommunicationwithrespecttologisticsdecisionsrelatedtothetasks,costs,andrisksassociatedwithtransportinggoods.
Therearenoanticipatedrisksassociatedandnodirectbenefitsforyouparticipatinginthisstudy.Byparticipating,youwillcontributetoknowledgethatmayhavefuturebenefitstoindividuals,corporations,orothersinnegotiatingthetermsofbusiness-to-businesslogisticstransactions.Yourparticipationisthisstudyisvoluntary,andyoumayrefuseorwithdrawyourparticipationatanytimeduringcompletingthequestionnaire.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorconcernsregardingthisstudy,orifanyproblemsarise,youmaycalltheInvestigator,ThomasJ.Schaefer+1-314-210-1497ortheFacultyAdvisors,Dr.DonaldSweeney+1-314-516-7990orDr.RayMundy+1-314-516-7213.YoumayalsoaskquestionsorstateconcernsregardingyourrightsasaresearchparticipanttotheOfficeofResearchAdministrationattheUniversityofMissouri-St.Louis,at+1-314-516-5897.Byagreeingtoparticipate,youunderstandandagreethatyourdatamaybesharedwithotherresearchersandeducatorsintheformofpresentationsand/orpublications.Inallcases,youridentitywillnotberevealed.
DemographicQuestions:
1)Whatsexdoyouidentifyas?
1)Female2)Male3)Prefernottoidentify
2)Whatisyourage?
1)18to24years2)25to34years3)35to44years4)45to54years5)55to64years6)Age65orolder7)Prefernottoidentify
263
3)Whatjobroledoyoumostcloselyidentifywith?
1)SalesandMarketing,includinggeneralmanagementandprojectmanagement2)SupplyChainManagement,includingbuying,planning,transportation,andoperations3)AccountingandFinance
4)Howmanyyearsofworkexperiencedoyouhave?
1)1to5years2)6to10years3)11to15years4)16to20years5)21to25years6)26to30years7)30yearsormore8)Prefernottoidentify
5)HaveyoureceivedIncoterms®trainingeitherinternallybyyourcompanyorexternally?
1)Yes2)No
6)WhenwasthatIncoterms®training?(IfansweredYestoquestion5)
1)0to6monthsago2)7monthsto1yearago3)1to1.5yearsago4)1.5to2yearsago5)2yearsormore
Afterquestions5/6,respondentwillthenreceiverandomassignmenttoeitherTreatment1or2,andthequestionswillbeassignedinrandomorder.
Directions:
ThefollowingscenariosrepresentinteractionsofYZZInc.withitssuppliersandcustomers.YZZInc.isalarge,internationalmanufacturingcorporationthatsuppliesproductstotheindustrialmarketandpurchasesitemsgloballyforuseinproduction.Youmayassumethatallscenariosaretrustworthyandaccurate.Afterreadingeachscenario,pleaseanswertherelatedquestionbyrespondingwithwhatyoubelieveisthemostappropriateIncotermstoemployinthescenariotoformalizetheagreementwiththesupplierorcustomerrelatedtothelogisticstasks,costs,andrisksassociatedwithtransportinggoods.
264
TREATMENT1:OPERATIONALDEFINITIONSFULLYSPELLEDOUT
Scenario1:YourepresentSalesofYZZInc.,andacustomerfromShanghai,P.R.Chinacontactsyouaboutavailabilityofacomponentthatyousell.Youcheckavailability,and,fortunately,itisreadilyavailableatyourU.S.plant.Youalreadyhaveapre-negotiatedcomponentprice,butyoumustnegotiatethetransportationresponsibilityandcostwiththecustomer,assometimesthecustomerdecidestopickuptheorderfromyourU.S.plant.Afterdiscussions,thecustomerasksforaquotationfromyouwithYZZInc.responsibleforprovidingoceancontainertransportation,includingminimalinsurance,totheShanghai,Yangshanport.Whenyourespondtotherequestforaquote,whatIncoterms®2010ruledoyouuse?
1)“CostandFreight”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodsonboardthevesselorprocuresthegoodsalreadysodelivered.Theriskoflossofordamagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsareonboardthevessel.Thesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsandfreightnecessarytobringthegoodstothenamedportofdestination.
2)“Cost,InsuranceandFreight”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodsonboardthevesselorprocuresthegoodsalreadysodelivered.Theriskoflossofordamagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsareonboardthevessel.Thesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsandfreightnecessarytobringthegoodstothenamedportofdestination.Theselleralsocontractsforinsurancecoveragainstthebuyer’sriskoflossofordamagetothegoodsduringthecarriage.ThebuyershouldnotethatunderCIFthesellerisrequiredtoobtaininsuranceonlyonminimumcover.
3)“CarriageandInsurancePaidto”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbytheselleratanagreedplace(ifanysuchplaceisagreedbetweenparties)andthatthesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsofcarriagenecessarytobringthegoodstothenamedplaceofdestination.Theselleralsocontractsforinsurancecoveragainstthebuyer’sriskoflossofordamagetothegoodsduringthecarriage.ThebuyershouldnotethatunderCIPthesellerisrequiredtoobtaininsuranceonlyonminimumcover.
4)“CarriagePaidTo”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbytheselleratanagreedplace(ifanysuchplaceisagreedbetweenparties)andthatthesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsofcarriagenecessarytobringthegoodstothenamedplaceofdestination.
265
5)“DeliveredDutyPaid”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodswhenthegoodsareplacedatthedisposalofthebuyer,clearedforimportonthearrivingmeansoftransportreadyforunloadingatthenamedplaceofdestination.Thesellerbearsallthecostsandrisksinvolvedinbringingthegoodstotheplaceofdestinationandhasanobligationtoclearthegoodsnotonlyforexportbutalsoforimport,topayanydutyforbothexportandimportandtocarryoutallcustomsformalities.
Scenario2:YZZInc.hasfoundanewdomesticsupplier,EchoCompany,forsupplyingacomponentusedinitsmanufacturing.YouareassignedasYZZInc.’sleadnegotiatorwiththeEchoCompany.AfterdiscussionswithYZZInc.management,youagreethatEchoCompanyshoulddeliverthecomponentstotheYZZInc.plant,prepayforthefreightcosts,andhaveallresponsibilitiesarrangingforandassumingtherisksoftransportuntilreachingYZZInc.’splant.WhatIncoterms®2010ruledoyouuse?
1)“CostandFreight”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodsonboardthevesselorprocuresthegoodsalreadysodelivered.Theriskoflossofordamagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsareonboardthevessel.Thesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsandfreightnecessarytobringthegoodstothenamedportofdestination.
2)“CarriagePaidTo”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbytheselleratanagreedplace(ifanysuchplaceisagreedbetweenparties)andthatthesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsofcarriagenecessarytobringthegoodstothenamedplaceofdestination.
3)“DeliveredatPlace”meansthatthesellerdeliverswhenthegoodsareplacedatthedisposalofthebuyeronthearrivingmeansoftransportreadyforunloadingatthenamedplaceofdestination.Thesellerbearsallrisksinvolvedinbringingthegoodstothenamedplace.
4)“DeliveredDutyPaid”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodswhenthegoodsareplacedatthedisposalofthebuyer,clearedforimportonthearrivingmeansoftransportreadyforunloadingatthenamedplaceofdestination.Thesellerbearsallthecostsandrisksinvolvedinbringingthegoodstotheplaceofdestinationandhasanobligationtoclearthegoodsnotonlyforexportbutalsoforimport,topayanydutyforbothexportandimportandtocarryoutallcustomsformalities.
5)“FreeonBoard”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodsonboardthevesselnominatedbythebuyeratthenamedportofshipmentorprocuresthegoodsalready
266
sodelivered.Theriskoflossofordamagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsareonboardthevessel,andthebuyerbearsallcostsfromthatmomentonwards.
Scenario3:YZZInc.hassupplier,RHCPInc.,inSaintLouisforacriticalcomponentusedinoneitsmostprofitableproductlines.YouaretheCommodityManagernegotiatingacontractrenewal.Duetothecriticalnatureofthecomponent,youdecidethatyoushouldcontrolalltransportationtoimprovecontrolandvisibility,butyoustillexpectthesuppliertohandleexportcustomsclearance.WhatIncoterms®2010ruleshouldyouuse?
1)“FreeCarrier”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbythebuyerattheseller’spremisesinSaintLouis.Thepartiesarewelladvisedtospecifyasclearlyaspossiblethepointwithinthenamedplaceofdelivery,astheriskpassestothebuyeratthatpoint.ThisisinaccordancewithIncoterms®2010rules.
2)“ExWorks”meansthatthesellerdeliverswhenitplacesthegoodsatthedisposalofthebuyerattheseller’spremisesinSaintLouis.Thesellerdoesnotneedtoloadthegoodsonanycollectingvehicle,nordoesitneedtoclearthegoodsforexport,wheresuchclearanceisapplicable.ThisisinaccordancewithIncoterms®2010rules.
3)“FreeCarrier”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbythebuyerattheseller’spremises,RHCPInc.,inSaintLouis.Thepartiesarewelladvisedtospecifyasclearlyaspossiblethepointwithinthenamedplaceofdelivery,astheriskpassestothebuyeratthatpoint.ThisisinaccordancewithIncoterms®2010rules.
4)“ExWorks”meansthatthesellerdeliverswhenitplacesthegoodsatthedisposalofthebuyerattheseller’spremises,RHCPInc.,inSaintLouis.Thesellerdoesnotneedtoloadthegoodsonanycollectingvehicle,nordoesitneedtoclearthegoodsforexport,wheresuchclearanceisapplicable.ThisisinaccordancewithIncoterms®2010rules.
5)“FreeCarrier”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbythebuyerattheseller’spremises,RHCPInc.,inSaintLouis,France.Thepartiesarewelladvisedtospecifyasclearlyaspossiblethepointwithinthenamedplaceofdelivery,astheriskpassestothebuyeratthatpoint.ThisisinaccordancewithIncoterms®2010rules.
267
Scenario4:YZZInc.’sNorthAmericaregionhascontractedwithasupplier,SquareOneInc.,locatedinGermanythathasmuchlargertransportationvolume,andhence,bettertransportationpricing.Becauseofthis,bothpartieshaveagreedthatSquareOneInc.shouldhandledeliverytoYZZInc.’sdistributioncenterinMemphis,Tennesseeandtransportationrisk,butthatYYZInc.willhandleimportduty.Youarethelastreviewerandapproverofthesupplyagreementcontract.WhatfullIncoterms®ruledoyouexpectlistedinthecontract?
1)“CarriagePaidTo”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbytheselleratanagreedplace(ifanysuchplaceisagreedbetweenparties)andthatthesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsofcarriagenecessarytobringthegoodstothenamedplaceofdestination,whichisYYZInc.486YYZBlvd.Memphis,Tennessee38119USA.
2)“DeliveredatPlace”meansthatthesellerdeliverswhenthegoodsareplacedatthedisposalofthebuyeronthearrivingmeansoftransportreadyforunloadingatthenamedplaceofdestination,whichisYYZInc.inMemphis,Tennessee.Thesellerbearsallrisksinvolvedinbringingthegoodstothenamedplace.ThisisinaccordancewithIncoterms®2010rules.
3)“DeliveredDutyPaid”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodswhenthegoodsareplacedatthedisposalofthebuyer,clearedforimportonthearrivingmeansoftransportreadyforunloadingatthenamedplaceofdestination,whichisYYZInc.486YYZBlvd.Memphis,Tennessee38119USA.Thesellerbearsallthecostsandrisksinvolvedinbringingthegoodstotheplaceofdestinationandhasanobligationtoclearthegoodsnotonlyforexportbutalsoforimport,topayanydutyforbothexportandimportandtocarryoutallcustomsformalities.
4)“DeliveredDutyUnpaid”meansthesellerdeliversthegoodstothebuyer,notclearedforimport,andnotunloadedfromanyarrivingmeansoftransportatthenamedplaceofdestination,whichisYYZInc.inMemphis,Tennessee.Thesellerhastobearthecostsandrisksinvolvedinbringingthegoodsthereto,otherthan,whereapplicable,anydutyforimportinthecountryofdestination.Suchdutyhastobebornebythebuyeraswellasanycostsandriskscausedbyhisfailuretoclearthegoodsforimportintime.ThisisinaccordancewithIncoterms®2010rules.
5)“FreeonBoard”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodsonboardthevesselnominatedbythebuyeratthenamedportofshipment,whichisYYZInc.486YYZBlvd.
268
Memphis,Tennessee38119USA.Theriskoflossofordamagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsareonboardthevessel,andthebuyerbearsallcostsfromthatmomentonwards.
Scenario5:YouareinSalesforYZZInc.Oneofyourbestcustomers,OrangeBlossomPower,hasdecidedthattheywouldliketopickuptheirordersdirectlyfromtheYZZInc.plant,andhence,handlealltasks,costs,andrisksassociatedwithtransportation.However,OrangeBlossomPowerstillexpectsYZZInc.toloadthepurchasedgoodsintothecollectingvehicleofOrangeBlossomPower’stransportationcarrier.WhatIncoterms®2010ruleshouldyouagreeto?
1)“CostandFreight”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodsonboardthevesselorprocuresthegoodsalreadysodelivered.Theriskoflossofordamagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsareonboardthevessel.Thesellermustcontractforandpaythecostsandfreightnecessarytobringthegoodstothenamedportofdestination.
2)“DeliveredatTerminal”meansthatthesellerdeliverswhenthegoods,onceunloadedfromthearrivingmeansoftransport,areplacedatthedisposalofthebuyeratanamedterminalatthenamedportorplaceofdestination.“Terminal”includesaplace,whethercoveredornot,suchasaquay,warehouse,containeryardorroad,railoraircargoterminal.Thesellerbearsallrisksinvolvedinbringingthegoodstoandunloadingthemattheterminalatthenamedportorplaceofdestination.
3)“ExWorks”meansthatthesellerdeliverswhenitplacesthegoodsatthedisposalofthebuyerattheseller’spremisesoratanothernamedplace(i.e.works,factory,warehouse,etc.).Thesellerdoesnotneedtoloadthegoodsonanycollectingvehicle,nordoesitneedtoclearthegoodsforexport,wheresuchclearanceisapplicable.
4)“FreeCarrier”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodstothecarrieroranotherpersonnominatedbythebuyerattheseller’spremisesoranothernamedplace.Thepartiesarewelladvisedtospecifyasclearlyaspossiblethepointwithinthenamedplaceofdelivery,astheriskpassestothebuyeratthatpoint.
5)“FreeonBoard”meansthatthesellerdeliversthegoodsonboardthevesselnominatedbythebuyeratthenamedportofshipmentorprocuresthegoodsalreadysodelivered.Theriskoflossofordamagetothegoodspasseswhenthegoodsareonboardthevessel,andthebuyerbearsallcostsfromthatmomentonwards.
269
TREATMENT2:INCOTERMS®USED
Scenario1:YourepresentSalesofYZZInc.,andacustomerfromShanghai,P.R.Chinacontactsyouaboutavailabilityofacomponentthatyousell.Youcheckavailability,and,fortunately,itisreadilyavailableatyourU.S.plant.Youalreadyhaveapre-negotiatedcomponentprice,butyoumustnegotiatethetransportationresponsibilityandcostwiththecustomerassometimesthecustomerdecidestopickuptheorderfromyourU.S.plant.Afterdiscussions,thecustomerasksforaquotationfromyouwithYZZInc.responsibleforprovidingoceancontainertransportation,includingminimalinsurance,totheShanghai,Yangshanport.Whenyourespondtotherequestforaquote,whatIncoterms®2010ruledoyouuse?
1)CFR 2)CIF 3)CIP 4)CPT 5)DDP
Scenario2:YZZInc.hasfoundanewdomesticsupplier,EchoCompany,forsupplyingacomponentusedinitsmanufacturing.YouareassignedasYZZInc.’sleadnegotiatorwiththeEchoCompany.AfterdiscussionswithYZZInc.management,youagreethatEchoCompanyshoulddeliverthecomponentstotheYZZInc.plant,prepayforthefreightcosts,andhaveallresponsibilitiesarrangingforandassumingtherisksoftransportuntilreachingYZZInc.’splant.WhatIncoterms®2010ruledoyouuse?
1)CFR 2)CPT 3)DAP4)DDP 5)FOB
Scenario3:YZZInc.hassupplier,RHCPInc.,inSaintLouisforacriticalcomponentusedinoneitsmostprofitableproductlines.YouaretheCommodityManagernegotiatingacontractrenewal.Duetothecriticalnatureofthecomponent,youdecidethatyoushouldcontrolalltransportationtoimprovecontrolandvisibility,butyoustillexpectthesuppliertohandleexportcustomsclearance.WhatIncoterms®2010ruleshouldyouuse?
1)FCASaintLouisIncoterms®2010 2)EXW SaintLouisIncoterms®2010 3)FCARHCPInc.SaintLouisIncoterms®20104)EXW RHCPInc.SaintLouisIncoterms®20105)FCARHCPInc.SaintLouis,FranceIncoterms®2010
270
Scenario4:YZZInc.’sNorthAmericaregionhascontractedwithasupplier,SquareOneInc.,locatedinGermanythathasmuchlargertransportationvolume,andhence,bettertransportationpricing.Becauseofthis,bothpartieshaveagreedthatSquareOneInc.shouldhandledeliverytoYZZInc.’sdistributioncenterinMemphis,Tennesseeandtransportationrisk,butthatYYZInc.willhandleimportduty.Youarethelastreviewerandapproverofthesupplyagreementcontract.WhatfullIncoterms®ruledoyouexpectlistedinthecontract?
1)CPTYYZInc.486YYZBlvd.Memphis,Tennessee38119USA 2)DAPYYZInc.Memphis,TennesseeIncoterms®20103)DDP YYZInc.486YYZBlvd.Memphis,Tennessee38119USA4)DDUYYZInc.Memphis,TennesseeIncoterms®20105)FOB YYZInc.486YYZBlvd.Memphis,Tennessee38119USA
Scenario5:YouareinSalesforYZZInc.Oneofyourbestcustomers,OrangeBlossomPower,hasdecidedthattheywouldliketopickuptheirordersdirectlyfromtheYZZInc.plant,andhence,handlealltasks,costs,andrisksassociatedwithtransportation.However,OrangeBlossomPowerstillexpectsYZZInc.toloadthepurchasedgoodsintothecollectingvehicleofOrangeBlossomPower’stransportationcarrier.WhatIncoterms®2010ruleshouldyouagreeto?
1)CFR 2)DAT 3)EXW 4)FCA5)FOB